Child support order from 1993 in Hawaii. Both parents moved after divorce. Mother to Michigan and father to Nevada. Father now lives in Florida mother now lives in Wisconsin. No one had paid or updated the case until 2010. Mother hiding and keeping the son from father. Mother has remarried making it difficult to find her. Her parents wouldn't give anyone her information. Father began paying child support 2010. How can the father get the support modified to stop paying now that son is 19 and just pay arrearage? Which state would he be able to move support order to? Please help. I can’t find any documents to help with this situation.

The Order is in effect until it is cancelled or the amount is changed by another Order. Moving does not stop the financial clock from ticking.

Visitation and support are different issues. You can pay support and not have visitation and the other way around. Not paying support does not cause visitation to stop. The mother cannot hide the child legally.

What does the Divorce Order say about stopping support? Isn't it automatic at a certain age or certain circumstance, such as ending high school? That wording is important.

The USUAL venue is where the child resides. In your case I believe Florida would take the transfer from Hawaii.

I would first see how the Order is written. I would then contact the Court Clerk in Hawaii and ask how to transfer the matter.

The mother may be difficult to locate, but she can and will be located through either the Court OR an investigator OR she can be served by publication.

Who paid or updated the case in 2010? That matters.

He may try and move it to his state, if the actual address of the mother is unknown to him or the court.

Mother can object and get it moved to her state of residence ( where child is living)

Who did the father begin paying child support to in 2010? Was it through Hawaii or a different state ?

Child is now in college in Michigan or Wisconsin. Not allowed to have the information. Mother found out about father finding and friending son on face book and flipped out. Getting fathers # off face book and calling him to let him know not to contact his son. And then getting a hold of laywer to enforce the order to show father she is in charge and always will be like said on phone.

I have three children with him and he's a great father.Always there for our kids. He also has another son 18 next month always paid child support. But again the mother would let him spend time with him unless he would be with him.

State Child Support Agencies With Debt Compromise Policies
Could this work for my husband?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by califdadof3

WHo did the father begin paying child support to in 2010? Was it through Hawaii or a different state ?

---

Hawaii

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck

He may try and move it to his state, if the actual address of the mother is unknown to him or the court.

Mother can object and get it moved to her state of residence ( where child is living)

---

To him, child is in college in Wisconsin or Michigan not sure

OK the father is your husband, correct? Did the divorce decree include a visitation order? What steps did the father take to find the child? You also didn't answer what the decree said about when support ends.

Jurisdiction can be moved to where the child/mother resides or left with Hawaii. Apparently the mother is satisfied to leave it there, and it would seemingly make no sense to the father to move it to where he doesn't live.

If the divorce decree included a visitation order, then he should file to have the mother cited for contempt of court. If the mother deliberately is hid and is hiding the child, she may be charged with parental kidnapping. I think he needs to pursue that to show the mother she's not as much in charge as she thinks she is.

Debt compromise policy is for debt with the state. If the custodial parent received benefits from the state and the state is collecting on it. That is the only place you can compromise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottGem

OK the father is your husband, correct?. Did the divorce decree include a visitation order? What steps did the father take to find the child? You also didn't answer what the decree said about when support ends.

Jurisdiction can be moved to where the child/mother resides or left with Hawaii. Apparently the mother is satisfied to leave it there, and it would seemingly make no sense to the father to move it to where he doesn't live.

If the divorce decree included a visitation order, then he should file to have the mother cited for contempt of court. If the mother deliberately is hid and is hiding the child, she may be charged with parental kidnapping. I think he needs to pursue that to show the mother she's not as much in charge as she thinks she is.

---

Yes the father is my husband.
Yes there was a visitation order. They had joint custody. Weekends every other holiday and summer. He tried to go through ex mother-in-law where ex was living and she told him to move on with his life. Also tried to have his mother mediate. His ex-wouldn’t let him see his son. She would do anything even lie. She made it impossible for him. She made to where he had to have supervised visits. He was getting tired of fighting her. And proving she was lying about the things she was saying. She was a nurse. The baby went through SIDS and there is little information now and even less 18 years ago. He had an episode on my husband. Two weeks later had one on ex. He stopped fighting her after not seeing his son for a year. She made it where he needed counseling and other emotional help. She left Hawaii before his visitation. His attorney asked if he really wanted to put his son’s mother in jail. At that time he wasn’t thinking clearly and just wanted to be part of his sons’ life.

It’s a Hawaii order and it state age 24 if the child goes to college. The child is in college. Can that be modified??

Can it be move to the father’s state or the child’s state?
Situations like these are so sad. I feel for the child now 19. Last year he had a concert through high school band came to Florida and she or his son would give my husband the information to see him play. My husband’s family live in Florida. They wouldn’t get to talk to him just see him play in Orlando and they were denied that.

I am so sad. Maybe seeing what my husband is going through I'm not thinking right. Maybe I can’t completely see what the laws are there for. I feel like laws should be modified case to case maybe more personal. People may call my husband a dead beat father but he wants to have a relationship with his children. The laws are worried about getting mothers money. My family isn't well off. My husband had an accident at work and had to retrain making less than ever. We lived off our savings while he retrained. By the time all this was over we had to file bankruptcy. But I have the greatest times with our family.

I wish the law would be 50/50 and if you don’t take the time for your child then you get child support. No holding a child hostage, keeping things from them. Everyone involve would always be thinking about the child. Less time hating each other. I love children and I wish the system was more for them. The bitterness isn’t good for anyone. I am just tired of seeing my husband put up with this.

My husband and his ex were both in the wrong with this child, but you can only do so much before you can’t take anymore. Thank you for all your time. I wish there were more people that can look at both sides. This is one of the hardest things to understand. Thank you once again. Any kind of support or direction to take would be very much appreciated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by carltonkg

Maybe I can't completely see what the laws are there for. I feel like laws should be modified case to case maybe more personal. People may call my husband a dead beat father but he wants to have a relationship with his children. The laws are worried about getting mothers money. .

---

First I want to comment on this. The problem here is not the laws. The problem here is your husband not properly using the law. There are laws that require a custodial parent to abide by court ordered visitation. There are laws preventing a custodial parent from hiding a child from the non custodial parent. Your husband didn't use those laws. So I don't really see the laws as the problem here.

The problem is shared by the mother and your husband. The mother for denying your husband his rights AND denying her child his father. Your husband for not pursuing his rights to their fullest extent.

As for what to do, as stated, he can get jurisdiction moved to the state where the child's official residence is (this may not be where he goes to school) but where the mother lives. I don't see him getting it moved to FL. So I don't see the value of getting it moved to the mother's home court.

If the support order says he pays until 24 or when the child finishes school, he's not likely to get that changed. However, if his income has changed he may be able to reduce the amount. However, it seems like he will be paying the arrears for a long time even after support ended. And that's his fault. He had no right to stop paying because the mother denied him his rights. Even if he didn't know where to pay he could have been paying what was required into a separate savings account so he could turn the balance over when he found out who to pay. Again this is not the law's fault but your husband's.

As for seeing his son, his son is now over 18. His mother no longer controls who he can see or contact. If his son wants to friend him on Facebook and correspond through Facebook or via e-mail, there is nothing the mother can legally do to stop him. If the son comes to FL on spring break, and he arranges to meet, there is nothing the mother can legally do to stop it.

He may still be able to pursue a charge of parental kidnapping. I would suspect this would not land the mother in jail, but it could get her admonished by a court that if she interferes with your husband's relationship with his son anymore then jail would be a possibility.

But your husband has to fight for his rights. No one is going to just hand him those rights. And the fact that he didn't fight for those rights before may work against him.

Finally, you asked that people look at both sides. I think our responses have been supportive of your husband pursuing his rights. We don't know the mother's side though. We don't know whether she was using her son as a pawn to get revenge on the man she was divorcing or whether there were real reasons to keep the father away. You stated that she got it to where there had to be supervised visitation. But that usually happens only when the non custodial parent is a danger to the child. So she may have proven that to a court. Its hard to look at both sides when we only have the testimony of one side. So all we can do is look at the facts and sometimes we have to read between the lines to get the facts.

So the facts here appear to be:
1) your husband divorced in Hawaii in 1993, apparently when the child was an infant.
2) the father was given visitation but it was made supervised for some reason
3) the mother left Hawaii without informing the father, violating a court order and breaking parental kidnapping laws
4) your husband pursued her to some extent but then dropped it
5) your husband didn't pay the court ordered support
6) somehow your husband found his son and tried to reconnect, the mother found out and enforced the support order which was now way in arrears.

I think that covers the facts. And we have suggested what to do about it. I would strongly suggest consulting an attorney to try and make sense of this. I want to add one thing more. I empathize with your husband. If the facts are as I've stated, then I think the mother abused the law and I can understand why he dropped it. But, again, the problem is not the laws, the laws were there, they just weren't used.

Scott went over and above his usual well-researched, well explained advice.

All I can add is the question about what the Order says concerning support went unanswered while everyone guessed when support should end. Now we learn the Order says age 24. No flexibility there. The time to protest that age was when the divorce was heard.

Visitation was supervised. Why?

There WERE legal options available to the father who, for whatever reason, chose not to pursue them. Many people who post here will tell you the extreme and expensive steps they took in order to remain in contact with their children.

The father didn't pay support and the mother let that slide - right up until the father resumed contact with a child he wasn't supporting.

The laws aren't worried about "getting the mother's money." The laws are concenred with BOTH parents, custodial and non-custodial, supporting the child. Apparently the mother supported this child by herself for a number of years while the father went on the have other children which I would assume he supported.

I don't understand the question about stopping child support now that the child is 19 - the Order is apparently very clear... 24 years old if in College (and the child is). This Order cannot be a shock to anyone.