[ScottGem]

Hmm, looks like we have a conflict here as to CA law.

As for the OP's situation. Califdad posted a link with Texas rules.

Let me add though, that the phrase "date filed" has been used here. So lets say that the mother filed for support 10 years ago, maybe even granted a default support order because the father couldn't be located. And has been unable to locate the father until just recently. In that case, couldn't support be ruled retroactive to the date of filing?

As an aside to tin190. Please don't start a new thread with a follow-up question. Use the Answer This Question options to post a reply to the thread. We've merged your posts for you.

[ScottGem]

do have to take a paternity test,or can you refuse to

A court ordered paternity test is like a subpeona. If you refuse you can be jailed for contempt of court or the judge will simply rule you are the legal father. Its actually in your best interests to take the test.

[GV70]

That is the current situation-there is 1 year term
http://www.childsup.ca.gov/Portals/0...1/css01-09.pdf

[GV70]

In my view unless she has been receiving state aid (aka "welfare") child support cannot be retroactively applied./ r not more than a year/

[GV70]

It seems there is a conflict between 17402 and Section 4009
Maybe stevetcg and califdadof3 should be able to explain us.

[cadillac59]

It seems there is a conflict between 17402 and Section 4009
Maybe stevetcg and califdadof3 should be able to explain us.

No, there is no conflict between sections 17402 and 4009. The law was changed in 2004 so section 17402 is now consistent with section 4009.

There was once a three year rule on retroactivity that was later changed to one year (this ONLY applied to WELFARE REIMBURSEMENT, however, not all child support orders). But that one-year rule was changed, as I said, and now there is NO retroactivity in a child support order in California in welfare reimbursement or non-welfare cases to any date preceding the date an action in filed in which child support is sought.

This what I have been trying to get everyone understand on this board, to no avail.

I do this for a living. I have 20 years experience in California as an attorney and I am a Certified Family Law Specialist in this state, having been certified by the California State Bar Board of Legal Specialization over a year ago.

My apologies for beating my drum about this but gee guys! Now,as to the other 49 states in the country (not to mention the rest of the world), I may be wrong about much of the laws in those other places and please correct when I am. But locally I do try to keep up on what's going on. Sorry again for the rant! :-)

[GV70]

Agreed... Ca changed its law.
Opinion issued April 19, 2007
In The Court of Appeals For The
First District of Texas

NO. 01-06-00313-CV
VICTOR MILES, Appellant

V.

BRIDGET PEACOCK AND THE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS, Appellees
We agree that the case should be remanded. The Family Code requires a trial court to “calculate net resources” in determining a party's current and retroactive child support obligations. TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. §§ 154.062(a), 154.131(b). In addition, with respect to insurance coverage, the court must “consider the cost and quality of health insurance coverage available to the parties and shall give priority to health insurance coverage available through the employment of one of the parties.” Id. § 154.182(a)
Retroactive Child Support
A court “may order a parent to pay retroactive child support if the parent: (1) has not previously been ordered to pay support for the child; and (2) was not a party to a suit in which support was ordered.” Id. § 154.009(a) (Vernon 2002). In ordering retroactive support, “the court shall apply the child support guidelines provided by this chapter” and “shall consider the net resources of the obligor during the relevant time.” Id. §§ 154.009(b), 154.131(b) (Vernon 2002). In addition, the court shall consider whether (1) the child's mother made any previous attempts to notify the obligor of his paternity, (2) the obligor had knowledge of his paternity, (3) the retroactive support order will impose an undue financial hardship on the obligor or his family, and (4) the obligor provided actual support before the lawsuit was filed. Id. § 154.131(b).