Joe Blessett Files Lawsuit Regarding Child Support Title IV-D: Blessett v. Texas et al., in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas

San Antonio, TX, February 09, 2022 --(PR.com)-- On January 7, 2022, Joe Blessett filed a lawsuit, Blessett v. Texas et al., in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas (No. 3:22-CV-0009), against Sinkin Law Firm, Greg Abott, Ken Paxton, Steven McCraw, Xavier Becerra, Antony Blinken, City of Galveston, Texas and the United States, alleging deprivation of his contract rights, uniform commerce rights, and failure to stop the deprivation after receiving notice. Blessett’s complaint alleges that Texas Family Codes Sec. 158.210 and 232.0022 are unconstitutional and that they are discriminatory debt collection enforcement against child support debtors and that it is discrimination against biological heterosexual males to apply Title IV-D of the Social Security Act.

Blessett alleges gender discrimination by imposing religious morality standards against biological heterosexual males instead of known federal statutes and state law. In addition, the complaint alleges the lack of oversight of the U.S. government over the contracted state agencies, administrative corruption compounded by the incentive program, and the subsidizing of local government employee payroll.

Blessett’s complaint alleges violations in the application and enforcement of Title IV-D in the unequal application of the uniform commerce and contract clause.
Blessett’s complaint discusses Roe v Wade and Obergefell v Hodges, religious morality and the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The complaint further alleges that recreational sex is a private matter.

The complaint alleges: “It is gender discrimination if religious morality standards are only applied to straight males for the consequences of recreational sex. Unwed mothers with illegitimate children have no right to the father’s income without a contract.” It is further alleged: “Biological heterosexual males are not required by any law or a protected private right to accept the consequences of recreational sex or Title IV-D obligation.” Title IV-D was not intended to benefit individual children and custodial parents, according to the court opinion in Blessing v. Freestone, 520 U.S. 329 (1997).

Joe Blessett wants to enjoy his Final Divorce Decree.