by The Dharma Bum » Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:53 pm
No, it's for not paying funds owed, ie a debt. You are trying to say they will be held for contempt of court but that quite simply isn't the case. They are being held for non-payment of child support. Which is inarguably a debt as it is funds owed. That is literally the textbook definition of a debt.
You may as well stop this fruitless line of argument and admit to yourself much of what you believe has no firm logical basis so you can start building a decent perspective from which to view the world.