I'm sorry, but in order to be jailed for non-payment of child support, one has to WILLFULLY fail to pay. What that means, is that your friend HAD money to pay (even if it wasn't the full amount), but CHOOSE not to pay anything. And yes, he had to have money...otherwise, how did he support himself...pay his rent, his utilities, buy food, pay miscellaneous expenses...while he was between jobs?
My question is that why is this CP able to use welfare laws for the collection of the CS when she obviously makes a very good living and is not on welfare and why does the court allow (and it seems to encourage) her to use the threat of incarceration to withhold time?
First of all...what "welfare laws"? While the first "CSE" laws were originally created in 1950 to assist children who were on AFDC and who had been abandoned or deserted by a parent, it hasn't been about "welfare" since 1984 when CSE services were offered to non-AFDC families.
Second...what does the CP's income have to do with anything? Because the CP isn't "struggling" or on "welfare", the child doesn't have a right to be supported by BOTH parents?
Third...I seriously doubt that the court is "encouraging" the CP to withhold Parenting Time, but that's probably a good excuse for your friend to use. The simple fact is, all he has to do is pay his child support, even if it's not the full amount, and the CP's "threat" is moot.
The more that comes to the surface on this situation, I see the CP as having some real issues hanging over from the union that she will not let go of.
Why is the NCP's wilfull failure to pay child support the CP's fault?
Mind you, I'm a NCP and I pay child support from what you're telling me, I agree with the Judge that your friend is a "deadbeat".