Ok... where to start... I am a father and my child lives in another state with her mother. Her mother is married and has been for quite a few years. My child's mother is leaving her husband and plans to move back to the state in which I live. My child's mother and I have had a court ordered child support order in the past(I paid her), but we've since worked out a verbal agreement and have cancelled the court order(a couple of years ago). The stepfather is angry over the coming divorce and has threatened me verbally that he is going to sue me over "back" child support that he thinks HE is entitled to for having played a part in raising my child. Is he in any way entitled to anything like that??? My child's mother and I are not getting back together, and she is prepared to help defend me if need be. Her soon to be ex-husband is looking to blame someone for his marital problems and is trying to blame me because his wife and I are still friends. What rights does he have and what rights do I have to protect myself against an angry stepparent? Any advice is much appreciated.

We did go through the proper channels to change the child support order. There is no child support order as of a couple of years ago. We both signed off that we have agreed to handle child support ourselves. We have been civil toward each other and have had no problems other than her husband complaining that I wasn't paying enough(He seems to think I should be paying thousands of dollars or something). As of this moment, there is NO court order for child support in effect.

He claims to have spoken with an attorney that tells him he has every legal right to sue and collect on any money he paid out to support my kid. He could be just blowing smoke, but I just want to be sure. Has anyone else ever run into a problem like this?

N0help4u

Let him threaten all he wants if he pursues it he is going to look like mud.
Child support is for the child! He married woman WITH child so HE took on and accepted the responsibility to be a step dad. That does not make him entitled to anything.

purplewings

My son and the mother of his daughter did the same thing. He paid her a specific amount and they went to FOC together, where she signed off on all arrearages and dropped her claim. It's very legal. Hopefully you have kept a copy of this because some states are great at collecting from people who have no proof it's been dropped.

In my son's case, the child support had ceased but the state went after him in an identical amount to pay back so-called funds the mother had collected from ADC, (even though she was married and had two other children at this time). His father passed away last year, leaving him a reasonable inheritance. The state immediately moved in and ceased $13,000 of his funds claiming it was repayment to the state for the above mentioned costs. He had never been told he owed anything and the state had attached all of his tax refunds for years previous. Now he continues to receive bills monthly as if he'd paid nothing.
SAVE ALL RECEIPTS AND INVOICES!

Let's hope the guy calms down and finds another outlet because it's never nice to have to fight to prove these things.

If the man had objected to it previously, that was the time to say so. Now he'll just sound like a vengeful idiot. Best of luck to you.

macksmom

Your ex's husband has no involvement in child support. Never was he told he had to support the child. The agreement is between the biological parents of the child....not step-parents. He won't be able to do anything to get you to pay him a dime.

GV70

Under the common law, a stepparent has no duty to financially support a stepchild during the marriage to the child's natural parent merely by reason of the marriage. Stated otherwise, the relationship of stepparent and stepchild does not, in and of itself, impose any obligation of support.
A mother and father owe a duty to support their children, and this duty is not displaced by the custodial parent's marriage to a new spouse, the "stepparent," or by the fact that the parent may be cohabitating with another person.
In the absence of a statute, under the common law, marriage alone does not obligate a stepparent to support his or her stepchild.
Quite interestingly, because the law imposes no duty on a stepparent to support a stepchild outside the in loco parentis relationship, if an in loco parentis relationship has not been established during the marriage, a stepparent may argue on divorce that any support actually provided to a stepchild during the marriage constitutes a "drain" on marital resources, and that the stepparent is therefore entitled to a larger share of the equitable distribution award.It is an absolute truism that parents cannot, by way of contract, limit or otherwise negate their duty to support their children. It is also true, however, that parents can always agree by contract to provide support in excess of what they would otherwise be legally required to provide.

GV70

HERE IS AN EXAMPLE:
§43-118.
15. a. (1) Child support orders may be modified upon a material change
in circumstances.
(4) An order of modification shall be effective upon the date the
motion to modify was filed, unless the parties agree to the contrary
or the court makes a specific finding of fact that the material change
of circumstance did not occur until a later date.

b. (1) A child support order shall not be modified retroactively
regardless of whether support was ordered in a temporary order, a
decree of divorce, an order establishing paternity, modification of an
order of support, or other action to establish or to enforce support.
e. (1) If the parents agree to a modification of a child support
order, their agreement shall be in writing on a standard agreed order
form provided for in Section 120 of this title and shall comply with
the child support guidelines.
True...but if the mother IS NOT married and undertakes ALL the expences for child/ren's nurturing.She CANNOT impose financial obligation to the step-father instead father.
That's the reason for me to assert that the step-father has right to be reimbursed for his expences.In my view it will not be hard for SP to sue his /ex/-wife,to make OP as a party/unjust enrichment,avoid his child support obligations,etc.../and let the judge to decide...It is easy these sorts of agreements to be annuled by court.Parents HAVE duty to support their children .These agreements do not have/even aproved by court/ good legal merrits.

N0help4u

So how would he go about proving what amount he is owed?
How would he go about proving what a ''drain'' the child was? Would he have to produce receipts?
Since the child support was terminated in court would that make the bio dad or the mother responsible to pay the step dad?

GV70

Another example:

Under Utah law a material change in circumstances occurs, for purposes of child support modification, if any of the following are true:
(a) There has been a material change in custody;
(b) There has been a material change in the relative wealth or assets of the parties;
(c) There has been a material change of 30% of more in the income of a parent;
(d) There has been a material change in the ability of a parent to earn;
(e) There has been a material change in the medical needs of the child(ren); or
(f) There has been a material change in the legal responsibilities of either parent for the support of others.
ANOTHER EXAMPLE:
Utah Code, Section 78-45-4.2
78-45-4.2. Natural or adoptive parent has primary obligation of support--Right of stepparent to recover support
Nothing contained herein shall act to relieve the natural parent or adoptive parent of the primary obligation of support; furthermore, a stepparent has the same right to recover support for a stepchild from the natural or adoptive parent as any other obligee.
Cox v. Cox, 882 P.2d 909 Alaska Supreme Court-error not to consider husband's support for wife's children by prior marriage as a relevant factor.... However,given the controversy in this case over the establishment and character of Vicki's daughters' bank accounts, C.B.'s support is a relevant factor that the trial court should have considered ...

N0help4u

It might help to have their states.

GV70

Easy!!!
First-CS IS NOT terminated by court but by agreement/approved or not/.It makes this agreement REVOCABLE.
Second-he would not have to produce receipts.If the father pays less than state's guidances for CS ,his payments should be calculated retroactive.
No one can put financial obligations to the third party.