My ex had filed papers for child support and custody and she has the papers for the child support court date, she knows where I am (im in Florida she is in ny) and knows how to get in contact with me through phone, email, and also my physcial address of where I am staying, she is refusing to hire a process server or send the papers down to have me served, she is going to go to court and claim that I am unservable, in this case is it illegal for her to do this or what will happen in this case?

I have since before my son was born been paying giving the mother my military check that I get once a month for child support and its been direct deposited into my account and the money was taken out with the debit card that was under her name on the account until 4 months ago when I had it switched to be direct deposited into her bank account, (the amount each month was 4x the amount courts would have assigned me to pay her each month) she is now taking me to court for child support 10 months after the birth of our child and from before he was born up till 2 months ago she got the check plus what ever money I had given her out of my paychecks and stuff I bought for our child under my own free will (the paycheck money and the stuff I bought for him under my own will was never recorded and don't have evidential proof (reciepts and such I have a few but not all) of doing that but the military money was all done through the banks and I can get the records of who got the money. Now with all this will the court assign me to pay back child support or will they just assign me to pay support from thereon out or will they tell me I don't have to pay her anything till a certain date considering the amounts I was giving her was way over what the court would have assigned me to give her?

It is improper to do so.

But remember, the court does not know this either. So they will have them publish it, and go on with court action without you.

Then you lose, and will have to then after you lose, appeal this and prove he knew where you were at.

So if you know he is filing, find the court info, and notify the court of your address and what is happening.

If he has an attorney, send his attorney normal notice of your address, the attorney will have to do it properly

Also send him a letter with your return info all over the outside, certified, where he has to sign for it, that way it proves he knew.

You were giving the mom access to your money by a debit card. What written agreement with mother do you have that this money was for child support.

What reciepts that she got the money,

It is possible that they will not consider this support, since it was not court ordered, may not have been as much as they will order,

But they may, hard to tell what the courts will do.

Since you know where she is, you can find the court where she would file. You contact that court and ask if any case has been filed in your names and get the docket number. You can then check to see if a hearing has been scheduled. Do not inform your ex that you are doing this. Then you show up in court or, even better, get a representative to show up for you without identifying himself. When the case is called and she informs the court that she couldn't contact he calls you and you walk into court and inform the court that she knew where to find you but refused to send you any papers. If she is going to be sneaky, then you be sneaky in return.

Has any divorce action been filed? Have you been voluntarily paying support since the split?

I've merged your two threads. Please don't start multiple threads for the same issue.

As Chuck noted, what you have been paying may or may not be considered support. You will need to prove documentary evidence of what you have been turning over to her. Hopefully the courts will see that as paying support.

This is why you should ALWAYS formalize any support or custody arrangements.

On the first thing with her filing against me in court for support, we were never married and we were in a mutual agreement for the child once he was born and yes I have been voluntarily paying child support which me and her both signed a document where it shows that I have been giving her the military money as child support from before he was born up till two months ago, for August instead of the whole military check (400 dollars) I had given her 50 plus my mother (not sure if this counts as me or just a granparent caring for the child) also sent her formula and diapers for my son although I am paying my mother back and in September I haven't sent her anything but again my mother had sent her formula and diapers again that I am paying her back, but other than that like I said on the first thing we were never married but I signed the birth certificate indicating that I was the father of the child and on the second we have signed forms from me and her that show that I was giving her the military money for child support, now my only issue is that I can't afford an attorney and I can't be in ny at the time of the court date which I do know the information for due to her mother had told me instead of her telling but on that note she still says that she is going to file un servable considering that I'm not there and she won't spend the time to 1 bring me the papers and 2 hire someone to serve me, but my big question is on this fact after your response is because I can't afford an attorney (and I will not use legal aid due to problems I have had in the past with them in that state) would I be able to have my father legally represent me in court because I am dealing with a court issue in Florida that is preventing me from traveling out of the state of Florida and she knows this so what am I to do with this would my father be able to or what actions could I take in both cases?

First, the fact that you were never married has nothing to do with things. Second, If you had a written agreement to pay $400/month and you stopped making that payment in August, then she can probably get support back to August since you reneged on the written agreement. Any specific supplies provided by you or other family members does not count. You agreed to pay the $400 and you stopped doing that.

Yes, you should be able to have your father represent you. To make sure of this, I would sign a Power of Attorney giving your father "the right to act on your behalf in any matter pertaining to the custody and support of your child". You can use a standard POA form you can find online or in any stationary store. Sign it in front of a notary and send a copy to your father.

I would still be inclined to pull the switch I suggested. It doesn't matter who you place in the courtroom, just so its someone she doesn't know so she can advise the court that she couldn't serve you. The idea is to get her to perjure herself in front of the court.

... would i be able to have my father legally represent me in court because i am dealing with a court issue in florida that is preventing me from traveling out of the state of florida and she knows this so what am i to do with this would my father be able to ...



...
Yes, you should be able to have your father represent you. To make sure of this, I would sign a Power of Attorney giving your father "the right to act on your behalf in any matter pertaining to the custody and support of your child". You can use a standard POA form you can find online or in any stationary store. Sign it in front of a notary and send a copy to your father.
...

No. He can't unless he is licensed to practice law. A POA (power of "attorney in fact") is not the same thing as an attorney at law. They are entirely different.

Of course they are different. His father can't appear as his legal counsel. But he can appear as a representative. Maybe I didn't make that clear. A POA allows the designated person to act in the place of the grantor. The POA would allow the father to act as the OP in any court proceeding.

... Then you show up in court or, even better, get a representative to show up for you without identifying himself. When the case is called and she informs the court that she couldn't contact he calls you and you walk into court and inform the court that she knew where to find you but refused to send you any papers. ...


... I would still be inclined to pull the switch I suggested. It doesn't matter who you place in the courtroom, just so its someone she doesn't know so she can advise the court that she couldn't serve you. The idea is to get her to perjure herself in front of the court.

You have been watching too much TV, Scott. :)

The problem with the dramatic scene you envision is that it's not likely to happen in open court. The more likely scenario is that it's all done by motion practice. She would file a motion to serve the OP by publication, supporting her motion with an affidavit of diligent inquiry. I don't know if the New York courts would want a hearing on such a motion (Judy KT might know), but I rather doubt it. So at the first actual hearing the OP would already have been defaulted. Would sort of deflate the envisioned scenario.

No. He can't unless he is licensed to practice law.

I respectfully disagree. May you site the code or statute?
I remember a case /the USA Supreme Court/.It was stated that ANYONE may be... " If you are a lawyer you must know the case and its decision.

OK well there was one thing I didn't mention on the fact that when her and I signed that agreement, I also wrote on that agreement that I will withhold giving her the check on 2 terms, 1 if I need the money to get myself out of legal trouble and have to pay a lawyer or court fees or something doing with the law (that is the main reason why I am in Florida because I'm taking care of a probation case that I had down here) and 2 if she doesn't let me see my son, and before I left ny at the end of July, the last time I had saw my son was in the beginning of July, it was 3 weeks before I left to Florida that I had saw my son and it was under my ruling it was because she was just being stupid and was telling me I couldn't come around after she already got the military check that month and all that so that's the main reasons I did take the money away for August and September and all of that is in writing saying I would under 1 or both those conditions occurred.

I respectfully disagree. May you site the code or statute?
i remember a case /the USA Supreme Court/.It was stated that ANYONE may be ....." If you are a lawyer you must know the case and its decision.

Have patience, please. I have been researching this issue. The NY rules and statutes are fairly arcane.

But that would be a wide open door to avoid the unauthorized practice of law rules, and I am sure it wouldn't work. A POA is for the purpose of signing documents and making decisions on behalf of a principal. It is not for representing someone in court. But as I say, I am looking for something to back me up here.

No, I have never heard of a SCOTUS case holding that anyone may represent anyone else in court. And if there is a case that actually says that, I will eat it.:D

have patience, please. I have been researching this issue. The ny rules and statutes are fairly arcane.

But that would be a wide open door to avoid the unauthorized practice of law rules, and i am sure it wouldn't work. A poa is for the purpose of signing documents and making decisions on behalf of a principal. It is not for representing someone in court. But as i say, i am looking for something to back me up here.

My pleasure!:)

No, I have never heard of a SCOTUS case holding that anyone may represent anyone else in court. And if there is a case that actually says that, I will eat it.:D

It is your problem.

A POA is for the purpose of signing documents and making decisions on behalf of a principal. It is not for representing someone in court.

A POA is for the purposes of allowing someone to act on your behalf. While I agree that its primary purpose is to allow someone to sign documents, the fact that it allows them to make decisions on the part of the principal meas, that as a practical matter they are representing that person. I think you may be thinking of "representing ... in court" as a legal representative and that's not what I'm talking about. If the OP gives his father a POA, especially when narrowly defined as I suggested, I believe the holder of the POA will be allowed to act for the OP in any court proceeding pertaining to the child.

I still believe my suggestion will work. Maybe I overstated it in Perry Mason like terms, but the court proceeding should work something like this:

The court will ask if all parties are present. Present parties will present motions and documentation of service. Once that is done. The OP's agent can then step forward and present a statement that the plaintiff was never served even though the defendant was aware of the plaintiff's address.

It is your problem.

No. I won't let you make it my problem. You're going to have to do better than an incoherent statement that you

" remember a case /the USA Supreme Court/.It was stated that ANYONE may be ....."
To make it my problem.

Sorry, but I have been unable to find authority directly on point. New York court rules that I have looked at speak in terms of "attorney", but don't distinguish. Use of the phrases "attorney in fact", or "power of attorney" is unfortunate, because it tends to confuse non-lawyers. I have better things to do than spend all morning looking for authority to disprove an off-the-wall comment based upon a fundamental misunderstanding of the "attorney in fact" concept.

... Maybe I overstated it in Perry Mason like terms, but the court proceeding should work something like this:

The court will ask if all parties are present. Present parties will present motions and documentation of service. Once that is done. The OP's agent can then step forward and present a statement that the plaintiff was never served even though the defendant was aware of the plaintiff's address.

Yes, that will probably do the trick. But I don't expect the judge to then say (to the father) something like "You may call your first witness."

Yes, that will probably do the trick. But I don't expect the judge to then say (to the father) something like "You may call your first witness."

Nor would I. The key here is to allow the custodial parent to perjure herself. This will be noted by the court and help the OP.