Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)
6. It's pretty simple, steve...he owed back child support, and a contempt motion
Wed Jan 22, 2014, 01:32 PM
Jan 2014

was filed in April of last year. He paid up his support before his court date, but that didn't clear him of the contempt proceeding. Which he lost, badly.

So now he owes fees. Plus whatever child support accrued between April and now that he didn't pay.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

This has been debunked. Snopes says it's false. Arkansas Granny Jan 2014 #1
I love snoops! Perfect when my BS detector goes off! nt Logical Jan 2014 #2
It has not been debunked. That suggests that this case doesn't exist. The facts are in dispute. stevenleser Jan 2014 #4
It's pretty simple, steve...he owed back child support, and a contempt motion msanthrope Jan 2014 #6
the crucial elements of it have been debunked. this is MRA propaganda. geek tragedy Jan 2014 #7
Can you reply with a link or PM me with backup for that please. nt stevenleser Jan 2014 #9
it's from the Snopes article. geek tragedy Jan 2014 #12
Msanthrope sent me the case details below. I'm pretty curious now. I want to see if stevenleser Jan 2014 #14
if you click on tab "services/notices" at the link msanthrope posted geek tragedy Jan 2014 #15
Thanks, yes, will read all of that. Sometimes the full story isn't in court docs though. stevenleser Jan 2014 #16
All that Snopes debunked was that he was jailed for over paying his child support... 1monster Jan 2014 #8
But he didn't make up the 'arrears.' He made up the amount originally asked for in April of last msanthrope Jan 2014 #11
The prior thread on DU debunked this charlatan. He deserved his contempt charge, msanthrope Jan 2014 #3
Can you PM me the info. The Snopes link above is pretty convoluted. nt stevenleser Jan 2014 #5
Here's the docket.... msanthrope Jan 2014 #10
Got it. Thanks. Looks like there is a Guardian Ad Litem in this case. I would like to talk to that stevenleser Jan 2014 #13
The GAL shouldn't talk to you. I will tell you my opinion of the case, after seeing Mr. Hall msanthrope Jan 2014 #17
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Clerical Error In Child S...»Reply #6