Post by Jim on Oct 9, 2009 13:08:00 GMT -5
These cases were found by searching for "child support" in the findlaw.com database of Supreme Court decisions. Studying these cases reveals that today's child support system is a development of recent times. Once again, the cases of AUDUBON v. SHUFELDT, 181 U.S. 575 (1901) and WETMORE v. MARKOE, 196 U.S. 68 (1904), are important because the court used these older cases in ROSE v. ROSE, 481 U.S. 619 (1987) to try and create the fiction that the support obligation was something that was part of the nation's common law heritage. As applied to labor, this is a lie; and we have already seen this by studying the older cases that deal with alimony.
**************************************************************************************************************************
1. SULLIVAN v. STROOP, 496 U.S. 478 (1990): "Child support," in reference to Social Security laws, means payments made by non-custodial parents for the support of the children they have bred. The court stated that the child support system is a compulsory system. [Note: Only the later dictionaries have "child support" in them. For example, Bouviers' Law Dictionary, 1934 ed., does not even have "child support" in it. The child support system of today is a recent development of law that compliments the cannibalistic socialism of the "New Deal."]
2. HICKS ON BEHALF OF FEIOCK v. FEIOCK , 479 U.S. 1305 (1986): Habeas Corpus was granted by California Circuit Court reversing civil contempt for child support made by Orange County Superior Court. Supreme Court granted stay of execution pending timely appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
3. ROSE v. ROSE, 481 U.S. 619 (1987): Totally disabled veteran from Vietnam war was held in civil contempt for refusing to pay child support out of his veteran's benefits. Court held that states have the authority to compel payment of child support out of VA benefits. Rose was jailed until he agreed to pay. Supremacy clause argument rejected. The laws pertaining to family matters are a subject of state law. The U.S. has no authority over family matters unless their is a substantial conflict with a federal interest. VA benefits are for the support of the veteran and his family. O'Connor, in her concurring opinion, used 2 old cases (Audubon v. Shufeldt, 181 US 575, 1901; & Wetmore v. Markoe, 196 US 68, 1904) to try and show that compelling fathers to support their wives and their children was deeply rooted in the common law. Look below at these cases (4&5). Shufeldt and Wetmore were obviously wealthy men. Rose's total benefits amounted to $3388/mo, out of which he was ordered to pay $800/mo. This is around 1.5 times what the average worker makes today. Then you have many workers who are left with less than $100/week to live on today after taxes and garnishment take their toll upon their wages. O'Connor's common law theory is flawed. She takes legal precedents that applied to the rich a century ago and today applies them to the labor of working people.
4. AUDUBON v. SHUFELDT, 181 U.S. 575 (1901): Shufeldt was a retired army surgeon who made $175/mo or $2100/yr at this point in history. This is over 4 times what the average worker made. He was ordered to pay $50/mo to his ex-wife in alimony in a divorce and he was trying to discharge the alimony debt in his bankruptcy. $50/mo would have been a good wage for a worker back then. A ordinary worker would have been left with nothing back then if ordered to pay $50/mo. "Alimony does not arise from any business transaction, but from the relation of marriage. It is not founded on contract, express or implied, but on the natural and legal duty of the husband to support the wife. The general obligation to support is made specific by the decree of the court of appropriate jurisdiction." (Cite at 578) Also, incarcerating someone for non-payment of alimony is not imprisonment for debt. [Note: If you don't want to amend the Constitution to make exceptions for certain servitudes, then use fiction of law to justify your actions.]
5. WETMORE v. MARKOE, 196 U.S. 68 (1904): Wetmore was obviously a wealthy man. In his divorce, he was ordered to pay $3000/yr in 4 quarterly installments of $750 for the support of his ex-wife and 3 minor children. $3000 was around 6 times what the average worker made back then. Upheld that alimony cannot be discharged in bankruptcy.
6. Syllabus, BLESSING, DIRECTOR, ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY v. FREESTONE et al., certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit, No. 95-1441, Argued January 6, 1997, Decided April 21, 1997: Arizona women tried to use 42 USC, section 1983 to compel Arizona to enforce collection of child support. They were trying to force compliance with title IV-D of the Social Security Act. Social Security is a statutory right, and 42 USC 1983 is for the enforcement of rights secured by the Constitution. 42 USC 1983 cannot be used to enforce federal statutory rights, for such rights are not absolute and therefore at the discretion of Congress. "The Federal Government underwrites roughly two thirds of the cost of the State's child support efforts." [Note: all of this money goes to pay the people who enslave and plunder the non-custodial parents; none of it goes to the support of children. Think about it.] "By virtue of it, though Congress can grant no title of nobility, they may create an oligarchy, in whose hands would be concentrated the entire power of the Federal Government." DRED SCOTT v SANFORD, 19 HOW 393, 578 (1856)
7. PAULUSSEN v. HERION, 475 U.S. 557 (1986): New Pennsylvania law enlarged the statute of limitations on paternity to 18 years. No constitutional questions were addressed. The court stated: "Because Pennsylvania should have an opportunity in the first instance to resolve this issue of state law, and because we are reluctant to address a federal constitutional question until it is clearly necessary to do so, we vacate the judgment below and remand for further consideration in light of the intervening change in state law." (cite at 559)
8. COUNTY OF VENTURA v. CASTRO , 444 U.S. 1098 (1980): Castro was coerced into signing a paternity agreement even though he was unsure that he was the father. Appeal was denied, but 2 justices dissented and stated that the appeal should have been accepted. Circuit court held state statute to be unconstitutional because it did not advise respondent about his rights and denied him due process.
9. STANTON v. STANTON, 429 U.S. 501 (1977): Utah's laws that determined the age when child support ends discriminated between males and females. This was held to be unconstitutional.
10. BOWEN v. GILLIARD, 483 U.S. 587 (1987): Constitutional challenge made against new statutory provisions that mandated that child support be included in computing household income for the purposes of receiving welfare benefits. Once again, welfare laws are statutory rights and are at the discretion of Congress. The Constitution does not apply in such cases. The court stated: "The Fifth Amendment ‘gives the federal courts no power to impose upon [Congress] their views of what constitutes wise economic or social policy,' by telling it how ‘to reconcile the demands of . . . [483 U.S. 587, 597] needy citizens with the finite resources available to meet those demands.' Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U.S. 471, 486 , 472 (1970). Unless the Legislative Branch's decisions run afoul of some constitutional edict, any inequities created by such decisions must be remedied by the democratic processes."
11. SORENSON v. SECRETARY OF TREASURY, 475 U.S. 851 (1986): Congress empowered the Secretary of the Treasury to intercept tax refunds for past due child support. Power to do so was upheld.
12. LASCARIS v. SHIRLEY, 420 U.S. 730 (1975): Compelling non-custodial parent to pay child support was made a condition for receiving welfare benefits.
13. UNITED STATES v. MORTON, 467 U.S. 822 (1984): Air Force Colonel, who was stationed in Alaska, had his pay garnished by Alabama court to satisfy past due alimony and child support. Court upheld power of state court to garnish the pay of U.S. government employees for collection of alimony and child support.
14. CLARK v. JETER, 486 U.S. 456 (1988): State statutes of limitations on paternity and child support unconstitutional.
15. LEDBETTER v. BALDWIN , 479 U.S. 1309 (1986): Stay of execution pending appeal granted. Laws governing AFDC were amended to allow child support payments to be included in computing household income for AFDC purposes. New law challenged as unconstitutional.
16. KULKO v. CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT, 436 U.S. 84 (1978): Child support actions must be instigated in the state where the non-custodial parent [slave] lives. State where children reside with mother has no jurisdiction unless the non-custodial parent [slave] lives in that state.
17. STANTON v. STANTON, 421 U.S. 7 (1975): Just because children are over 21 does not make past due support a moot point. Utah statute that states that males shall become adults at 21 and females at 18 held to violate equal protection clause of Constitution.
18. COMMISSIONER v. LESTER, 366 U.S. 299 (1961): Squabble over the tax laws. No constitutional challenges.
19. ARMSTRONG v. MANZO, 380 U.S. 545 (1965): Texas law allowed children to be adopted without the natural father's consent if he had failed to provide support for 2 years or more. Texas judge approved of such an adoption without notifying the natural father. Lower courts reversed. Held to be a violation of due process of law. No chance was given for the father to be heard in his defense.
20. HICKS v. FEIOCK, 485 U.S. 624 (1988): Good case that contrasts civil and criminal proceedings. It should be noted that all proceedings which attempt to force some form of servitude upon someone must be criminal in nature to satisfy the due process of the 13thamendment. All court orders that have the effect of directing and receiving the fruits of one's labor (wage garnishment, for example) impose the status of slavery. A child support order imposes the status of slavery, but we can see how adamant some judges are when it comes to justifying the slavery and denying that it even exists. Consider this quote from Justice O'Connor's dissent: "The California Court of Appeal has erected a substantial obstacle to the enforcement of child support orders. As petitioner vividly describes it, the judgment turns the child support order into ‘a worthless piece of scrap.' Brief for Petitioner 47. The judgment hampers the enforcement of support orders at a time when strengthened enforcement is needed. ‘The failure of enforcement efforts in this area has become a national scandal. In 1983, only half of custodial parents received the full amount of child support ordered; approximately 26% received some lesser amount, and 24% received nothing at all.' Brief for Women's Legal Defense Fund et al. as Amici Curiae 26 (footnote omitted)." [Note: Perhaps the custodial slaves should consider suing the masters instead of the non-custodial slaves.]
21. BENNETT v. ARKANSAS, 485 U.S. 395 (1988): State cannot attach social security benefits of prisoners for the purpose of paying for the costs of imprisonment.
22. MILLS v. HABLUETZEL, 456 U.S. 91 (1982): Texas statute creating a one year limitation after an illegitimate is born for seeking support from natural father held to violate equal protection clause. The court stated: "This Court has held that once a State posits a judicially enforceable right of children to support from their natural fathers, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the State from denying that same right to illegitimate children. Gomez v. Perez, 409 U.S. 535 (1973)." Also, Justice O'Connor can once again be seen as a strong advocate of forcing natural fathers to pay child support. She stated: "Thus, while the State surely has an interest in preventing the prosecution of stale and fraudulent claims, at the same time it has a strong interest, peculiar to the State itself, in ensuring that genuine claims for child support are not denied."
23. PICKETT v. BROWN, 462 U.S. 1 (1983): Tennessee statute of limitations on child support suits for illegitimate children held unconstitutional.
24. LEEKE v. TIMMERMAN, 454 U.S. 83 (1981): Title 42 Sect. 1983 suit brought against S.C. prison guards and magistrate for beatings at prison uprising. Inmates wanted the guards and magistrate to be criminally prosecuted. Claim was denied.
25. LITTLE v. STREATER, 452 U.S. 1 (1981): Connecticut state court refused to allow blood tests to establish paternity in a child support action against indigent man. Paternity was established without blood tests and indigent man was ordered to pay child support. Woman was required to give biological father's name for welfare purposes and the state provided her an attorney. State courts reversed. Failure to provide blood test a denial of due process. Man was indigent because he was in prison at the time. Consider the footnote (#3): "Appellant's financial affidavit, which was filed with the motion, showed that he had weekly income of $5, expenses of $5, and no assets. The trial court later specifically found that, at the time of the motion, appellant ‘was indigent and could not afford to pay the costs for blood grouping tests.'" [Note: In this case child support = turnip blood.]
26. JONES v. HELMS, 452 U.S. 412 (1981): Man left the state of Georgia and abandoned his family. Charged with a felony and plead guilty before a state court. Constitutional challenges were denied. The court stated: "There can be no question about the legitimacy of the purpose to cause parents to support their children."
27. LINDA R. S. v. RICHARD D., 410 U.S. 614 (1973): Texas mother of illegitimate child brought class action suit because she wanted the fathers of illegitimate children criminally prosecuted for not paying child support. The court stated: "Although appellant has an interest in her child's support, application of Art. 602 would not result in support but only in the father's incarceration, and a private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another."
28. ETLIN v. ROBB , 458 U.S. 1112 (1982): Dissenting opinion on why appeal should have been taken by the court. The dissent stated: "This case arises from a child custody dispute between private parties . A Virginia trial court awarded petitioner's ex-wife custody of their 3- year old son and ordered petitioner to pay child support. Petitioner then brought this action under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against the trial judge, the state governor, and the state attorney general. His complaint sought monetary, injunctive, and declaratory relief, premised on allegations that the custody and support award violated the First, Fifth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The District Court dismissed the suit without prejudice because [458 U.S. 1112 , 1113] the constitutional questions could be addressed in the state court custody action. The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed. [Note: Could it be that Etlin had valid slavery challenges that the court did not want to address?]
29. JARRETT v. JARRETT , 449 U.S. 927 (1980): Custody dispute. Appeal denied, but there was dissent .
30. GROGAN v. GARNER, 498 U.S. 279 (1991): Bankruptcy case. Fraudulent debts cannot be discharged.
31. MATHEWS v. De CASTRO, 429 U.S. 181 (1976): "The statutory classification of 202 (b) (1) of the Social Security Act whereby a married woman under 62 whose husband retires or becomes disabled is granted monthly benefits under the Act if she has a minor or other dependent child in her care, but a divorced woman under 62 whose ex-husband retires or becomes disabled does not receive such benefits, held not to violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment."
32. MANSELL v. MANSELL, 490 U.S. 581 (1989): "In this appeal, we decide whether state courts, consistent with the federal Uniformed Services Former Spouses' Protection Act, 10 U.S.C. 1408 (1982 ed. and Supp. V) (Former Spouses' Protection Act or Act), may treat as property divisible upon divorce military retirement pay waived by the retiree in order to receive veterans' disability benefits. We hold that they may not."
33. JIMENEZ v. WEINBERGER, 417 U.S. 628 (1974): "A three-judge District Court in the Northern District of Illinois upheld the constitutionality of a provision of the Social Security Act which provides that certain illegitimate children, who cannot qualify for benefits under any other provision of the Act, may obtain benefits if, but only if, the disabled wage-earner parent is shown to have contributed to the child's support or to have lived with him prior to the parent's disability."
34. ZABLOCKI v. REDHAIL, 434 U.S. 374 (1978): "Wisconsin statute providing that any resident of that State ‘having minor issue not in his custody and which he is under obligation to support by any court order or judgment' may not marry without a court approval order, which cannot be granted absent a showing that the support obligation has been met and that children covered by the support order ‘are not then and are not likely thereafter to become public charges,' held to violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."
**************************************************************************************************************************
1. SULLIVAN v. STROOP, 496 U.S. 478 (1990): "Child support," in reference to Social Security laws, means payments made by non-custodial parents for the support of the children they have bred. The court stated that the child support system is a compulsory system. [Note: Only the later dictionaries have "child support" in them. For example, Bouviers' Law Dictionary, 1934 ed., does not even have "child support" in it. The child support system of today is a recent development of law that compliments the cannibalistic socialism of the "New Deal."]
2. HICKS ON BEHALF OF FEIOCK v. FEIOCK , 479 U.S. 1305 (1986): Habeas Corpus was granted by California Circuit Court reversing civil contempt for child support made by Orange County Superior Court. Supreme Court granted stay of execution pending timely appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
3. ROSE v. ROSE, 481 U.S. 619 (1987): Totally disabled veteran from Vietnam war was held in civil contempt for refusing to pay child support out of his veteran's benefits. Court held that states have the authority to compel payment of child support out of VA benefits. Rose was jailed until he agreed to pay. Supremacy clause argument rejected. The laws pertaining to family matters are a subject of state law. The U.S. has no authority over family matters unless their is a substantial conflict with a federal interest. VA benefits are for the support of the veteran and his family. O'Connor, in her concurring opinion, used 2 old cases (Audubon v. Shufeldt, 181 US 575, 1901; & Wetmore v. Markoe, 196 US 68, 1904) to try and show that compelling fathers to support their wives and their children was deeply rooted in the common law. Look below at these cases (4&5). Shufeldt and Wetmore were obviously wealthy men. Rose's total benefits amounted to $3388/mo, out of which he was ordered to pay $800/mo. This is around 1.5 times what the average worker makes today. Then you have many workers who are left with less than $100/week to live on today after taxes and garnishment take their toll upon their wages. O'Connor's common law theory is flawed. She takes legal precedents that applied to the rich a century ago and today applies them to the labor of working people.
4. AUDUBON v. SHUFELDT, 181 U.S. 575 (1901): Shufeldt was a retired army surgeon who made $175/mo or $2100/yr at this point in history. This is over 4 times what the average worker made. He was ordered to pay $50/mo to his ex-wife in alimony in a divorce and he was trying to discharge the alimony debt in his bankruptcy. $50/mo would have been a good wage for a worker back then. A ordinary worker would have been left with nothing back then if ordered to pay $50/mo. "Alimony does not arise from any business transaction, but from the relation of marriage. It is not founded on contract, express or implied, but on the natural and legal duty of the husband to support the wife. The general obligation to support is made specific by the decree of the court of appropriate jurisdiction." (Cite at 578) Also, incarcerating someone for non-payment of alimony is not imprisonment for debt. [Note: If you don't want to amend the Constitution to make exceptions for certain servitudes, then use fiction of law to justify your actions.]
5. WETMORE v. MARKOE, 196 U.S. 68 (1904): Wetmore was obviously a wealthy man. In his divorce, he was ordered to pay $3000/yr in 4 quarterly installments of $750 for the support of his ex-wife and 3 minor children. $3000 was around 6 times what the average worker made back then. Upheld that alimony cannot be discharged in bankruptcy.
6. Syllabus, BLESSING, DIRECTOR, ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY v. FREESTONE et al., certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit, No. 95-1441, Argued January 6, 1997, Decided April 21, 1997: Arizona women tried to use 42 USC, section 1983 to compel Arizona to enforce collection of child support. They were trying to force compliance with title IV-D of the Social Security Act. Social Security is a statutory right, and 42 USC 1983 is for the enforcement of rights secured by the Constitution. 42 USC 1983 cannot be used to enforce federal statutory rights, for such rights are not absolute and therefore at the discretion of Congress. "The Federal Government underwrites roughly two thirds of the cost of the State's child support efforts." [Note: all of this money goes to pay the people who enslave and plunder the non-custodial parents; none of it goes to the support of children. Think about it.] "By virtue of it, though Congress can grant no title of nobility, they may create an oligarchy, in whose hands would be concentrated the entire power of the Federal Government." DRED SCOTT v SANFORD, 19 HOW 393, 578 (1856)
7. PAULUSSEN v. HERION, 475 U.S. 557 (1986): New Pennsylvania law enlarged the statute of limitations on paternity to 18 years. No constitutional questions were addressed. The court stated: "Because Pennsylvania should have an opportunity in the first instance to resolve this issue of state law, and because we are reluctant to address a federal constitutional question until it is clearly necessary to do so, we vacate the judgment below and remand for further consideration in light of the intervening change in state law." (cite at 559)
8. COUNTY OF VENTURA v. CASTRO , 444 U.S. 1098 (1980): Castro was coerced into signing a paternity agreement even though he was unsure that he was the father. Appeal was denied, but 2 justices dissented and stated that the appeal should have been accepted. Circuit court held state statute to be unconstitutional because it did not advise respondent about his rights and denied him due process.
9. STANTON v. STANTON, 429 U.S. 501 (1977): Utah's laws that determined the age when child support ends discriminated between males and females. This was held to be unconstitutional.
10. BOWEN v. GILLIARD, 483 U.S. 587 (1987): Constitutional challenge made against new statutory provisions that mandated that child support be included in computing household income for the purposes of receiving welfare benefits. Once again, welfare laws are statutory rights and are at the discretion of Congress. The Constitution does not apply in such cases. The court stated: "The Fifth Amendment ‘gives the federal courts no power to impose upon [Congress] their views of what constitutes wise economic or social policy,' by telling it how ‘to reconcile the demands of . . . [483 U.S. 587, 597] needy citizens with the finite resources available to meet those demands.' Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U.S. 471, 486 , 472 (1970). Unless the Legislative Branch's decisions run afoul of some constitutional edict, any inequities created by such decisions must be remedied by the democratic processes."
11. SORENSON v. SECRETARY OF TREASURY, 475 U.S. 851 (1986): Congress empowered the Secretary of the Treasury to intercept tax refunds for past due child support. Power to do so was upheld.
12. LASCARIS v. SHIRLEY, 420 U.S. 730 (1975): Compelling non-custodial parent to pay child support was made a condition for receiving welfare benefits.
13. UNITED STATES v. MORTON, 467 U.S. 822 (1984): Air Force Colonel, who was stationed in Alaska, had his pay garnished by Alabama court to satisfy past due alimony and child support. Court upheld power of state court to garnish the pay of U.S. government employees for collection of alimony and child support.
14. CLARK v. JETER, 486 U.S. 456 (1988): State statutes of limitations on paternity and child support unconstitutional.
15. LEDBETTER v. BALDWIN , 479 U.S. 1309 (1986): Stay of execution pending appeal granted. Laws governing AFDC were amended to allow child support payments to be included in computing household income for AFDC purposes. New law challenged as unconstitutional.
16. KULKO v. CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT, 436 U.S. 84 (1978): Child support actions must be instigated in the state where the non-custodial parent [slave] lives. State where children reside with mother has no jurisdiction unless the non-custodial parent [slave] lives in that state.
17. STANTON v. STANTON, 421 U.S. 7 (1975): Just because children are over 21 does not make past due support a moot point. Utah statute that states that males shall become adults at 21 and females at 18 held to violate equal protection clause of Constitution.
18. COMMISSIONER v. LESTER, 366 U.S. 299 (1961): Squabble over the tax laws. No constitutional challenges.
19. ARMSTRONG v. MANZO, 380 U.S. 545 (1965): Texas law allowed children to be adopted without the natural father's consent if he had failed to provide support for 2 years or more. Texas judge approved of such an adoption without notifying the natural father. Lower courts reversed. Held to be a violation of due process of law. No chance was given for the father to be heard in his defense.
20. HICKS v. FEIOCK, 485 U.S. 624 (1988): Good case that contrasts civil and criminal proceedings. It should be noted that all proceedings which attempt to force some form of servitude upon someone must be criminal in nature to satisfy the due process of the 13thamendment. All court orders that have the effect of directing and receiving the fruits of one's labor (wage garnishment, for example) impose the status of slavery. A child support order imposes the status of slavery, but we can see how adamant some judges are when it comes to justifying the slavery and denying that it even exists. Consider this quote from Justice O'Connor's dissent: "The California Court of Appeal has erected a substantial obstacle to the enforcement of child support orders. As petitioner vividly describes it, the judgment turns the child support order into ‘a worthless piece of scrap.' Brief for Petitioner 47. The judgment hampers the enforcement of support orders at a time when strengthened enforcement is needed. ‘The failure of enforcement efforts in this area has become a national scandal. In 1983, only half of custodial parents received the full amount of child support ordered; approximately 26% received some lesser amount, and 24% received nothing at all.' Brief for Women's Legal Defense Fund et al. as Amici Curiae 26 (footnote omitted)." [Note: Perhaps the custodial slaves should consider suing the masters instead of the non-custodial slaves.]
21. BENNETT v. ARKANSAS, 485 U.S. 395 (1988): State cannot attach social security benefits of prisoners for the purpose of paying for the costs of imprisonment.
22. MILLS v. HABLUETZEL, 456 U.S. 91 (1982): Texas statute creating a one year limitation after an illegitimate is born for seeking support from natural father held to violate equal protection clause. The court stated: "This Court has held that once a State posits a judicially enforceable right of children to support from their natural fathers, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the State from denying that same right to illegitimate children. Gomez v. Perez, 409 U.S. 535 (1973)." Also, Justice O'Connor can once again be seen as a strong advocate of forcing natural fathers to pay child support. She stated: "Thus, while the State surely has an interest in preventing the prosecution of stale and fraudulent claims, at the same time it has a strong interest, peculiar to the State itself, in ensuring that genuine claims for child support are not denied."
23. PICKETT v. BROWN, 462 U.S. 1 (1983): Tennessee statute of limitations on child support suits for illegitimate children held unconstitutional.
24. LEEKE v. TIMMERMAN, 454 U.S. 83 (1981): Title 42 Sect. 1983 suit brought against S.C. prison guards and magistrate for beatings at prison uprising. Inmates wanted the guards and magistrate to be criminally prosecuted. Claim was denied.
25. LITTLE v. STREATER, 452 U.S. 1 (1981): Connecticut state court refused to allow blood tests to establish paternity in a child support action against indigent man. Paternity was established without blood tests and indigent man was ordered to pay child support. Woman was required to give biological father's name for welfare purposes and the state provided her an attorney. State courts reversed. Failure to provide blood test a denial of due process. Man was indigent because he was in prison at the time. Consider the footnote (#3): "Appellant's financial affidavit, which was filed with the motion, showed that he had weekly income of $5, expenses of $5, and no assets. The trial court later specifically found that, at the time of the motion, appellant ‘was indigent and could not afford to pay the costs for blood grouping tests.'" [Note: In this case child support = turnip blood.]
26. JONES v. HELMS, 452 U.S. 412 (1981): Man left the state of Georgia and abandoned his family. Charged with a felony and plead guilty before a state court. Constitutional challenges were denied. The court stated: "There can be no question about the legitimacy of the purpose to cause parents to support their children."
27. LINDA R. S. v. RICHARD D., 410 U.S. 614 (1973): Texas mother of illegitimate child brought class action suit because she wanted the fathers of illegitimate children criminally prosecuted for not paying child support. The court stated: "Although appellant has an interest in her child's support, application of Art. 602 would not result in support but only in the father's incarceration, and a private citizen lacks a judicially cognizable interest in the prosecution or nonprosecution of another."
28. ETLIN v. ROBB , 458 U.S. 1112 (1982): Dissenting opinion on why appeal should have been taken by the court. The dissent stated: "This case arises from a child custody dispute between private parties . A Virginia trial court awarded petitioner's ex-wife custody of their 3- year old son and ordered petitioner to pay child support. Petitioner then brought this action under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against the trial judge, the state governor, and the state attorney general. His complaint sought monetary, injunctive, and declaratory relief, premised on allegations that the custody and support award violated the First, Fifth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The District Court dismissed the suit without prejudice because [458 U.S. 1112 , 1113] the constitutional questions could be addressed in the state court custody action. The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed. [Note: Could it be that Etlin had valid slavery challenges that the court did not want to address?]
29. JARRETT v. JARRETT , 449 U.S. 927 (1980): Custody dispute. Appeal denied, but there was dissent .
30. GROGAN v. GARNER, 498 U.S. 279 (1991): Bankruptcy case. Fraudulent debts cannot be discharged.
31. MATHEWS v. De CASTRO, 429 U.S. 181 (1976): "The statutory classification of 202 (b) (1) of the Social Security Act whereby a married woman under 62 whose husband retires or becomes disabled is granted monthly benefits under the Act if she has a minor or other dependent child in her care, but a divorced woman under 62 whose ex-husband retires or becomes disabled does not receive such benefits, held not to violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment."
32. MANSELL v. MANSELL, 490 U.S. 581 (1989): "In this appeal, we decide whether state courts, consistent with the federal Uniformed Services Former Spouses' Protection Act, 10 U.S.C. 1408 (1982 ed. and Supp. V) (Former Spouses' Protection Act or Act), may treat as property divisible upon divorce military retirement pay waived by the retiree in order to receive veterans' disability benefits. We hold that they may not."
33. JIMENEZ v. WEINBERGER, 417 U.S. 628 (1974): "A three-judge District Court in the Northern District of Illinois upheld the constitutionality of a provision of the Social Security Act which provides that certain illegitimate children, who cannot qualify for benefits under any other provision of the Act, may obtain benefits if, but only if, the disabled wage-earner parent is shown to have contributed to the child's support or to have lived with him prior to the parent's disability."
34. ZABLOCKI v. REDHAIL, 434 U.S. 374 (1978): "Wisconsin statute providing that any resident of that State ‘having minor issue not in his custody and which he is under obligation to support by any court order or judgment' may not marry without a court approval order, which cannot be granted absent a showing that the support obligation has been met and that children covered by the support order ‘are not then and are not likely thereafter to become public charges,' held to violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."
