Child support reference (gofaster)

[miko2d]

I've got a reference for the child support case thatw as mentioned in a thread couple of weeks ago - mr. Baskerville graciously came back to me.

Here is the reference for that one:  Leslie Parrilla, "Judge Orders Parents
to Support 50-Year-Old Son," Scripps Howard News Service, reported in the
Ventura County Star, 3 August 2001.

More on the way.
SB

I found text of the article here

 

Judge orders parents to support 50-year-old son
Published: Ventura County Star, 3 August 2001 Author: LESLIE PARRILLA

VENTURA, Calif. - In what could turn out to be a landmark decision, a Ventura County Superior Court judge ordered a Ventura couple to support their 50-year-old son indefinitely.

Judge Melinda Johnson ruled two weeks ago that James and Bertha Culp of Ventura pay their son David Culp $3,500 a month for living expenses because he is incapable of supporting himself. Culp suffers from depression and bipolar disorder.

They were ordered to begin payments this month from their monthly income of about $20,000. James Culp is a retired trailer-park developer.

The Culps are appealing the decision. The appellate court ruling would be the first of its kind in California, according to Johnson, and could set a precedent for future cases.

David Culp is a Stanford University graduate who practiced family law in Ventura County for 19 years. He went from earning as much as $10,000 a month to collecting Social Security Disability at $1,049 a month because of his disability.

Johnson based her ruling on state law, Family Code section 3910(a). It states that "the father and mother have an equal responsibility to maintain, to the extent of their ability, a child of whatever age who is incapacitated from earning a living and without sufficient means."[/i] In court documents, Johnson described the law as "unambiguous on its face."

Also factored into her decision was the possibility that Culp's emotional illnesses may have been hereditary and that his behavior disorders may be caused by physical and emotional abuse by his father.

Culp told his therapists his father physically and emotionally abused him and described his father in court documents as "an evil sadist" whose favorite sport was "humiliating the great lawyer in public."

Dr. Donald Hobson of Camarillo, Calif., Culp's therapist of four years, described his emotional problems as "almost post-traumatic stress disorder."

Specialists in family law emphasized the precedent-setting potential of the case.

Family law expert Sorrell Trope, of the Los Angeles firm Trope and Trope, said he hadn't seen a case like this in 53 years of practicing family law.

"As far as I know this is a landmark decision," he said.

David Culp's attorney, Jeff Jennings of Oxnard, Calif., said "every parent I talk to gets shivers when they hear about it."

But he noted the family code provision is clear. "The statute didn't come about by accident."

The Culps and their attorney declined to comment. David Culp also refused to comment.

David Culp was a successful family law and criminal defense attorney who practiced in Ventura County for 19 years and lived in Ventura with his wife and two children.

But in the late 1980s, Culp claimed he began exhibiting erratic behavior caused by untreated clinical depression, according to court documents.

He reported becoming "verbally abusive" toward judges and attorneys in court, "physically intimidating opposing counsel" and shaking a judge's desk in a "blind rage." He described being threatened with immediate incarceration and having bench warrants issued for his arrest.

The escalating behavior led him to close a private practice in 1994 on the advice of his therapist.

After his wife and two children left him, Culp applied for Social Security Disability.

In June, Culp filed the lawsuit against his parents for monthly expenses amounting to more than $11,000, which included college tuition for his children and several thousand dollars in medical expenses.

 So they do have a law in California mandating such a support. The only thing I am surprised about now is how come those things do not happen all the time there.

 miko

[strk]

that isnt strange.  I think every state has a law like that.  

Basically if you have a kid and he is incapacitated, you will be responsible to support him (indexed to your income) until one of you dies.  The states don't want these people becoming the ward of the state

strk

[AKIron]

That's probably the most outrageous thing I've ever read. Has everyone gone completely nuts? That can't be true. Maybe it's time they aborted that fetus, it's never gonna become viable.

[Sixpence]

Originally posted by AKIron
That's probably the most outrageous thing I've ever read. Has everyone gone completely nuts?

It's saving your tax dollars. It puts the responsibility on the family for the care, not the state. You can't cry about tax and spend liberals and on the other hand create a state agency to care for them. It takes money, your tax dollars. Do you want to cut your taxes, or raise them?

[AKIron]

Originally posted by Sixpence
It's saving your tax dollars. It puts the responsibility on the family for the care, not the state. You can't cry about tax and spend liberals and on the other hand create a state agency to care for them. It takes money, your tax dollars. Do you want to cut your taxes, or raise them?

Uh, you don't get it. How about when we become adults we become independent of our parents AND the state. What a concept huh?

[mrblack]

BULLCHIT.
You if there is a Lawyer within 500 miles there will always be a silly Arse lawsuite going on somewhere.

[strk]

How about when we become adults we become independent of our parents AND the state. What a concept huh?

not of he is a quadraplegic for example, and became one at 13 years old.  Depending on the severity of the injury he might be somewhat functional but most states will require someone to be with him 24 hours a day.  Someone has to pick up the tab.

where's all the compassionate conservatism

strk

[AKIron]

Originally posted by strk
not of he is a quadraplegic for example, and became one at 13 years old.  Depending on the severity of the injury he might be somewhat functional but most states will require someone to be with him 24 hours a day.  Someone has to pick up the tab.

where's all the compassionate conservatism

strk

How about we stick to the facts and not stray too far into liberal la la land? This guy isn't a quadraplegic. I think he fits into the same category that so many hundreds of thousands if not millions of lazy bums do drawing "disability".

For those that are truly disabled and cannot support themselves then yes, the state should do it and the parents be as unburdened as they desire when the child turns 18.

For those that are physically able (forget the emotional bull*****) to work but won't, let them not eat.

Compassionate? Do you think it's compassionate to enslave someone by making them eternally dependent on you?

[strk]

For those that are truly disabled and cannot support themselves then yes, the state should do it and the parents be as unburdened as they desire when the child turns 18.

you think this is a liberal idea??rofl  the parents need to take RESPONSIBILITY for their actions.  Noone made his parents have sex, that was their own decision.  they did and their chidl is disabled.  Guess what?  they have to support him! they have to take RESPONSIBILITY for their child - it was part of the risk of having sex in the first place.  

instead you want the state to take responsibility, then you gripe about people being "enslaved" by their entitlements.  lol are  you listening to yourself?  You are talking out of both sides of your mouth.  You should think again about who is off in "la-la" land.

someone is in "la-la" land when they think that every legislative decision that they dont agree with was made by those dang liberals.  MAYBE you dont even understand the politics of your own political party, except for those one or 2 issues that set you off.  Just remember if it is impossible to change your mind it might be that you dont have one at all

are you paying child support yourself?

strk

[miko2d]

Sixpence: It's saving your tax dollars. It puts the responsibility on the family for the care, not the state.

 No. It's oppression, pure and simple.
 Those people get encumbered with responcibility but not authority. They are not allowed to let the "child" die of natural causes or even determine his needs and level of support - and that of his family.
 The state arbitrarily mandates not only whether he should get anything but how much he should get and who else should get it. They do not get custody of him to prevent him from incurring further damage but it will be undoubtedly charged to them if he suffers a skiing or sky-diving or even a car accident.
 Since the decision is the state's, the state should bear the burden.

 They did not mandate that the parents should provide a bed, meals and basic healthcare - they mandated $42,000 a year in living expenses. Which is equivalent to about $70,000 pre-tax earnings.

 David Culp became an independent adult when he turned 18 - and have been quite sane and successfull for over 30 years. Then he became disabled.
 He led a lifestyle that could have contributed to his disability - including selection of a job, healthcare choices, dietary choices, lifestyle, etc. There was nothing the parents could do to affect any of that - they had no authority.
 He could have purchased disability insurance that would have covered his loss of income just in such case of disability. He prefered not to.
 He married and begot children which also require maintenance and his parents had no say in those decisions either.

 So how come his parents are now obligated to pick the tab for the outcome the size of which they are not even allowed to determine?


strk: Someone has to pick up the tab.

 Right. The same entity that makes a decision about the expense.

strk: where's all the compassionate conservatism

 You dumb liberal. "Compassionate conservatism" is about people doing moral things voluntarily, independent of the state coercion, not saddling others with the expense for their "feel good" decisons.
 Compassionate conservative parents would offer a destitute son a room to stay in their house and place at their table and gave whatever they could spare to his children/family - provided he was on good terms with them while he was sane. There is no mention that they neglected their moral obligations.

 There is SSI (Supplemental Security Income) program for people who do not qualify for SSA but are disabled to earn a living.
 There is welfare for needy families with children. It's called "safety net". Of course owning slaves and having state drive them is more attractive.

 miko

[AKIron]

So typical of so many liberals. Unable to see the difference between someone that needs and deserves financial help and someone that needs help in the form of a quick kick in the pants.

And no dipstick, I never owed child support. I raised 4 kids, 3 of them for 6 years all by myself. They are all self supporting including the youngest that is 20 and in college working full time as well. Though I do pay his tuition and insurance, he has his own apartment.

Originally posted by strk
you think this is a liberal idea??rofl  the parents need to take RESPONSIBILITY for their actions.  Noone made his parents have sex, that was their own decision.  they did and their chidl is disabled.  Guess what?  they have to support him! they have to take RESPONSIBILITY for their child - it was part of the risk of having sex in the first place.  

instead you want the state to take responsibility, then you gripe about people being "enslaved" by their entitlements.  lol are  you listening to yourself?  You are talking out of both sides of your mouth.  You should think again about who is off in "la-la" land.

someone is in "la-la" land when they think that every legislative decision that they dont agree with was made by those dang liberals.  MAYBE you dont even understand the politics of your own political party, except for those one or 2 issues that set you off.  Just remember if it is impossible to change your mind it might be that you dont have one at all

are you paying child support yourself?

strk

[strk]

And no dipstick, I never owed child support

You dumb liberal.

you guys are ridiculous.  Do you have to get personal?  Why cant you jsut state your point without getting all emotional about it?  its pretty lame

Unable to see the difference between someone that needs and deserves financial help and someone that needs help in the form of a quick kick in the pants.

typical rightwinger.  Wants to look at it from facts most favorable to him.   OF COURSE if they dont deserve to be suported they shouldn't be.  Are you mad??  I am talking about the quadriplegic.  I a talking about real life.  The legislatures have decided that a crippled kid must contiue to be supported by his parents not the state to the extent they are able (parents in the article making 20,000 PER MONTH  thats ALOT of cabbage) THe jsutification for is it's their parental resonsibility.

Any of us would take care of our kid if they werent able to take care of themselves.  Some don't - thats where the law steps in and says "the states not footing the bill if we can get it from you"

That is the way things ARE, not even necessarily the way I think things should be.  I havent expressed an opinion on it at all! well maybe I did a little

Yet you  want to call me names.  You guys are unfreakenbelievable.



strk

[AKIron]

I suppose your question about me paying child support wasn't intended as derisive? If not please explain your question strk.

As to the rest, you just keep on living in lala land, I obviously can't stop ya.

[strk]

If not please explain your question strk.

I did nto know that was what torqued you.  I asked because I thought maybe you were under order to pay child support and thought the system was unjust.  In the state I live in it is very harsh (I live with my chillens and married to thier momma but Ive seen others go to jail for getting behind on support).  but I know people who are on the other end, and can say that its harsh because it needs to be, at least for many of the offenders.  

I didnt mean to suggest that you dont support your kids.  That would offend me, too.

As to the rest, its not la-la land.  It is the way things ARE.  Why are you having trouble accepting that?  It is a conservative notion at that.  


strk

[Sixpence]

Originally posted by miko2d
Sixpence: It's saving your tax dollars. It puts the responsibility on the family for the care, not the state.

 No. It's oppression, pure and simple.
 Those people get encumbered with responcibility but not authority. They are not allowed to let the "child" die of natural causes or even determine his needs and level of support - and that of his family.
 The state arbitrarily mandates not only whether he should get anything but how much he should get and who else should get it. They do not get custody of him to prevent him from incurring further damage but it will be undoubtedly charged to them if he suffers a skiing or sky-diving or even a car accident.
 Since the decision is the state's, the state should bear the burden.

If a person is on life support, I believe the family can pull the plug.
If forcing the family to support him is oppression, is not forcing the taxpayer to foot the bill oppression? BTW, SSI is only about $500.00 a month. There is going to have to be more money or assistance. Affordable housing, food stamps, medical, etc. Also more people to handle a bigger caseload(bigger government).

The bottom line comes to either the family or the state. To just put it all aside and throw state tax dollars at it is liberal thinking.