jurisdiction issue?

[ezmarelda]

What is the name of your state? Ca & Tx

This question is on behalf of my cousin, but I am pretty sure I have all the important info...what I do not have is my spell-check or the use of my right hand while typing tonight so please be kind ...I know ya'll can be when you want to.

The Info-
Child was born in Tx 6-02
Mother and Child moved to Ca 8-02
2-03 Child was hospitalised in Ca with RSV and was enroled in Medi-Cal as there was no other medical coverage Ca went after Father for re-payment Father filed Custody and CS in Tx prompting DNA (yep his kiddo)
6-03 Mother traveled to Tx for hearing and Tx Court dismissed the case stating Ca had/has jurisdiction as the Child is in Ca and has never been a resident of Tx.
No final judgement was ever filed from this hearing.
6-06 Father decides to come to Ca to visit for Child's birthday
Mother files for Cust.Visit.&CS while Father is in Ca An agreement is made during mediation regarding Cust & Visit. and made an order. No order is made for CS
11-06 Mother files for CS
now comes the complacated part...12-06 Father files for Tx to have jurisdiction over CS on the same day that a "Notice Regarding Payment of Support-Substitution of Payee" is filed naming "Payee" as DCSS in Mother's county

The Question- Can Father do this?...well I know he can file just about any lame thing he wants to but...Am I correct that being that there is a standing Cust/Vist order from Ca and there has not ever been a CS order yet CS will be in Ca jurisdiction??? Right?


Thanks Ya'll

 

[ceara19]

It is possible for custody and support to be in 2 different jurisdictions. Honestly, it usually works out better for the CP if jurisdiction for cs is in the NCP's state. I know that UIFSA allows the CP to file a CS action through the NCP's jurisdiction if they so desire, I don't recall it saying anything about the reverse being possible though. I have no idea how California will deal with the matter, but Texas almost always releases jurisdiction for CS to the paying parents state, even against the desires of the CP. Texas is also a one income state, so it may be better financially for Texas to have jurisdiction.

 

[ezmarelda]

It is possible for custody and support to be in 2 different jurisdictions. Honestly, it usually works out better for the CP if jurisdiction for cs is in the NCP's state. I know that UIFSA allows the CP to file a CS action through the NCP's jurisdiction if they so desire, I don't recall it saying anything about the reverse being possible though. I have no idea how California will deal with the matter, but Texas almost always releases jurisdiction for CS to the paying parents state, even against the desires of the CP. Texas is also a one income state, so it may be better financially for Texas to have jurisdiction.[/QUOTE]
The bolded is why Father is trying to keep it in TX...we ran the numbers and because of Ca using both parents income AND % of time with the child (Fathers ONLY visitation with the child was 5 days for Christmas and there is nothing more outlined at this point) it is looking like Father would be paying almost 1/2 as much in Tx as in Ca...I am also wondering if Ca will want to keep it because there have been Welfare Benifits and Medi-Cal for the Child

Thanks cearaHope you all had a merry New Year!

 

[ezmarelda]

Update and another question

Ok, so Ca relinquished jurisdiction to Tx and now she is wondering 2 things
1. What % does Tx order for 1 child?
2. Can she request it be retro and if so how far back?

 

[LdiJ]

Ok, so Ca relinquished jurisdiction to Tx and now she is wondering 2 things
1. What % does Tx order for 1 child?
2. Can she request it be retro and if so how far back?

Texas is one of those states that calculates CS on the ncp's income only. If I remember correctly its 20% of true net for one child. I also believe TX allows for some retro support....but one of the other posters, Ceara in particular, can probably give a more definative answer.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

Although most states permit collecting child support back to the date when you first applied for child support, not just from the date your application is approved, texas suggests a maximum of four years but also allows some flexibility in deciding how far back to go in awarding retroactive child support.

Chapter 154.131 of the Texas Family Code.
In considering the order of retroactive child support, the court shall consider the net resources of the obligor during the relevant time period and whether

the mother of the child had made any previous attempts to notify the obligor of his paternity or probable paternity;

the obligor, Dad, had knowledge of his paternity;

the order of retroactive child support will impose any hardship upon the obligor or his family and

has the obligor provided any actual support.

It is presumed that retroactive support should be limited to the past four years from the date of the filing of the petition for paternity. This presumption can be overcome by a showing of

that the obligor knew or should have known that he was the father of the child; or

sought to avoid the establishment of the child support obligation

 

[ezmarelda]

Thank you

 

[ceara19]

Ok, so Ca relinquished jurisdiction to Tx and now she is wondering 2 things
1. What % does Tx order for 1 child?
2. Can she request it be retro and if so how far back?

It will start at 15%. If he has other children the percentage is lowered for each additional minor child. Texas implemented a 5 year limit on retroactive support last year, but as BB's post explained, Judges have complete discretion over the matter. Normally, unless the CP can prove that the other parent actively attempted to avoid having child support established, CS only goes back to the original date of filing for the CURRENT action (ie - if a case was previously filed and then dropped or dismissed, the most recent filing date is used).

 

[ezmarelda]

It will start at 15%. If he has other children the percentage is lowered for each additional minor child. Texas implemented a 5 year limit on retroactive support last year, but as BB's post explained, Judges have complete discretion over the matter. Normally, unless the CP can prove that the other parent actively attempted to avoid having child support established, CS only goes back to the original date of filing for the CURRENT action (ie - if a case was previously filed and then dropped or dismissed, the most recent filing date is used).

Thank you so much!
Dad has no other children and she can easily prove he has done EVERYTHING possible to avoid paying.

New question, Is she going to have to go to Tx to deal with all this?

 

[ceara19]

Thank you so much!
Dad has no other children and she can easily prove he has done EVERYTHING possible to avoid paying.

New question, Is she going to have to go to Tx to deal with all this?

Nope, she can make a telephonic appearance. She can request this through the caseworker and she'll be given a time and phone # to call. She'll need to fax or mail her information prior to the hearing. If it were ME, I would not agree to ANY final decision over the phone. I would ask that the proposal and supporting evidence (anything he brings in as proof of income) be faxed or mailed to me so that I could look over it before agreeing to anything. The OAG has been known to accept things like old pay stubs and letters from "employers" as proof of income. I'd definitely verify that they set support using tax returns.

 

[ezmarelda]

Nope, she can make a telephonic appearance. She can request this through the caseworker and she'll be given a time and phone # to call. She'll need to fax or mail her information prior to the hearing. If it were ME, I would not agree to ANY final decision over the phone. I would ask that the proposal and supporting evidence (anything he brings in as proof of income) be faxed or mailed to me so that I could look over it before agreeing to anything. The OAG has been known to accept things like old pay stubs and letters from "employers" as proof of income. I'd definitely verify that they set support using tax returns.

Thank you so much!