Wisconsin Enemies
This is the state that once passed a law prohibiting noncustodial parents from remarrying unless they are current in child support payments and have the permission of the local county. This was struck down by the one Supreme Court decision that found that noncustodial parents are protected in their fundamental rights, including marriage: Zablocki v. Redhail, (1978) 434 U.S. 374, 384-386, 54 L. Ed. 2d. 618, 98 S. Ct. 673. Now, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin has just upheld an order prohibiting a noncustodial father from bringing more children into the world, State v. Oakley. The majority opinion took into account Mr. Oakley's ability to work, and that was part of his deliberate refusal to pay child support, for which he was convicted of a felony. This felony prosecution is itself null and void as violation of the Antipeonage Act, 42 U.S.C. §1994, and it is the crime defined by 18 U.S.C. §1581. This majority opinion then uses the felony conviction as an excuse to violate Zablocki. The dissenting opinion, written by the women on the court, found that Zablocki precluded the majority opinion.
Mr. Oakley has petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States for a writ of certiorari.
This is the consequence of the abstention doctrine set forth in Younger v. Harris, (1971) 401 U.S. 37, 46-54, 27 L. Ed. 2d. 669, 91 S. Ct. 746. This man should have been able to go right into the federal courts under 42 U.S.C. §1983 and get Zablocki enforced. Younger abstention merely leaves the fox in charge of the henhouse as long as the hens can bring their complaints to the fox and the fox is capable of granting the hens relief. Rush Limbaugh to his credit severely criticized this decision as an implementation of China's one child policy in the United States. If procreation is a fundamental right, that belongs even to prisoners on felony convictions who cannot provide for their children, and that without the right to procreation, there is no right to contraceptives or abortion, then the Wisconsin courts are way out of line!!!
The interesting thing about this decision is that all three women on the Supreme Court of Wisconsin dissented in favor of the noncustodial father. I believe what might be going on here is that female judges know that this whole system is a grossly unconstitutional scam that is wrecking our society. It is this system, not the noncustodial parents, that is causing the problems that we then blame on the noncustodial parents. If custody was awarded to the parent who had the job, if the right for a woman to have an abortion without any input or even informing the man with whom became pregnant is to be preserved only upon recognition that absent waiver of that right, the man cannot be held responsible, if it made a difference who the petitioner and who the respondent is in a divorce as to burden of proof and that the petitioner is the one to be presumed willing to give up custody of the children and to pay child support only to the extent necessary, absent rebuttal on the basis of unfitness of the respondent in the case, and if our government would quit using our children's legitimate needs as an excuse for the violation of the Constitution, the harm to our society would be largely avoided. The savings in taxpayer's money could lead either to a huge tax cut on all levels of government or finance the American settlement of the planet Mars. We are not the ones who are at fault. It is this system we have set up that is at fault. It is like blaming the motorist for his car breaking down when the problem is that his engine is poorly designed and put together improperly.
The Health and Human Services operates the Child Support Program.
Article I Section 2 of the Wisconsin Constitution prohibits slavery and involuntary servitude.
Article I Section 6 of the Wisconsin Constitution prohibits excessive fines and bails and cruel and unusual punishments.
Article I Section 16 of the Wisconsin Constitution prohibits imprisonment for debts arising from contracts.
Article I Section 25 of the Wisconsin Constitution declares the right of the people to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes.
Feel free to e-mail me at [email protected] with any information that you have to share.
If the back button does not take you there, click Home to go to the Index page of this Antipeonage Act Website, click Enemies for the main Enemies page, click Letters for the Letters page, and click Allies for the Allies page. Or you can use the Antipeonage Act Site Map.