Call Email Join Donate
Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors

Access to justice — a panel discussion re Turner v. Rogers and ramifications for child support

July 31, 2012

child supportPanel Sponsored by Office of Child Support Enforcement and Department of Justice Access to Justice Initiative

(Also see:

“A panel of experts discusses the critical messages from Turner v. Rogers and its implications for child support. Turner v. Rogers requires states in civil contempt proceedings to provide procedures that ensure a fundamentally fair determination of whether an unrepresented parent is able to comply with a court order to pay child support. This forum includes a discussion of setting realistic child support orders, and other promising practices that avoid the build-up of arrears; explores cost-effective strategies for child support compliance, including alternatives to contempt; and, discusses expanding self-help services and access to justice for unrepresented litigants”.

This is a must watch video for anyone interested in issues related to child support, arrears, related contempt charges, debtor’s prison, and right to counsel.

Excellent solutions are presented by this panel, some that will overtime be adopted. However, as long as public funds incentivize child support service departments to maximize collections like skip chasing bounty hunters, such solutions will be resisted. There are certainly stakeholders dependent upon the continuation of federal funding. Conflicts with domestic violence and other competing laws present barriers to reform. Then there are the anti-father for any reason ideologues. All more interested in self interests instead of ensuing due process for low income parents, helping families stay together, and the best interests of children.

It appears some of these panelists have some understanding of the serious social problems caused by the current child collection system. Improving administrative remedies while maximizing parental involvement with children were topics of discussion. Unfortunately, fundamental due process, restorative justice, conciliation, and fairness did not overtake  philosophical adherence to civil contempt, self representation, punishment and debtors prison.

Panelist provided a wealth of valuable information and ideas to be considered and used accordingly by child support system reform advocates. You might consider contacting one or more of of the panelists directly for addition useful in you advocacy work.

What do you think? Are there solutions you can use or agree with presented by the panelists?


child support

NCFM Reform VAWA radio spot

Child Support

Child Support

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

8 Responses to Access to justice — a panel discussion re Turner v. Rogers and ramifications for child support

  1. asanowicz on August 5, 2012 at 9:07 AM

    Its about time this issue was addresed ,, No doubt beuracacy will rear its ugly head and there will be alot of money spent and collected,,,, but not much will get done,, and little will change. Until the complete economic breakdown,, and these clowns dont get paid.

  2. Rene van Dockum on August 4, 2012 at 7:11 PM

    iIpaid child support for 6 years, was drawn into court for non payment patentable i paid, now I really can’t pay, iIam held in contempt. justice? and not only in USA, it’s the world wide media that don’t want to give us attention!
    best interest of the child is the biggest lie in history

    • Mike Hedman on August 6, 2012 at 9:27 PM

      I am married to Rene van Dockum’s ex-wife, and unfortunately I have had a front-row seat to Rene’s malicious and deceitful behavior. For three years Rene claimed impoverishment as the reason he couldn’t pay child support. Seeing that Rene’s quality of life never seemed to suffer and that he always had plenty of money to hire attorney’s, we finally subpoenaed his bank records and discovered that over the two years ended January 1, 2012, Rene had deposited over $ 235,000 in his multiple bank accounts. Hardly impoverishment.

      Rene is facing contempt because he lied to the court and concealed his income. In spite of his claims of victimhood, he has fled the USA and is hiding somewhere in Europe. Apparently he also lied to the California Franchise Tax Board and the Internal Revenue Service.

      • Bradly Harper on February 4, 2013 at 11:52 PM

        I was a continued costumer of the business I now find that Rene van Dockum had run,, and my last paid for, multi hundred dollar order was never granted, or given word about when multiple call and email attempts were given, and the business web site has now been seemingly shut down,… might you have any new information on this topic, as to if he is back in the United States, or if others have filed claims with California’s state offices? I was just hoping to get a refund, the items, I paid for, or to guard others from having this happen, or to know how to spot something like this or guard myself from having someone shut down their business while payment for product has been granted. Thank you for any help or information you may be able to offer my way here. I will check back later for any additional comments as a way to communicate. Thank you.

        • Rene on May 5, 2013 at 11:38 PM

          Bradley, this is Rene van Dockum. Your order is likely in my possession if you would still want this. Due to illness and high conflict custody battle I have not been able to work. Don’t believe a word you read. I apologize and will correspond with you. ThetallDutchman@race or 619 335 7158

      • I have seen those bank accounts. His business grossed $235,000. He had $190,000 of Cost of goods sold, and $32,000 in freight expenses. So you are incorrect. He is not lying. Get your facts straight. He cannot steal his customers money, he has to ship the goods, so it is not income for purposes of support. And he was in Europe to try to borrow money from his mom for 2 months so he could live in U.S and be near his daughter. It is garbage like this that hurts the system.

  3. jacqueline on August 4, 2012 at 2:30 AM

    Im in australia northern territory.I am a low income worker who has to work 2 jobs to support child support agency payments.
    while ex works 4 government and earns 3 times as much as I..has company vechile and phone, has 2 homes,.child support agency hasn’t got my taxable income right and the local governments aren’t interested in investigating this case of injusticed..haven’t seen my children in 3 years

  4. Eric Moore on August 3, 2012 at 10:06 AM

    Fix marriage and post divorce. 50% custody and no child support unless there is a discrepancy of more than 20% in income post marriage for three years and none after three years. I deserve my child 50% of the time and deserve and demand the right that both parents stand on thier own two feet.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.