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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 annulled by court.Parents HAVE duty to support their children .These agreements do not have/even aproved by court/ good legal merrits.

U
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.

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?

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...

It might help to have their states.

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?
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.

So even if the court said the biological dad is free from paying child support he is still responsible to pay the step dad?

New Jersey Christensen v. Chrsitensen
A step father who acquiesced in the mother's efforts to keep the child from seeing the biological father and from seeking child support from the biological father was responsible for child support.

In an interesting side note, the Court stated that it was not ruling on the obligation of the biological father, and may well find, under appropriate circumstances, that both a biological and a step parent have concurrent child support obligations.

California FAMILY.CODE
SECTION 3950-3952

3950. If a parent neglects to provide articles necessary for the parent's child who is under the charge of the parent, according to the circumstances of the parent, a third person may in good faith supply the necessaries and recover their reasonable value from the parent.


It may be used S.C. Unjust enrichment,
/for example-"We assume for purposes of this opinion that supporting a nonbiological child confers a benefit on the biological parent."-STATE OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF APPEALS No. 96-0279 /

Legally:the social policy and law require PARENTS to have primary support obligation.The law varies from state to state. If OP and his ex-wife have an agreement/notwithstanding approved or not/ where it's stated OP has to pay less than state's guidances,the stepfather HAS A CASE because their agreement violates his interests.He can sue his soon-to-be ex-wife,or BOTH her and OP/it is very possible the OP to be joyned as a party... /.Their agreement CANNOT be against child's interest to receive adequate child support and CANNOT impose additional support obligation to the stepfather.

so even if the court said the biological dad is free from paying child support he is still responsible to pay the step dad?

New Jersey Christensen v. Chrsitensen
a step father who acquiesced in the mother's efforts to keep the child from seeing the biological father and from seeking child support from the biological father was responsible for child support.

In an interesting side note, the Court stated that it was not ruling on the obligation of the biological father, and may well find, under appropriate circumstances, that both a biological and a step parent have concurrent child support obligations.
Christensen v. Chrsitensen is a different case and cannot be used as a precedent here.

Her husband has no interest in this, and has no standing to sue you for anything,

It's true the stepfather is not obligated to support the children BUT if the wife went before FOC with a signed agreement and the courts accepted and stamped this, it is presumed to have been acceptable by her husband at the time. I think the courts realize that you have paid something of importance to her or she would not have released you.

It is also a legal agreement and binding until another case is filed with FOC. This is what the court form says. However, as I stated, the court may decide to go after you for expenses incurred by your ex-wife, IF the state assisted at any level. You may need to seek an attorney if this person does go after you.

Ok Im going to take a shot at this one.
" quote " California FAMILY.CODE
SECTION 3950-3952

3950. If a parent neglects to provide articles necessary for the parent's child who is under the charge of the parent, according to the circumstances of the parent, a third person may in good faith supply the necessaries and recover their reasonable value from the parent.
" end quote "


This code refers to neglegence and the OP hasn't said anything about being neglegent. As far as a step parent is concerned or a live in partner in Cali their income can be included as a whole when calculating child support. This number will offset a child support payment either way. Given that as a base then it proves that by relationship or marriage there is an obligation that is natural to a couple where one or both have children from a previous marriage / relationship. So unless there are extrodinary expenses involved ( like child needed braces and step dad gave ALL the monies for it ) then at least in Cali I don't think he is going to recover anything. The fact that what the person pays may or may not be below state levels have nothing to do with it if a court has granted its approval on it. There may be separate deals going on in a relationship that could involve who pays for what and when that isn't even considered during child support orders. Is every child entitled to a collage education ? I wish it were so but for many the child will still have to work to pay their way through. But that being said a lot of CS orders demand a dad pays for it and mothers run away scott free of obligation. So bottom line is there is an expected cost to marrying a woman / man with a child or children. There is an assumed burden by the agreeing party beforehand. CS is a mess and many states are trying to produce guidelines that follow federal law and try to make it consistent across the board but it still has a long way to go.

It's true the stepfather is not obligated to support the children BUT if the wife went before FOC with a signed agreement and the courts accepted and stamped this, it is presumed to have been acceptable by her husband at the time.
But it's revocable act!

I think the courts realize that you have paid something of importance to her or she would not have released you.
The child support has to be paid for child's upbringing ! Other factors are irrelevant.
Finally-if their agreement violated state's CS guidances and imposed support obligation to the third party/stepfather/ without a material change in circumstances,this agreement does not have legal merits/i.e. it can be revoced/ notwithstanding that it was aproved by Court before.

Thanks all for your responses.The truth is:we waived all child support payments two years ago.I haven't paid child support for two years but it was our agreement.

Then he may be able to get you for some money.

As far as a step parent is concerned or a live in partner in Cali their income can be included as a whole when calculating child support. This number will offset a child support payment either way.
:confused: :confused: :confused:

http://www.childsup.ca.gov/Portals/0/resources/docs/GdlnCalculator.pdf
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES
Page 24:New Spouse Income
"The information is used to calculate the tax, but is not added to the income considered when calculating child support payments."

:confused: :confused: :confused:

http://www.childsup.ca.gov/Portals/0/resources/docs/GdlnCalculator.pdf
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES
Page 24:New Spouse Income
"The information is used to calculate the tax, but is not added to the income considered when calculating child support payments."

As far as that reference is concerned it's a good one for using the calculator as it is not automatic that both incomes can be combined. But further in the document it talks about impuned income and that's when it can come into play. It must be by court order. Example : If an ex spouse were working as a secretary and then married having a child from previous relationship and decides to be a housewife ( domestic engineer ) and to dedicate herself to home and relationship ( i.e. quit qorking outside the home ) then that would not release the person from having a child support payment and for the purpose of calculation the new husbands income would be included. Same would be for going from full time work to part time. ( end example )

Marriage is a legal and binding contract and when 2 persons enter into it they also assume the wealth and debts of the other party. Unless somewhere it says that child support is always separate and never a part of a responsibility of a marriage then by the grounds that were formally stated any ex with a chip on their shoulder could sue because they don't think someone paid enough. There has to be an end somewhere.

Thanks all for your responces.The truth is:we waived all child support payments two years ago.I haven't paid child support for two years but it was our agreement.

And to you Sir. You should be paying child support until your child reaches emancipation. At a minimum put the monies into a trust for your child for collage or use for later in life. You have a legal and moral obligation to pay. And if you haven't been paying then the others are correct in what they say about collecting damages because you were negligent in your obligation. Your child's welfare should have been primary concern.

Hopefully questions aren't answered with lectures on this site. In my mind it would be a sure deterrent to asking.

Hopefully questions aren't answered with lectures on this site. In my mind it would be a sure deterrent to asking.


There is often a thin line between the legal and the moral arguments - and I have crossed it myself.

Please don't judge anyone.

example : If an ex spouse were working as a secratary and then married having a child from previous relationship and decides to be a housewife ( domestic engineer ) and to dedicate herself to home and relationship ( i.e. quit qorking outside the home ) then that would not release the person from having a child support payment and for the purpose of calculation the new husbands income would be included. Same would be for going from full time work to part time. ( end example )
Second example:If an ex-spouse were working as a secretary and then married haaving a child from previous relationship and decides to remain a secretary,the CS will not be increased.If a person earns $3,000 a month and pays $ 750 as CS ,marry to a person who earns $ 6,000 a month the CS will remain same... and shoudn't be $1,750.

purplewings disagrees: I don't think it's up to you to tell me what to say. People don't come here for lectures.


Very surprised that you chose to post this as a "reddie."

Comments on this postpurplewings (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/members/purplewings.html) disagrees: I don't think it's up to you to tell me what to say. People don't come here for lectures.

First, may I call your attention to the guidelines for using the comments feature found here:

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/feedback/using-comments-feature-24951.html

I find this almost laughable. You don't think it up to Judy to tell you what to say, but you have no problem in telling her what to say. That anytime you post a public comment, ANYONE else has the right to add their own comment on what you posted as long as that comment doesn't violate the site's guidelines.

No, people don't come here for lectures, but sometimes, a lecture is an appropriate response to the question.

:)

:)
English translation :

A person must make herself happy before another. Did you do it?


I cannot help it I am in love with me with emotion, on the spiritual level and physically. Confidence is the key with the fact of carrying out a good life with prosperity, the love, the respect and the beauty.

Link to online free translator :

AltaVista - Babel Fish Translation (http://world.altavista.com/)

[QUOTE=califdadof3]English translation :

A person must make herself happy before another. Did you do it?


I cannot help it I am in love with me with emotion, on the spiritual level and physically. Confidence is the key with the fact of carrying out a good life with prosperity, the love, the respect and the beauty.


I thought it meant: "Look - I can post a smiley face and speak French."

Thanks for the translation. (Interesting site - didn't know it existed.)

JudyKayTee, I apologize for responding with a rating. Didn't realize that was how this site rates, and you asked not to be messaged. If there is a way to remove the rating I will - let me know how. I wanted the comment between you and I and not as a post up for public censure. We all have opinions and no one of us is 100% right or wrong all the time.

BTW, there is another site that translates well also, and is free and immediate: I've used it for years. I used it days ago for this and got the same as posted above from Babel Fish.

Free Translation and Professional Translation Services from SDL International (http://www.freetranslation.com/)

Wishing you a lovely day.

[QUOTE=purplewings]JudyKayTee, I apologize for responding with a rating. Didn't realize that was how this site rates, and you asked not to be messaged. If there is a way to remove the rating I will - let me know how. I wanted the comment between you and I and not as a post up for public censure. We all have opinions and no one of us is 100% right or wrong all the time.



No problem - once it's posted I believe it's forever. The site is confusing at first, I agree.

As far as the "no private message" is concerned that's addressed to the lunatic fringe and you don't qualify.

Thanks for the apology, everybody makes mistakes... and welcome to the forum.

Where is the OP from? In my state, I could marry a millionaire and his income means squat as far as child support goes. The only thing considered (whether I were to work or not) is what I earn or am CAPABLE of earning based on previous employment and education. That is considered along with what BIO dad earns, or is capable of earning. (If he is holding a low paying job to get reduced payments he can still end up paying more due to his income potential.) And in my state, the cost of child care is a factor, although it doesn't significantly increase or reduce payments. Step-parents are not awarded damages for financial strain due to the cost of raising step-children. If you marry a person with a child you should either plan to contribute to the support of your new family, or have worked out the details of how finances will be run in the household before you marry. Besides, this man is probably just trying to blow smoke because he is angry at his ex/wife. Ignore it unless you are actually served.

Thanks all for your responces.The truth is:we waived all child support payments two years ago.I haven't paid child support for two years but it was our agreement.

It seems to me this is the nut of the issue and several people here have not picked up on the legal point that GV70 has been making. Legally, neither parent can waive child support, no matter how much they agree. Support belongs to the child and is owed regardless of what either parent says. So an agreement between the mother and Concerned Dad that he will pay no support has no legal standing. You continue to owe child support; you just haven't paid it. That might be a surprise, but I am pretty confident about the truth of that. GV70 is right.

The reason that a mother (or father) cannot waive child support is that one parent could coerce the other parent into such an agreement. Since it is obviously not in the interest of the child, it is simply outlawed.

So the step father has a point if the unpaid child support was significant amount of money. Whether the step father can collect form Concerned Dad or the mother I have no idea.

I would be interested in knowing on what grounds you agreed not to pay child support. We don't need to know that, but I am curious to know what the reasoning was.

Good luck dealing with the angry step father.
Asking

That may be true but if so, why does the FOC have forms available for just that reason?
Is it there as an entrapment device?

My son had agreed to pay the mother quite a lot of money when she was having personal problems. They went together afterwards to Friend of Court and filled out the forms, that were then signed by the Referee. In other words he had paid all his payments to her and more -
A parent can pay support directly to the mother if FOC is not involved and that was how they decided to handle it in the future.

However, a few months down the road, FOC attached his bank account without any warning and took another several thousand dollars... Being a State Agency, there is no way he can even figure out what it's all about. No one on one communication available.

Is FOC friend of court? I don't know enough about the details of your son's case or your state's laws to know. I'm talking about an overarching principle of family law.

Child support cannot be waived (unlike alimony).

As long as the state does not have to provide funds to your son's children, the agreement can stand. As long as your son's family stays out of court, the agreement can stand. But once a judge becomes involved, he or she does not have to respect the agreement. And once the state finds itself paying anything to the family, it can then overturn the agreement and go after whichever parent owes money to the children. If the state has to pay money to the family, it will not respect any such agreement. It can only stand if the family stays out of court and does not ask for any kind of support from the state.

Does that make sense? I'm just saying the general idea. Obviously, I don't know anything about your son. I'm not implying that he's done anythng wrong! But I thought it would help you to know how the law thinks about it. Maybe FOC attached his bank account because your ex daughter in law made some claim for financial assistance? If she did, they would demand to know the name of her children's father and they would look to see if he was legally responsible for supporting the children. Even if they knew about the agreement--and it's possible they didn't--they could still ignore it. I'm just guessing wildly though. I obviously don't know what really happened.

I hope you are able to sort it out. I know how frustrating bureacracies are! But if you keep making phone calls, eventually you'll probably find someone who can explain what's going on. Sounds like you should get help from a family law attorney.

Good luck!

My son had agreed to pay the mother quite a lot of money when she was having personal problems. They went together afterwards to Friend of Court and filled out the forms, that were then signed by the Referee. In other words he had paid all his payments to her and more -
A parent can pay support directly to the mother if FOC is not involved and that was how they decided to handle it in the future.

I think he should assemble a written record of his payments to her, canceled checks and anything else he can find. If it was all cash with no receipts, it is going to be very hard to prove he paid her. Talk to a lawyer!

Is FOC friend of court? I don't know enough about the details of your son's case or your state's laws to know. I'm talking about an overarching principle of family law.

Child support cannot be waived (unlike alimony).

As long as the state does not have to provide funds to your son's children, the agreement can stand. As long as your son's family stays out of court, the agreement can stand. But once a judge becomes involved, he or she does not have to respect the agreement. And once the state finds itself paying anything to the family, it can then overturn the agreement and go after whichever parent owes money to the children. If the state has to pay money to the family, it will not respect any such agreement. It can only stand if the family stays out of court and does not ask for any kind of support from the state.

Does that make sense? I'm just saying the general idea. Obviously, I don't know anything about your son. I'm not implying that he's done anythng wrong! But I thought it would help you to know how the law thinks about it. Maybe FOC attached his bank account because your ex daughter in law made some claim for financial assistance? If she did, they would demand to know the name of her children's father and they would look to see if he was legally responsible for supporting the children. Even if they knew about the agreement--and it's possible they didn't--they could still ignore it. I'm just guessing wildly though. I obviously don't know what really happened.

I hope you are able to sort it out. I know how frustrating bureacracies are! But if you keep making phone calls, eventually you'll probably find someone who can explain what's going on. Sounds like you should get help from a family law attorney.

Good luck!

Under very rare situaton child support can be waived. Most of the situations invole paying off the total amount in whole when there is little chance of deviation or in the case of overpayments then the credits can caus a child support case to be closed. In those types of cases the other obligations still remain ( health insurance and medical expenses of and for the child / children ). Also child support is intended for the child but in reality it belongs to the custodial parent to do with as they wish. There isn't laws that require child support to be used for only the benefit of the child. The only way waving child support is through the courts directly and not by separate agreement. The best interests of the children always must remain premier.

This wasn't my posting but you have helped me figure things out and I thank you for that.

Califdadof3 - "As long as the state does not have to provide funds to your son's children, the agreement can stand. As long as your son's family stays out of court, the agreement can stand. But once a judge becomes involved, he or she does not have to respect the agreement. And once the state finds itself paying anything to the family, it can then overturn the agreement and go after whichever parent owes money to the children. If the state has to pay money to the family, it will not respect any such agreement. It can only stand if the family stays out of court and does not ask for any kind of support from the state."
My son never married the mother of his child as they were both very young at the time. She later married and had two children by that husband.
She did apply for state aid after the agreement with my son, but I can't see how they could determine that amount was owed by my son while she had two other children living there.

Perhaps a family law attorney would be a good idea. Thank you Asking for you thoughts too.

My son never married the mother of his child as they were both very young at the time. She later married and had two children by that husband.
She did apply for state aid after the agreement with my son, but I can't see how they could determine that amount was owed by my son while she had two other children living there.
"She did apply for state aid after the agreement with my son... "
What is relation between these two other children and CS which has to be paid by your son:confused:

"She did apply for state aid after the agreement with my son..."
What is relation between these two other children and CS which has to be paid by your son:confused:
He has no relationship at all to the other two children. That's the part I find odd in their collecting funds from him.

He has no relationship at all to the other two children. That's the part I find odd in their collecting funds from him.
Excuse me but I still cannot understand... He was stuck in paying child support for these other children:confused:

That's really the crux of this. The state won't tell him why he's paying this huge amount. Evidently, the mother has applied for benefits from ADC and this goes into his child support. The father of the other two children is not available for paying anything at this time. I think as some have said earlier, he needs to get an attorney to straighten this all out.

Under very rare situaton child support can be waived. Most of the situations invole paying off the total amount in whole

Isn't that just paying it in advance?

And of course I agree with everything you've said.
Asking

Isn't that just paying it in advance?

And of course I agree with everything you've said.
Asking
Yes that's what it is. But usually can only be done if things will be stable or at least assumed to be. Lets say you have a child that's 16 y/o and the NCP has been paying child support on time. If it were say $500 per month and if that's a figure that the courts agree on then it may be possible for the NCP to pay a lump sum of $12,000 to the custodial parent and have the courts OK it thereby relieving the NCP of further support ( assuming it runs until 18 years of age ) but is DOEST NOT relieve the NCP of paying their fair share of medical related expenses nor can the drop insurance on the child that must remain in effect for the duration. A lot of courts don't really like to adjust child support much more often then every 2 years at most. They can do it sooner but they have enough caseload already.

I hope that clears it up for you.

BTW if the NCP tried that with $60,000 and make a one time payment for 10 years worth of child support then that most likely can't be done because a lot can happen in 10 years.

That's really the crux of this. The state won't tell him why he's paying this huge amount. Evidently, the mother has applied for benefits from ADC and this goes into his child support. The father of the other two children is not available for paying anything at this time. I think as some have said earlier, he needs to get an attorney to straighten this all out.



The state must tell him because they can't just take monies from you without a court order in place. I know they will try to do anything they can but it doesn't sound legal to me. What state is your son in or that his case is out of. Anytime they take anything from you they owe you an explination.

This is Michigan and our state is really in need of money right now. There was no court order in his case. They may have needed something like that to get the money directly from his bank account, but he was given nothing in explanation. He had sold some securities through the bank and was waiting for a $5,000 check so he could move, but before the check arrived, he was sent a notice from the Securities department that $4,700 had been taken by the state. Directly after that he received notice saying he owed another $680. Prior to that they froze his checking account and took his $3500 certificate of deposit. He didn't even know they had frozen his bank account until he wrote checks that bounced. In all it was over $13,000 and appears to have no end. He was not in arrears and in fact, because the court signed the agreement to end all FOC claims in his case, this seems like mobsters more that government.

He isn't a legal guardian of the child, so he never had any obligation to pay anything. He CHOOSE to pay what he did his case would be dismissed.

Hope this helps,
Louis.

That's really the crux of this. The state won't tell him why he's paying this huge amount. Evidently, the mother has applied for benefits from ADC and this goes into his child support. The father of the other two children is not available for paying anything at this time. I think as some have said earlier, he needs to get an attorney to straighten this all out.
Of course he needs a lawyer.
But I am still confused.What does exactly mean"huge amount"... for me "huge amount" is $ 500,000,000

He isn't a legal guardian of the child, so he never had any obligation to pay anything. He CHOOSE to pay what he did his case would be dismissed.

Hope this helps,
Louis.
He HAS legal obligation to support his step-child when parents do not support this child but his expences should be reimbursed.

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. E.g. Utah Code Ann. § 78-45-4.2 (1992) (the duty of a stepparent to support a stepchild does not relieve the natural parent of his or her duty of support). See DeTavis v. Aragon, 104 N.M. 793, 727 P.2d 558 (1986); Monroe County ex rel. Palermo v. Palermo, 192 A.D.2d 1114, 596 N.Y.S.2d 252 (1993); Stack v. Stack, 141 Pa. Super. 147, 15 A.2d 76 (1940); Niesen v. Niesen, 38 Wis. 2d 599, 157 N.W.2d 660 (1968). The natural parents owe the child the primary responsibility of support, and stepparets' liability for support can only be secondary. E.g. Duffey v. Duffey, 113 N.C. App. 382, 438 S.E.2d 445 (1994); Brandriet v. Larsen, 442 N.W.2f 455 (N.D. 1989).
A stepparent is obligated to support a stepchild during the marriage where (1) there is a statute imposing such a duty, or (2) the stepparent undertakes to act in loco parentis to the child.
B. Statutory Duty of a Stepparent to Support a Stepchild
Twenty states now have statutes imposing a duty on stepparents to support their stepchildren:
(1) Del. Code Ann. Tit. 13, § 501(b) (1994) (stepparent liable for support of stepchild during marriage);
(2) Haw. Rev. Stat. § 577-4 (1993) (stepparent liable for support of stepchild during marriage);
(3) Iowa Code Ann. §§ 252A.2(3) (Supp. 1996) (including stepchild in definition of children to whom a duty of support is owed);
(4) Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 205.310 (1995) (stepparent has duty to support stepchild during marriage);
(5) Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. Tit. 19, § 752(6) (Supp. 1995) (support may be ordered against third party where such party takes custody after divorce after showing of parental unfitness);
(6) Mo. Ann. Stat. § 568.040 (Supp. 1996) (criminal nonsupport statute applies equally to parents and stepparents);
(7) Mont. Code Ann. § 40-6-217 (1995) (if stepparent receives stepchild into family and supports him or her, stepparent is presumed to do so as a parent);
(8) Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-706 (1995) (criminal nonsupport statute applies to stepparents);
(9) Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 62.044 (1996) (stepparent liable to same extent as parent for neglect and dependency of child);
(10) N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 546-A:1, -A:2 (1974) (stepparent owes duty of support to stepchild during marriage);
(11) N.J. Stat. Ann. § 30:4C-2 (Supp. 1995) (includes as child under neglect and dependency proceedings a stepchild);
(12) N.Y. Fam. Ct. Act § 415 (1983); N.Y. Soc. Serv. Law § 101 (1992) (stepparent liable for support of stepchild to prevent the same from becoming a public charge);
(13) N.C. Gen. Stat. § 50-13.4 (1995) (any person standing in loco parentis to child has duty of support);
(14) N.D. Cent. Code § 14-09-09 (1991) (extending stepparent support duty during the marriage and so long thereafter as the stepchildren remain in the stepparent's family);
(15) Okla. Stat. Ann. Tit. 10, § 15 (1987) (stepparent has duty of support to stepchild);
(16) Or. Rev. Stat. § 109.053 (1990) (stepparent has duty of support to stepchild);
(17) S.D. Codified Laws Ann. § 25-7-8 (1992) (a stepparent shall maintain his spouse's children born prior to the marriage);
(18) Utah Code Ann. § 78-45-4.1 (1992) (imposes support duty on stepparent that terminates on divorce);
(19) Vt. Stat. Ann. Tit. 15, § 296 (1989) (stepparent has duty of support of stepchild);
(20) Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 26.16.205 (Supp. 1996) (imposes duty of support on stepparent which shall cease on termination of relationship between husband and wife).

Where a statute provides that a stepparent has a duty to support a stepchild, the statute is essentially no more than a codification of the doctrine of in loco parentis doctrine. The in loco parentis doctrine states that if a stepparent takes stepchildren into his or her family or under his or her care in such a way that he or she places himself or herself in loco parentis, then the stepparent assumes an obligation to support the stepchildren.

In loco parentis means “in place of parent.” The in loco parentis legal doctrine can be applied to both governmental and non-governmental entities, and is implicated “when a person [or legal entity] undertakes the care and control of another [person of legal incapacity] in the absence of such supervision by the latter's natural parents and in the absence of formal legal approval.”

Application of the in loco parentis doctrine requires, at minimum, that 1) the minor's parents are absent (either voluntarily by overt act or by forbearance, or because of an incident beyond the parents' control), 2) the adult caretaker on the scene is not the minor's legal guardian or custodian, and 3) the adult caretaker on the scene has, for the relevant time, assumed control over the routine care and basic control of the child (e.g. shelter, safety, food, medical care, bathing, clothing, transportation, education, nurturing).
The traditional in loco parentis doctrine entails a temporary delegation of parental power, not a permanent and involuntary derogation of parental liberty

OK I think we are talking apples and oranges here?? Im a bit confused so I hope to clear up what Im seeing ( even with glasses on.. lol )

Quote ( 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. ( end ) Quote


It seems that in the case of purplewings son he had no relationship with the children as a step parent. ??? She didnt have the children during the time of thier marriage. After moving on she had 2 more children by another man from the new relationship ???? Now the state is obligating him to support those children for which he has no rights whatsoever.


If thats the situation then he needs a lawyer to straighten it out because he has no legal obligation to those children. Now mind you in alot of cases the " state " will maximize deep pockets to their fullest in so much as if you son makes good money he may have been bumped to the highest possible rate for child suppot for only 1 child while the other parent skates by with only a minimal payment. Either way he needs to get a lawyer and find out what's going on. If he has been receiving statements ( i.e. he still owes money ) then those should say what its for and the distribution of funds. Again he needs a lawyer.

And GV70.. Great post!! ( thanks )

If thats the situation then he needs a lawyer to straighten it out because he has no legal obligation to those children. Now mind you in alot of cases the " state " will maximize deep pockets to their fullest in so much as if you son makes good money he may have been bumped to the highest possible rate for child suppot for only 1 child while the other parent skates by with only a minimal payment. Either way he needs to get a lawyer and find out whats going on. If he has been recieving statements ( i.e. he still owes money ) then those should say what its for and the distribution of funds. Again he needs a lawyer.
And GV70 .. Great post !!!!! ( thanks )

Thank you!
Here we are in agreement.Let's use Michigan CSC.
EXAMPLE:A woman has one child from John and four children from Peter. John earns $5,000 a month,Peter earns $1,000.In according to Mi state guidances John has to pay more than $900 for his child but Peter has to pay about $600 for four children as Child support.

I can understand a law that allows the same payments for the same number of children and in the same state, BUT to differentiate payment based solely on income seems unjust. Income could mean one person went to college which cost plenty and may need to be repaid, or worked two jobs, which requires extra effort, or was just a more ambitious and capable human being. Should the court make those good attributes punishable by asking more money? OR is it true a court doesn't see the human being, but only possibilities?

I can understand a law that allows the same payments for the same number of children and in the same state, BUT to differentiate payment based solely on income seems unjust. Income could mean one person went to college which cost plenty and may need to be repaid, or worked two jobs, which requires extra effort, or was just a more ambitious and capable human being. Should the court make those good attributes punishable by asking more money? OR is it true a court doesn't see the human being, but only possibilities?


If it's by Statute there really are no other choices - it's based on income and in some States, reduced by debts.

I think a child is entitled to live the best he/she can and that is determined by the income of the parents. I prefer not to think of child support as punishment for good attributes - I think it's supporting children in the best way a parent can.

If support by Statute is eliminated, what would replace it?