Divorce,Lawyer,Supreme,Court,C law Divorce Lawyer: Supreme Court Could Appoint You in Child Sup
Bankruptcy is a situation, wherein an individual is termed as unable to discharge all the debts. When a person or a company is not able to pay off its creditors, it has an obligation to file a bankruptcy suit. In fact, a bankruptcy suit is a When you work with an attorney, you will have no problem reducing the risks associated with getting your case in front of a judge and jury, or other formal court, when you need to. However, every case is different. It is important to work wi
The UnitedStates Supreme Court is currently dealing with the extremely difficult legalquestion of whether poor people should be sentenced to jail during childsupport proceedings without the benefit of a divorce lawyer. Based upon comments from the Justicesthemselves, they appear confused and flummoxed about how to rule. This is likely due to the complicatedprocedural and legal problems with either of the two ways that they can decide.JusticeKennedy summarized the arguments by claiming that litigants do not always havethe right to have the benefit of legal counsel when they are before a court,but that they may have this right to an attorney in certain circumstances. Kennedy went on to say that if the SupremeCourt found that litigants did have a right to counsel, this could grind courtsacross the country to a halt leading their dockets to become congested with thehuge number of child support cases that they have each year.The actuallitigant that is appealing to the Supreme Court has a compelling personal casefor a divorce lawyer to assist him. Heis a man from South Carolina who has been found in contempt of court for notpaying child support. He claims that heis too poor to pay what the court has ordered him to pay. The court in South Carolina has put in himjail repeatedly because he has not paid, including stays up to one year. He argues that if an attorney could assisthim explain to the court that he is unable to pay what he owes, he will have agreater ability for the court to work with him and find an amicable solution.Beginning inthe 1960s, the Supreme Court has held repeatedly that the indigent facing jailtime need to have the opportunity to be provided with an attorney in order toprotect their Sixth Amendment rights under the Constitution. The problem with applying the Sixth Amendmentright to counsel in this particular case is that this normally only applies tocriminal cases, not domestic/civil litigation.The womanthat is owed child support in this case argues that mandating that litigantsfacing such civil litigation must have the opportunity to be represented wouldthen apply to all sorts of other cases where confinement could be ordered, suchas immigration law. The federalgovernment voiced its opinion that the Supreme Court should attempt to splitthe decision by having the local court judge question the party owing supportor have the court have the person fill out a questionnaire providing the courtwith reasons supporting an inability to pay rather than having a divorce lawyerappointed in every case. Showing thedepth of frustration at finding a solution, Justice Kagan found that having alitigant simply fill out form did not seemingly meet her level of theprocedural protections of a person facing jail time.Despite the SupremeCourts difficulties in wording a solution, it seems clear right now that thehighest court will not require a divorce lawyer for a parent owing childsupport just yet. It does seem thatthere is a high probability of the court mandating some reforms before theparent is sent to jail.
Divorce,Lawyer,Supreme,Court,C