[cadillac59]

Not to belabor the point, but one final thing I wanted to say: What you described here is sort of the run-of-the-mill, day-in-the-life of a family law attorney type of case. I've had (and have) many cases just as messed up as yours--I get calls like yours with crazy facts like this all the time- and this just serves to illustrate to everyone how complicated family law can get and how important it is to seek out good advice on the subject. I'm an attorney and a certified family law specialist myself and this stuff is hard for us much of the time. Sometimes we have to scratch ours heads and say,"What in the world is going on..?" So, at least consult with a lawyer who limits his or her practice to family law or who is a certifed specialist in the field if your state certifes specialties in law.

Here's just one small example of why your question is a tuff one in some respects: if the mom received TANF during the time the kids were with you and the county seeks reimbursement for that same time at the CS guideline, can you defend and not have to pay by proving the kids were with you during that time? We don't have an answer to that in California (some other state might but I doubt it) but we do have case law that says you can in non-welfare cases (e.g, mom just has a support order and is not on welfare and it runs while the kids are with you--).. But does the same rule apply if it's welfare reimbursement? Should it? Why? That's the kind of stuff that requires a sophisticated argument and good P's and A's for a judge.

This stuff to way over the heads of anyone at a law clinic staffed by law students -BELIEVE ME- or at some university with a law school- most of the professers wouldn't be able to fully answer these questions either. So at least find a family law attorney who knows her/her stuff. It will be worth the consult fee.

All the best

[stinawords]

One other thing I wanted to add (and sorry for the typo's in the last post- that's what I get for not proof-reading). Welfare cases always wind up in a county office wherein reimbursement from the non-custodial parent is attempted (they get the full child support guideline by the way even of the amount of welfare benefits paid is less than the CS amount). Once welfare stops, and only then, can a custodial parent seek CS herself. So sometimes these cases end up as being a combination of welfare reimbursement and ongoing CS often with an arrears compondent. I would do this (if this were California and you were a client of mine--again check this out with a family law attorney in your state):

This is where Indiana is a little different than Cali. The mom (while still filed fraudulently) would get the CS. Her government benefits would be decreased rather than the state recovering the cost. There is generally only "pay back" to the welfare system if the support was not paid for very long periods. Trust me on this one. And the $750 won't get him very far here either that is just the very start. It is common to have at least a $3,000 retainer.

[cadillac59]

Thanks Stina for the imput. That's interesting.I would have thought that since state welfare systems receive substantial federal contributions that the feds would have mandated one uniform system of reimbursement. Maybe not. Our system is a lot like subrogation in other areas of law: we'll give you the welfare on the condition you assign all of your CS rights over. And there's no double-dipping of course. You can't have both. Only after welfare stops can you then get the CS yourself.

But I kind of like your way of doing it: you can get your CS but we will offset it against what we give you. But the problem with that is tracking CS received by the welfare recipient and applying the offset. Sounds like an open door for fraud on the recipient's part (lying about CS paid for example) and an administrative headache- tracking CS orders and payments received. Sounds like a potential mess.