Child Support Made Simple - Strategies to Escape the Title 4D Program.
Especially fathers, are being DESTROYED by the Child Support Program.
The Child Support Program is wreaking havoc on fathers, particularly. Let's guide you through strategies and steps to shield yourself from any injustices by STATE and FEDERAL courts.
You can begin implementing these solutions immediately. If your child becomes a state dependent, you'll be obligated to pay child support to the government.
Exiting the program is essential to avoid emotional and financial ruin. Consequently, your family stands to gain lasting advantages.
Child Support Made Simple - Strategies to Escape the Title 4D Program.
Season 7 Episode 7 -Ms. Candace Owens Is Wrong About Child Support - The Facts vs. Fiction.
Ms. Candace Owens Is Wrong About Child Support
The Facts vs. Fiction.
Back in 1935, I was introduced to the Aid to Dependent Children (ADC) program, which was part of the New Deal under the Social Security Act. It aimed to provide means-tested entitlements to families like mine, where fathers were either deceased, absent, or unable to work.
This support was crucial for us, helping to subsidize our income during challenging times.
The federal government gave states the authority to decide who received aid and how much they got.
It wasn't until 1961 that things changed. A new law allowed states to offer benefits to families even if the father was unemployed. It was a relief for many families, including mine, as it provided extra help when we needed it most.
Eventually, 25 states adopted this measure, recognizing the importance of supporting families facing economic hardship. Then, in 1962, the name of the program was altered to include "families with," reflecting concerns that the original rules might discourage marriage.
This change showed a shift in focus, acknowledging the diverse needs of families like mine, regardless of our marital status.
Child Support Lawsuit Simplified. We teach you strategies and techniques to free yourself of judicial misconduct from the State and Federal. The guarantee is YOURS.
❤️ Please Donate to Support The Research ----------
💎 https://bit.ly/ChildSupportMadeSimple
https://CASH.APP/$chrish289
📖 To Schedule Discussion and Connect ----------
👥 Calendar: https://bit.ly/Calendar-ChildSupport
📢 Email: Chrish289@protonmail.com
📝 Let's Connect On Social Media -------------
👍 Facebook: https://bit.ly/FB-ChildSupportMadeSmple
🐦 Twitter: https://twitter.com/chrish289
📸 Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/chrish289/
#childsupport #childsupportmadesimple #childsupportcourt
Login into our => https://childsupport.newzenler.com
Ms. Candace Owens Is Wrong About Child Support
The Facts vs. Fiction.
Candace Owens. Candace Owens is regular on Fox News and she has opinion about, about, just about everything. However, when it comes to child support, Candace Owens is dead wrong. This is not a video about, you know, Candace Owens, but she has the wrong information about child support. Let me unpack this and let me explain.
For conservatives for CNN, Fox News, they always get this statement wrong about child support. They always get it wrong and people believe them. So Candace Owen and conservative get it wrong about child support. What do they get wrong? Well, I'm going to play you a clip again.
It's fair use because it was on the Internet and all the shows, social media. I want to play you a clip so that you can see what they're getting wrong. The biggest issue that I think is facing black America today is father absence.
We have children that are growing up without their fathers in the home and that is being incentivized by the government right now via the welfare system. And the government says we'll give you more money if you don't marry the father of your children.
You are incentivizing bad behavior in our community. What happens when you remove a father from the home? You're nine times more likely to end up in prison. You're six times more likely to drop out of high school, and you're twelve times more likely to lead a life of poverty. Why is nobody talking about father absence?
And why did we keep being silenced when we actually do? The biggest issue that I think is facing black America today is father absence.
We have children that are growing up without their fathers in the home. And that is being incentivized by the government right now via the welfare system. And the government says we'll give you more money if you don't marry the father of your children.
You are incentivizing bad behavior in our community. What happens when you remove a father from the home? You're nine times more likely to end up in prison. You're six times more likely to drop out of high school, and you're twelve times more likely to lead a life of poverty. Why is nobody talking about father absence?
And why did we keep being silenced when we actually do? There you have it. Candace is dead wrong. You can google what is called King ve Smith. The Supreme Court has taken up this issue already.
The Supreme Court has already decided this matter. It's called King Ver Smith in 1968. And here's a quiz. When did Thurgood Marshall, right here on the picture, when was he selected for the Supreme Court? This all 50 states must obey the Supreme Court and cannot refuse to follow them.
Coopers vs Aaron in 1958, here is the makeup of the Supreme Court.
Ms. Katanji Brown Jackson, you know, just, you know, was selected for the Supreme Court. However, the Supremacy clause reigns supreme, which is Kaufman versus Haman. Now, in addition to King versus Smith, you need to study on my YouTube channel the five Supreme Court cases that you should already know.
Hello, my name is Chris and in this session, we're going to discuss the comments from Candace Owen again. She is a wonderful woman. You know, I have nothing against her, but she is dead wrong. Then let's explore that.
If you have any concerns or comments, please feel free to reach us at chrish289@ protonmail.com. also, we bring this video to you for free. However, we're asking for donation at least dollar cash app.
Also, you can reach us at our podcast which is childupport.com.
you can file your family court case, which is the new DOJ letter. You can file it into your case as well.
So let's look at King Ver Smith. It was unanimous decision from the Supreme Court and that was, you know, settled and rectified. 1968 or otherwise eligible children were denied welfare payments because their mother was cohabitating with a man within the meaning of an Alabama regulation designed to discourage immorality and illegitimacy. The United States Supreme Court considered the validity of that regulation in the 1968 case, King v. Smith.
The Social Security act of 1935 created the aid to families with dependent children, or AFDC program. The program provided welfare payments to all dependent children, defined as needy children with a dead, incapacitated, or continually absent parent. Alabama participated in the program but had a substitute father regulation in place.
The regulation denied AFDC payments to otherwise eligible needy children whose mother cohabitated inside or outside of her in the children's home with any single or married able bodied man. As used in the regulation, cohabitating meant having frequent or continuing sexual relations.
Additionally, the regulation's goal was to discourage immoral sexual behavior and illegitimate births. Misses Sylvester Smith was a resident of Dallas County, Alabama and a mother of four children with dead or long absent fathers. Although the Smith children were otherwise eligible for payments, they were denied AFDC payments solely because Misses Smith was having sexual relations with a Mister Williams on the weekends.
Mister Williams had no legal duty to support the Smith children and given that he was married with nine children, he was neither willing nor financially able to do so. Misses Smith filed an action in an Alabama federal district court against Reuben King, the commissioner of the Alabama Department of Pensions and Security seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.
Misses Smith challenged the substitute father regulation on the grounds that it conflicted with the Social Security act and the Equal Protection Clause. The district court ultimately agreed with Misses Smith and entered judgment for her. King appealed to the United States Supreme Court. It's called the man in the house. So let me dissect it.
The man in the house, which is what Candace is getting wrong, is that the Supreme Court has already decided this in 1968. So let us recap what so called man in the House back in 1935, I was introduced to the Aid to Dependent Children program, which was part of the New Deal under the Social Security act.
It aimed to provide means tested entitlements to families like mine, where fathers were either deceased, absent, or unable to work. This support was crucial for us helping to subsidize our income during challenging times. The federal government gave states the authority to decide who received aid and how much they got.
It wasn't t until 1961 that things changed. A new law allowed states to offer benefits to families even if the father was unemployed. It was a relief for many families, including mine, as it provided extra help when we needed it most.
Eventually, 25 states adopted this measure, recognizing the importance of supporting families facing economic hardship. Then, in 1962, the name of the program was altered to include families with reflecting concerns that the original rules might discourage marriage.
This change showed a shift in focus, acknowledging the diverse needs of families like mine, regardless of our marital status. This adjustment in the program's name signaled a broader understanding of family dynamics and the challenges we faced. It was reassuring to know that policymakers were considering our situation and making efforts to ensure that all families in need were supported.
As someone who relied on the ADC program, I felt a sense of relief knowing that changes were being made to better accommodate families like mine. It highlighted the government's commitment to evolving and adapting to the needs of its citizens over time.
Overall, the modifications made to the ADC program demonstrated a recognition of the complexities, family life and a commitment to providing assistance where it was most needed. It was a reminder that despite the challenges we faced, there were systems in place to support us and help us navigate difficult times.
I have a video called the difference between TANF and title I 4D. Again, there is a difference. One is public and one is private.
So, man in the house. Heres some additional information about the man in the house. In certain regions, a former regulation barred impoverished families from receiving welfare payments if a man cohabited with them.
This rule, dubbed the man in the House rule, denied welfare benefits to eligible children solely because their mother lived with or had relations with any able bodied male, whether single or married. Regardless of his actual contribution to the child's support, the man was deemed a substitute father.
Before 1968, numerous state administrative bodies enforced the man in the House rule. However, in 1968, the US Supreme Court invalidated this regulation, citing its contradiction with the legislative goals of the aid to families with dependent children program.
Established under the Social Security act of 1935. The AFfesi program aimed to assist the children of financially disadvantaged parents. In the case of King vs Smith, the US Supreme Court addressed a challenge to the man in the House rule brought by the four children of Misses Sylvester Smith, a widow who were denied benefits by welfare authorities in Dallas County, Alabama.
These children initiated a class action lawsuit on behalf of other affected children in Alabama, contesting the state 'substitute father regulation.
This regulation classified a man as a substitute father if he cohabited with the mother, made frequent visits to live with her, or lived with her elsewhere. During the trial, testimony revealed confusion among authorities regarding the interpretation of the regulation. Some officials suggested that the regulation applied only if the parties engaged in sexual relations at least once a week, while others proposed different intervals, such as once every three or six months.
The Supreme Court determined that Congress did not intend for the aftesa program to compel children to rely on a man with no legal obligation to support them. The court clarified that the term parent in the Social Security act referred to an individual with a legal duty to support the child.
Consequently, the court nullified the man in the House rule, asserting that destitute children without a legal father could not be denied federally funded assistance based on the presence of a substitute father. The reasons why I wanted to do the video is because I am tired of this issue. So called man in the house the Supreme Court has already taken this up and've already rectified it.
In 1968. Candace was not born in 1968. She born after. So just google it. Five minutes and it's already been ratified.
Let's recap the so-called man in the house so what lessons have been learned from Misses Spit story? Misses Spit's story highlights the complexities and the unintended consequences of the welfare policies and procedures to underscore the importance of crafting the nuance of all the individual stories.
Next question how did the welfare system better address the needs of the families? The welfare system could better address the needs of the families because they're not interested in who the mother has relationship with.
All they're asking is, is the holistic of this family, the emotional and support and the companionship and in addition, financial assistance. This is why that they did not take up the man in the house. They took the family position.
Why was misses Smith disqualified? Misses Smith and her children were disqualified from receiving benefits because they were more concerned with the substitute father. They were less concerned about the children, the welfare of the children. That's why the Supreme Court to take this up. So these are the issues the King versus Smith deals with the issue of man in the house.
In addition to King versus Smith. Check out on our channel called the history of child support and preview that video. The thing is, can't, you can't go into family court without studying it. You're going to make a mistake.
Title 4D exists because you have abandoned your child. That's how they get paid. All 50 states get paid because you did not claim your child called abandonment. It's in the statute for all 50 states.
Child support has nothing in common with the mother or the child. Blessing versus freestone. Remember that when you go to court. Blessing versus freestone.
Many conservatives as well as Candace Owen get it wrong. King vs Smith, so called "man about the house".
It's a unanimous decision, satisfied by the Supreme Court. The reason why I made this video because Candace is wrong.
If you have comments or concerned, please reach us at chrish289@protonmail.com. many of you will look at our video and you do not subscribe.
Please subscribe to our channel. Okay, just subscribe to our channel. It just takes a few minutes as well as we're seeking five-dollar cash app or $25 five gifts.
We do extensive research on this channel. We do our own research so that we can bring you selected and appropriate relevance for you to tackle the family court process.
Email: Chrish289@protonmail.com
(c)Copyright, 2021-2030
