Forum Replies Created
Honestly, it would probably hurt his chances. Number one, she isn’t going to voluntarily give them back (which means a trip to court). Second, the judge will say that she is a fit parent or obviously he wouldn’t have gone against a sole custody order and given her the kid(s)
Basically the court is going to want someone on the financial hook. If her parents sign to financially support the child, then then might go for it (depending on the age of the parents)
Also…the Keymaster is referring to some kind of custody agreement I believe, while it looks to me you’re referring to being out of the kids’ lives and off the hook. A revocation of rights (termination) can only occur if Family Services finds him to be unfit. The other possibility is that if tge mom gets married and the Step dad wants to file for adoption. Otherwise, Louisiana will not terminate rights because they want someone on the financial hook. I believe that if Family Services terminates his rights, he still has to pay support for them.
He is alleging he spent all but a few pennies on medical care.
Just like the executive (presidential) branch is separated from Justice and legislative branches for a reason, the courts are separate from the police for a reason. To ask a patrolman who may have very little education to read and interpret and then enforce a court order is a very bad idea indeed. First of all, how do you know your ex wouldn’t pull a court order from a year ago and say its the most current order? Or show up with LA code on his computer and say the judge wouldn’t have gone against the law, therefore the officer needs to x, y, or z?
You told ‘UnitedWoman’ that the only thing that mattered is that the child knew Mom and Dad loved them, unless it was dangerous to the child. In my interpretation, it is dangerous to the child if the child is often sick because the parent is not taking good care of them, or if the parent hasn’t even made arrangements to be able to pick them up at day care. As a child gets older, some children will say “but dad/mom didn’t love me, if they couldn’t be bothered with something as important as daycare papers” (and believe me, there will be nine million other things with a parent like this). Other kids will buy into the poison that dad is spouting out about mom and insist that MOM doesn’t love them. As the parent of children who were brainwashed — and there is no other word for it — for years, with a very bad outcome indeed — there’s a lot we SHOULDN’T be ‘letting go’.
Which brings us right back to your question, about the police enforcing civil orders. I hope I was able to explain why the police can’t really do it. (And more importantly, probably shouldn’t be doing it). I coach people in custody situations and it is very common indeed for one particular type of parent to try to get what they want by manipulating the police when the judge didn’t give them what they want. It takes a load of courage for a parent to step up to the armed officers at the door demanding they turn a child over for visitation when it’s an old order that the other parent has somehow convinced them to enforce. No parent should find themself having to do this, in the absence of an brand, shiny new direct order from the judge. It is also not fair to officers who are already overstressed to have to listen to the tales of woe from some of these manipulative parents, become convinced the child is kidnapped or in mortal danger, and find out later that the child is right where the judge wanted them to be and they’ve been led up a deceptive path.
So as inconvenient as it is, these things have to be handled through the courts, until we change the system. When my daughter was in Alaska (a state that is very backward in some ways but very progressive in others), the courts there have police stationed in the courts for the specific purpose of enforcing orders. The judge makes an order (in my daughter’s case, for the father to turn her infant over to her), the person is given a few hours to comply voluntarily, and if they do not, the storm troopers pay a home visit. They travel in twos, unless the judge and the officers confer and think there will be trouble. In cases like that, more are deployed. Every single day there is a duty judge who can hear an enforcement plea and turn loose the dogs (so to speak). It’s intimidating as hell but it’s also very effective. The head officer at the courthouse interfaces with the judge and his/her clerk to ensure that children get to see both parents, as ordered. It’s something we need to consider in the lower 48 imho.
(Having said that, the other side of this argument is that if handled improperly it could be very intimidating to kids, so there are two sides to the argument). When something like 50/50 is the norm (in the absence of abuse or neglect), these kinds of actions become less necessary.
I’m going to hazard a guess that is 130 dyn (days) (net tinder) predjuidce and means that they are expecting you to pay the whole thing within 130 days or they will go after you.
I’ll add to that, briefly. If a dad does a child support agreement with the new baby-momma and any subsequent baby mommas and takes it to court and gets the judge to sign off (they’ll be happy to) it protects some of their income, because the judge figuring out child one’s suport has to take the other obligations into consideration if there are subsequent orders. Without an order, they don’t have to consider it an obligation. So if I were the dad, I’d sign on the dotted line; if I were baby-momma #1, I’d pray he didn’t.
This is a case where dads have seemed to have a real disadvantage in Lousiana. Judges almost always point out dads knew they had a child support obligation before they had another child. Lousiana code allows it to be considered as change of circumstance, but doesn’t require it.
I’m a bit more cynical than Lex — having been through the evaluation route myself I couldn’t believe how low 2500 each was. For evaluations, supervised exchanges and a guardian ad litem our expenses came to over 6K each. The judge split it down the middle even though one of us was making 3600+ plus a month and one was on unemployment. In all fairness, it only went to evaluation and then a GAL after one party appealed the original judge’s decision.
The two parties can figure out how to work it out, or one or both can ensure the kids are the losers. If the two parties aren’t mature enough to figure out how to be parents together, then they won’t be able to figure out how to follow court orders. Again, the kids are the losers.
Until judges learn to consider the mental health of the parents in decision making, and learn to recognize sociopathic or narcississtic behavior for what it is, using the kids for weapons will remain commonplace.
First of all, this is not harassment; it is the way things are done legally.
Secondly, she can subpoena your wife or the guy that drives the local bus route or the pilot of a shrim boat. The judge has to sign off on subpoenas and the judge knows the rules and decides who to sign and who to not. My first response when looking at this is to say she is pretty smart; there is something called an ‘in-kind’ benefit and looking at this, she is going to allege you are receiveing in-kind benefits from your wife. If she can show this, then your wife’s income WILL come into play to the extent that it benefits you directly. Also given that you married this woman instead of remaining cleverly single, your wife’s income is legally half yours (remember: community property state). To that extent a clever attorney can argue that you have access legally to half of the wife’s income, not to mention a half of any business increase and so on. Is this typical? Not really, unless things are hotly contested (and yours seems to be) or unless the attorney is very clever (and your ex seems clever). Here’s the cool thing. You could argue your ex-wife is receiving in-kind benefits from her boyfriend, but she’d just toss him out and go stay at his place when she wanted some sweetness. There’s no obligation for him to support her or give her money; there IS an obligation for your wife to support you and/or give you money.
As to going back to court for income increases, there’s a stuatory period that income MUST be reviewed (I think 3 years but I might be out of date on this). So it will happen every statuatory period. In the meantime if she can show that it is likely there was enough of an increase in between to show you would owe more money (“change in circumstance”) or if HER financial position decreases (you refuse to pay the support, for example, leading to a negative change in circumstance on her part), then she can ask for a review. Further, you are supposed to exchange tax returns every year. That’s normal. She’s only expecting you to do what you’re already supposed to be doing.
So basically you were willing to do anything to get out of the marriage, for whatever reason. Well, you are out of it. Did you have a pre-nuptial agreement with this wife? If you did, you might have been able to keep her assets protected. I’m guessing you didn’t, or she wouldn’t be signing the support checks.
First lesson in the ex-game: Sign your own checks. Men always think it hurts their exes to get a check from their wife. It doesn’t. It DOES give them more fuel to pour on the fire and effectively proves that you have access to your wife’s money.
I was under the impression that the three areas the pre-nup cannot cover in Louisiana include child support, child custody, and a spouse’s right to receive alimony (or how much). Is that not the case?
If Pamelot feels there is a confict of interest, what’s the correct action? I tend to think she should ask to have him removed from the case because she perceives it is a conflict of interest for him to be an attorney representing a corproation she jointly owns. This will undoubtledly become part of a divorce action, so how would it be possible for him to represent both her interests and the corporation’s interests?
Instead of trying to guess ANYTHING, why not pay for a meeting with your attorney and say: I’m concerned that you’re not giving this the priority I feel that it needs. There must be a reason. I realize a lot of time and money goes into a contempt rule. On the other hand, I know it is possible that this particular judge does not like contempt rules and tends to not grant the relief needed. Could you tell me which it is? Is there anything I can do to get this ball rolling?