IANA Lawyer, but doesnt this one seem pretty simple?
The Supreme Court threw this out, not because his case had no merit, but because, according to them, he had no right to bring it, not being the girl’s legal guardian.
Wouldn’t the easiest thing for him to do be to stop paying child support, wait until he gets sued by the mother, lost this case, pay the child support, and return to the Supreme Court with a legal decision in hand naming him as responsible for the child?
Any thoughts?
Wrong forum.
But you entirely miss the point. The coursts have awarded her mother custody. The only way he could pursue it again would be to be granted custody.
BTW…SCOTUS just ducked the issue.
I dont know if its the wrong forum, but if the Mods disagree, then no it gets moved.
I could accuse you of missing my point. I have not missed the point of the ruling, my question is in regards to gettign around the ruling. Obviously he doesnt have custody and the Court used this fact to duck the issue. That’s exactly my point.
While it would be difficult, if not impossible to be granted custody at this point, I imagine (and I certainly could be wrong) he’s paying child support. If he is; ceasing would result in legal action from the mother. The court would then asses financial responsibilty.
If the child was found responsible for property damage as a minor, wouldn’t he be able to defend himself against being assessed damages?
My point is, as we agree, the Court is ducking this, isn’t this a way to force this issue?
But your rigamarole about ducking support payments and going to court would not give him custody.
Why do you think it would?
Generally speaking, when a dad stops paying the required child support for no particular reason other than “I don’t feel like paying it anymore”, the mom comes after him with legal guns blazing (if she can find him), plus she normally punishes him for the non-compliance by asking that his visitation rights be curtailed (depending on how amicable the divorce was). Do you think he would consider it worth it, to lose what visitation rights he currently has, plus the risk of seemingly endless legal hassles, just so’s he could (possibly) get this before the Supremes?
It seems to me that there were people who supported Newdow. Surely some of them have children (that they have legal custody of), and could try to get this issue back to the Supreme Court.
How can anyone believe that the Court would ever decide to rehear this case under such circumstances?
Can you explain your question more thoroughly? I don’t understand why you think that not paying child support would give him more legal standing here - the man doesn’t have the legal authority to fight here as it is.
Quite simply custody is a separate issue to payment of child support. Nothing Newdow does in relation to payment or non-payment of child support is going to get him custody. Your scheme is misconceived.
Exactly, just because he doesn’t have custody and has only limited power (if that) in the decisions concerning his childs upbringing, does NOT mean he has no responsibility regarding his daughter. Thus the responisbility of paying child support without the right to bring a case regarding religious indoctrination.
Lame ruling in my opinion (though not as lame as the ID ruling!).
You are confusing custody with child-support payments. A non-custodial parent can be ordered to pay child support. Indeed, that is the normal arrangement. If Newdow skips on paying child support, he could be in contempt of court or violate state law. Losing a child support case to the mother would not magically transfer custody to Newdow.
Additionally, Newdow and the child’s mother have a joint custody arrangement, but the mother is the sole custodian for legal matters involving the daughter.
The Court’s opinion is available at The Legal Information Institute, among many other places, and discusses this point. The Summary is clear and understandable by most laypeople, and I encourage you to read it.
IANAL, all standard dislaimers apply.