Child Support and Jurisdiction

[BelizeBreeze]

Meow!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Shay-Pari'e]

(QUOTE)A judge in AL has decided AL has jurisdiction over me,(QUOTE) From the poster's first post.

The court decided they had jurisdiction. Had she simply registered the IL order in AL, then AL could enforce that order.

If AL has successfully obtained jurisdiction,(And that is what he stated) that means AL support guidelines .

I am interested in this post on a legal stand point, and I ask that IAAL, JETX, GURU, or BB read this if they have time.

Thank You for correcting me if I am wrong.

 

[Whyte Noise]

Meow!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh, shush you! LOL

-PARADISE-

Under UIFSA, a new state CAN take jurisdiction, as Missouri did with mine. However, the state with jurisdiction to modify has to use the issuing state's guidelines to modify.

I'm not disputing that AL has jurisdiction. Not at all. They most certainly can modify the existing child support order. What they can NOT do, however, is modify an aspect that could not be modified in IL (i.e. age of termination of support).

THAT was one of the OP's issues... that AL allows support to continue longer than IL does. That's all fine and dandy, but IL law says it terminates at "X" age, and AL can't modify THAT portion. Period. AL will have to go by IL guidelines.

 

[Shay-Pari'e]

Oh, shush you! LOL

-PARADISE-

Under UIFSA, a new state CAN take jurisdiction, as Missouri did with mine. However, the state with jurisdiction to modify has to use the issuing state's guidelines to modify.

I'm not disputing that AL has jurisdiction. Not at all. They most certainly can modify the existing child support order. What they can NOT do, however, is modify an aspect that could not be modified in IL (i.e. age of termination of support).

THAT was one of the OP's issues... that AL allows support to continue longer than IL does. That's all fine and dandy, but IL law says it terminates at "X" age, and AL can't modify THAT portion. Period. AL will have to go by IL guidelines.

I don't want to argue either, and I think the guy's on this forum are sitting back laughing.

I do understand what you are saying, but what I am adding to this, is.............
I am not speaking of the age, I am speaking of the support amount.
The poster is spending a fortune on what? Is he fighting the fact that it was registered and can be modified under IL guidelines. ?

My take on his post is this.............

NO ONE lives in IL. Parent and child reside in AL, father resides in SC(?). If the courts found that he consented in the least(Could be responding and not contesting), and they now have jurisdiction over his "Subject Matter", they will use AL support guidelines, as Mother and child reside in AL.

This depends on sooooooooooooooo much, and I am still interested in a legal brain chiming in.

I could very well be wrong, but I am not stating what I am by the seat of my pant's either.

Personally I don't think the poster gave enough "IMPORTANT" info.

 

[Whyte Noise]

-PARIDISE-

They just like the mental image of 2 leather-clad blondes with huge bazongas fighting it out, whether the 2 women actually look like that or not. Let them have their fun.

The OP privatley PM'ed me. AL does have jurisdiction, as there was an answer filed to the petition by his attorney.

His argument is that he didn't want AL to have jurisdiction as their CS guidelines allow for a longer CS term than IL does. I haven't looked up the relevant state's laws, so I can't say for certain if that's true, but I do believe that AL is one state that CS ends at 19, and not 18. (Just thinking off the top of my head and what I recall from previous research).

Now... his contention is that AL will modify the order, and make him pay CS for an extra year and use THEIR guidelines to do that.

AL can modify the current order, yes. They have the jurisdiction to do so. What they can NOT modify though are things that are unmodifiable in IL, such as the age where CS ceases.

No parties live in IL any longer, true. IL lost continuing, exclusive jurisdiction as soon as that happened, and mom filed in AL... her and the child's state of residence and the state that would NOW have jurisdiction to modify. I explained that to him when he told me that his attorney did indeed respond to the motion without contesting jurisdiction. Yes, by his attorney responding to the mother's petition he submitted to AL's jurisdiction to modify the current IL order.

AL, by all means, CAN modify the order. But CS in IL stops at a certain age, and AL can NOT change that fact even though their guidelines call for CS to go to age 19. (I believe I'm correct in the age...)

That is part of the UIFSA... to have uniform guidelines for all states to follow in interstate cases. Otherwise, we'd have people "forum shopping" and moving to NY or other states where CS goes to age 21. That was the purpose of the UIFSA (formerly known as URESA and RURESA). To stop people from getting orders in one state, moving to another state and getting a better, or longer "deal".

Here's the link I gave the OP in PM..

http://www.law.upenn.edu/bll/ulc/fnact99/1990s/uifsa96.htm

That is the UIFSA in it's entirety. In Section 611, which I C&P'd previously, it states what I've said in this thread.

Alabama can modify the child support order, but they can NOT modify all aspects of the current CS order. IL law is controlling.

 

[Shay-Pari'e]

(QUOTE)They just like the mental image of 2 leather-clad blondes with huge bazongas fighting it out, whether the 2 women actually look like that or not. Let them have their fun. (QUOTE)

Agreed, lol.

Since you have been PMing,(NOT PMS GUY"S), I think you are better informed than I.

I will say this, and I may get slammed for it......................The poster is spending money on an attorney to fight the age limit of support?

I do not understand people like this.

 

[Whyte Noise]

Well, depending on what the monthly amount is, it "could" be a substantial amount.

Say, if he pays $600 a month, for 12 more months, you're talking over $7,000.

If it's a substantial amount, I can certainly see how/why an extra year could make a difference.

 

[Shay-Pari'e]

Well, depending on what the monthly amount is, it "could" be a substantial amount.

Say, if he pays $600 a month, for 12 more months, you're talking over $7,000.

If it's a substantial amount, I can certainly see how/why an extra year could make a difference.

Yes it could be substantial, but it is his child. MG, with all due respect, I feel for the children and X wife that are not posting on this forum to defend themselves.

 

[squatch93]

Who me?

Were you referring to me, as the Utah person? I have never lived in Utah.... or claimed to have lived there. Though I have spent a few nights in the Utah wilderness watching things I did not recognize.

As to my motive for not rolling over and letting my ex-wife just do whatever, it is motivated by money.

I currently pay $4320 a year, due to my good fortune, luck, hard work, education and knowledge that amount could be as much as $11,520 a year. My ex-wife claims her income to be $X amount a year. I will almost double her income and she gets it all for free?! Yes, there is a good reason why I am not rolling over easily.

I have offered my ex-wife $10,000 lump sum cash, and offered to pay up to 50% of my daughters education (not to exceed $2000 a semester, for no more than four years, and she must maintain a minimum of a "C" average in each class, registered as a full time student) in a state school.

I am not selfish, just tired of the non-custodial parent (ME) not getting a fair deal. Currently I can claim my daughter (per my divorce decree in IL on my taxes). My ex-wife is also wanting that. I pay taxes on that money but will not have the benefit of that money. Yet the custodial parent does not have to claim that money nor pay taxes on it. Look at a loan application, or credit application... list all forms of income, to include child support or alimony... fair?

In order to encourage more non-custodials to pay, why not give the tax break? Another argument for another day.

Someone asked for more specific details... such as?

Regards,

Bill

 

[Whyte Noise]

Were you referring to me, as the Utah person? I have never lived in Utah.... or claimed to have lived there. Though I have spent a few nights in the Utah wilderness watching things I did not recognize.

As to my motive for not rolling over and letting my ex-wife just do whatever, it is motivated by money.

I currently pay $4320 a year, due to my good fortune, luck, hard work, education and knowledge that amount could be as much as $11,520 a year. My ex-wife claims her income to be $X amount a year. I will almost double her income and she gets it all for free?! Yes, there is a good reason why I am not rolling over easily.

I have offered my ex-wife $10,000 lump sum cash, and offered to pay up to 50% of my daughters education (not to exceed $2000 a semester, for no more than four years, and she must maintain a minimum of a "C" average in each class, registered as a full time student) in a state school.

I am not selfish, just tired of the non-custodial parent (ME) not getting a fair deal. Currently I can claim my daughter (per my divorce decree in IL on my taxes). My ex-wife is also wanting that. I pay taxes on that money but will not have the benefit of that money. Yet the custodial parent does not have to claim that money nor pay taxes on it. Look at a loan application, or credit application... list all forms of income, to include child support or alimony... fair?

In order to encourage more non-custodials to pay, why not give the tax break? Another argument for another day.

Someone asked for more specific details... such as?

Regards,

Bill

Ok...

First off, a "lump sum settlement" isn't legal, nor is it enforcable. Child support is the right of the child, the parent's can't arbitrarily waive that right or "pay it off early". Sure, you could come to an agreement to pay the lump sum... but she could come right back after you and get an order for child support and you'd be right back paying again.

You pay $360 a month in child support currently, correct ($4,320 yearly)? You say that it could go up to $11,520 a year ($960 a month). For that much of an increase, you've had on HELL of an upswing in your gross pay since the initial child support order ws issued. An upward modification is warranted in your case. That may not be what you want to hear, but it's the truth, and it's the law in all 50 states. An increase or decrease in income by EITHER party (that applies to states who use both parent's incomes, not the states that just use the NCP's income) that would raise or lower the current order by anywhere from 15% to 25% triggers a change in circumstances to warrant a modification. (I use 15% to 25% because each state differs, but the percentage is between those 2 amounts in most states.)

In your case Bill, there'd be over a 150% increase! From $360 a month to $960 a month. A difference of $600 per month. Your increase in income more than meets the 15% to 25% that most states require, and trust me when I tell you.... (even though I'm NOT an attorney) that your child support amount WILL go up when this goes to court, no matter what state's guidelines are used. And, since Illinois is one of the states that only uses the NCP's income to calculate child support, it wouldn't matter what your ex makes a year. She could rake in over $1 million a year and it wouldn't matter because the CS isn't based off of your combined incomes, only on the NCP's. Alabama's guidelines are a combined income shares model though. They would take her earnings into account.

I know how some NCP's get taken to the cleaners. I am one (an NCP). My ex husband and I have 3 children and we have a split custody order. He has custody of 2, I have custody of 1. Before that though, he was the CP of all 3 and I was court ordered to pay CS. He made 3 times what I did. We lived in Georgia, another state that only uses the NCP's income to calculate child support. What he made didn't matter, only what I made counted to arrive at the CS figure. So, I completely understand what you're saying. I'm also married to an NCP who, after taxes and CS, brought home a whopping $92 a week to live off of. He was left with pretty much what you pay in CS currently. $4,784 a year to live on. Again... I understand completely what you're saying.

But the fact is... you've had a substantial increase in income since your order was entered, and you're going to have an increase in your child support to go along with it. That's the law, whether we like it or not. If we don't think the laws are fair, there's only one way to remedy it and that's to fight to get the laws changed.

 

[squatch93]

No doubt.

I have no doubt my child support will go up, I just dont want to pay an extra year if I can help it.

And PARADISE.... get off it! I am not the one that you are referring to from Utah.... who is the liar? What possible reason would I have to deny this if it were true? I am not here for your support, only assistance.

Bill

 

[Shay-Pari'e]

I have no doubt my child support will go up, I just dont want to pay an extra year if I can help it.

And PARADISE.... get off it! I am not the one that you are referring to from Utah.... who is the liar? What possible reason would I have to deny this if it were true? I am not here for your support, only assistance.

Bill

I deleted my posts claiming that. It was a poster named "Ikecvfd2". I aplogize for the mix up.

 

[squatch93]

*gasps*

Thanks, I suppose that means that youre sorry.

Still, no one has answered my question.

The judge ruled AL has jurisdiction, I asked my lawyer to challenge that. The judge has requested my income information.

MY QUESTION: Do I have to provide my income information NOW, OR can I wait until the challenge is presented in court?

Respectfully,

Bill

 

[BL]

Thanks, I suppose that means that youre sorry.

Still, no one has answered my question.

The judge ruled AL has jurisdiction, I asked my lawyer to challenge that. The judge has requested my income information.

MY QUESTION: Do I have to provide my income information NOW, OR can I wait until the challenge is presented in court?

Respectfully,

Bill

I answered you previously,when I said it's part of procedures.

You ask 2 questions.

The answer to your first question id " YES ".