In a nutshell.. My ex-husband and I were divorced in the state of Indiana in 1996. Our children lived with me in Ohio from 1996 to 2002. He paid child support with personal checks and the monies never traveled through the courts. In 2002, I gave permission for the children to live with their father in Calif for one school year. I legally remained the custodial parent; in writing I relinquished the $560/month he paid to me in child support, and offered to also send him $200/month, which was all I could afford at the time. He argued with me that I should send $500 (amount in our divorce decree), but I was never served legal papers . The children have lived with him ever since. In 2007, my ex-husband filed a lawsuit in Calif. For me to pay child support and turn primary custody over to him. He won his case.. I relinquished primary custody, and have been paying
+$900/month in CS. The children are now 18 and graduating from high school, and hoping to go to college. My ex-husband has filed a new lawsuit that I pay until the children are 21, and that I pay arrerage of $16,000 for the years 2002-2007. I want to file a Motion to Set-Aside, since I was never served legal papers for that time frame? Is this possible? Thank You.

Is it possible? Sure. Will it be heard? Hard to say really. You were paying less than was agreed upon. If he can prove that, you might very well be held liable for the back support. The fact that it wasn't ordered by the court might factor into it, but since he can prove that he was paying the agreed amount when it was his turn, that certainly isn't going to help your case.

As for filing to continue support until they are 21, its possible if they continue to college that the request will be granted.

Do you have a lawyer?

I don't see the Court demanding that you pay past child support when there was no Court Order that you should pay.

As far as paying until they are 21 - what is his reason for requesting this relief? I am seeing this (and I'm in NY) when there is a disability of some sort.

Thank you for your response! Our divorce decree was from Indiana, which states that non-custodial parent pay until age 21. He filed his lawsuit in Calif, where the age limit is 18. I am hoping that Calif will not be willing to uphold a law from Indiana, but they might. The twins are hoping to attend college, but I do no t see where I am LEGALLY obligated to pay for that. They were initially denied grants because their father "makes too much money" Thanks for your input.

Thanks you for your response, though not the news I was hoping for.

Thanks you for your response, though not the news I was hoping for.

If I were to guess, I would say about 25% chance of owing back support and 90% chance of owing continued support... if that makes you feel any better.

Okay, now I get to change my opinion - if the Order says that the non-custodial parent pay until 21, that is an enforceable order until and unless California (if California has jursidiction) changes it. If you were non-custodial and did not pay support, you owe it.

An Order stands and can be enforced until another Court proceeding, order changes it - you cannot verbally change an Order.

You are not obligated to pay for their college expenses above and beyond the dollar amount ordered as child support.

Thank you for your response! Our divorce decree was from Indiana, which states tht non-custodial parent pay until age 21. He filed his lawsuit in Calif, where the age limit is 18. I am hoping that Calif will not be willing to uphold a law from Indiana, but they might. The twins are hoping to attend college, but I do no t see where I am LEGALLY obligated to pay for that. They were initially denied grants due to the fact that their father "makes too much money" Thanks for your input.

Lets try to sort this out first. Are you still living in Indiana ? Did you allow a change in jurisdiction to California ? If California is claiming jurisdiction then that's who's law you have to go by. Calif child support ends at 18 and finished high school or 19 max. If you had an original order and then new orders were created then the new orders superceed the old ones. Also if you did owe arrears then those should have been brought up the first time through. If all the children are currently 18 and no mention of arrears before this point then its his loss. He can't have it both ways with both states laws.. since somehow he was able to go through the courts there then that's who has it at this time.

Do you have an attorney? If he does and you don't I suggest you get one.

We can only speculate about what can happen here because we do not know what orders were handed down, when and where.

A couple of things I can tell is that you had no right to relinquish support. You have a court order as part of the original divorce decree that stated that he had to pay you support. Unless you went to court to modify that order, legally he actually owes you for the period 2002-2007, because custody was not officially changed until then.

The issue of 18/21 will depend on what happened in the 2007 hearing where custody was legally changed. If CA took jurisdiction, with your permission, then it likely their laws will apply. But they could have acknowledged the Indiana agreement.

So you should consult an attorney to go over the court papers and see where you stand.

P.S. I've merged your threads, please don't post multiple threads for the same question.