At Ask Me Help Desk you can ask questions in any topic and have them
answered for free by our experts. To ask questions or participate in
answering them you must register for a free account. By registering you
will be able to:
Get free answers from experts in any of our 300+
topics.
Hello, My boyfriend and I have been together for eight years and have 2 children together, we both work but are struggling to make ends meet, He also has a child support order for his oldest son. A woman is now coming out and asking him for a paternity test for her 12 year old daughter because the father got a test last year and found out it was not his child after caring for her and paying child support one other guy was tested and he is not the father so now my boyfriend has to go get a test next week, This womans name is listed on his child support as parent to receive support (My boyfriends current order for other son has her name as well ,). He also received a letter that if this child is his he will have to pay back support to her and the welfare system because she was on welfare, I am all for a parent paying support but why should he have to pay back welfare for her if this is his child (she does resemble our son).
"Retroactive support" is a support amount established for a time period before the start date (or effective date) of a child support obligation. The start date is the date when the first payment is due. Support that is effective on or after the start date is considered to be "ongoing support". A retroactive support amount is owed to the state when clients assign their rights to support to the state when they receive Public Assistance for their children. A retroactive support amount is owed to the client if CSE establishes a support amount based on the NCP’s fair share of specific expenses that were incurred by that client for the child(ren) prior to the start date of the support obligation, or by establishing an amount pursuant to the guidelines for the time period for which support is sought.
Since June 30, 1975, acceptance of Public Assistance on behalf of a child creates a debt due and owing the state. Under the authority of 110-135, if child support was required to be paid for a period when Public Assistance was received, that support is owed to the state. CSE must address retroactive support owed to the state if Public Assistance was received for a child whenever an ongoing support obligation is being established.
If an ongoing obligation is not established, CSE does not pursue retroactive support owed to the state. (For example: The court establishes paternity but does not order ongoing support because the NCP is 17 years old and in school, or the client and NCP reunite after the establishment process has begun and no ongoing support is established. In these situations, an obligation for retroactive support that is owed to the state should not be established.) If ongoing support is established at a later date and the statute of limitation has not been reached, CSE addresses the establishment of retroactive support owed to the state.
Retroactive support is owed to the state for a time period prior to the start date of the order because Public Assistance was paid on behalf of the child. When clients receive Public Assistance, they assign their rights to support to the state. Because of the legal principles of "res judicata" and "collateral estoppel", CSE must address the issue of retroactive support owed to the state when establishing child support obligations.
"Retroactive support" is a support amount established for a time period before the start date (or effective date) of a child support obligation. The start date is the date when the first payment is due. Support that is effective on or after the start date is considered to be "ongoing support". A retroactive support amount is owed to the state when clients assign their rights to support to the state when they receive Public Assistance for their children. A retroactive support amount is owed to the client if CSE establishes a support amount based on the NCP’s fair share of specific expenses that were incurred by that client for the child(ren) prior to the start date of the support obligation, or by establishing an amount pursuant to the guidelines for the time period for which support is sought.
Since June 30, 1975, acceptance of Public Assistance on behalf of a child creates a debt due and owing the state. Under the authority of 110-135, if child support was required to be paid for a period when Public Assistance was received, that support is owed to the state. CSE must address retroactive support owed to the state if Public Assistance was received for a child whenever an ongoing support obligation is being established.
If an ongoing obligation is not established, CSE does not pursue retroactive support owed to the state. (For example: The court establishes paternity but does not order ongoing support because the NCP is 17 years old and in school, or the client and NCP reunite after the establishment process has begun and no ongoing support is established. In these situations, an obligation for retroactive support that is owed to the state should not be established.) If ongoing support is established at a later date and the statute of limitation has not been reached, CSE addresses the establishment of retroactive support owed to the state.
Retroactive support is owed to the state for a time period prior to the start date of the order because Public Assistance was paid on behalf of the child. When clients receive Public Assistance, they assign their rights to support to the state. Because of the legal principles of "res judicata" and "collateral estoppel", CSE must address the issue of retroactive support owed to the state when establishing child support obligations.
You still did not tell me how he could of taken care of this 12 years ago
You want to know how he could have taken care of this from the get-go? By checking back with her for at least 9 months after they hooked up to see if she was pregnant. By keeping it in his pants to begin with. By having better sense than to think that sex and babies aren't linked.
Like I said before...if you don't like the idea of supporting this woman, then go to court and get custody.
You want to know how he could have taken care of this from the get-go? By checking back with her for at least 9 months after they hooked up to see if she was pregnant. By keeping it in his pants to begin with. By having better sense than to think that sex and babies aren't linked.
Like I said before...if you don't like the idea of supporting this woman, then go to court and get custody.
You want to know how he could have taken care of this from the get-go? By checking back with her for at least 9 months after they hooked up to see if she was pregnant. By keeping it in his pants to begin with. By having better sense than to think that sex and babies aren't linked.
Like I said before...if you don't like the idea of supporting this woman, then go to court and get custody.
This is a woman who has mutual freinds we have seen her at cookouts over the past couple of years and she never mentioned once that he could be the father, that child was calling someone else daddy for 11 years and now that he got a test and it proved he was not the father. So I guess that is my boyfriend fault. She should not have named just any man as the father if she knew she slept with at least 3 people around the same time. My boyfriend is willing to step up to the plate if she is his daughter, But she needs to get off welfare and get a job
you should layoff the vodka when trying to answer a question
You are rude and ignorant beyond belief.
You asked a LEGAL question, it was answered - and answered and answered. GV70 did a ton of research which he posted ... but that's not good enough for you.
What answer do you want from "us?" I already said this is not a debate board - if that is your interest, go post there. Post on the Public Opinion Board and everyone can gather together and discuss injustice in the World - this is most definitely NOT that Board.
This is a LEGAL board and you have the answer to your LEGAL question - an answer which apparently you don't want to hear or believe or understand.
I believe "Mary" is making the point that your "man" has 4 children by 3 women and you are now picking up the pieces after him. That's all. I believe she is also concerned that the taxpayers are going to be taking care of you and your kids at some point down the road.
I guarantee you don't have enough money to pay GV70 for the time he spent on your post(s) and you aren't even grateful to him and you aren't going to find his level of expertise FOR FREE anywhere else.
So retain an Attorney and go and argue with him/her. You asked the question, you got the answer. Enough already.
OK- I am not interested in her sexual experience...I am not interested whether she has a job or not...You wrote,"So I guess that is my boyfriend fault."
Perhaps, but people have to live with the consequences of their actions and lives.
This is a woman who has mutual freinds we have seen her at cookouts over the past couple of years and she never mentioned once that he could be the father, that child was calling someone else daddy for 11 years and now that he got a test and it proved he was not the father. So I guess that is my boyfriend fault. She should not have named just any man as the father if she knew she slept with at least 3 people around the same time. My boyfriend is willing to step up to the plate if she is his daughter, But she needs to get off welfare and get a job
I trust everyone is getting regular AIDS/HIV testing? The math on the number of partners here could be staggering - and each one carries the sexual disease history of the others.
(Probably not a good subject, by the way, to bring up over hot dogs at a cook out.)
You asked a LEGAL question, it was answered - and answered and answered. GV70 did a ton of research which he posted ... but that's not good enough for you.
What answer do you want from "us?" I already said this is not a debate board - if that is your interest, go post there. Post on the Public Opinion Board and everyone can gather together and discuss injustice in the World - this is most definitely NOT that Board.
This is a LEGAL board and you have the answer to your LEGAL question - an answer which apparently you don't want to hear or believe or understand.
I believe "Mary" is making the point that your "man" has 4 children by 3 women and you are now picking up the pieces after him. That's all. I believe she is also concerned that the taxpayers are going to be taking care of you and your kids at some point down the road.
I guarantee you don't have enough money to pay GV70 for the time he spent on your post(s) and you aren't even grateful to him and you aren't going to find his level of expertise FOR FREE anywhere else.
So retain an Attorney and go and argue with him/her. You asked the question, you got the answer. Enough already.
I am not rude, I appreciate everyones answer but did you read what this person wrote, if you did read it again and realize she has no clue what she is talking about, it has nothing to do with the subject
You are wrong to think that legal and logical are equal
Linear Mode
