[purplewings]

"She did apply for state aid after the agreement with my son..."
What is relation between these two other children and CS which has to be paid by your son:confused:

He has no relationship at all to the other two children. That's the part I find odd in their collecting funds from him.

[GV70]

He has no relationship at all to the other two children. That's the part I find odd in their collecting funds from him.

Excuse me but I still cannot understand... He was stuck in paying child support for these other children:confused:

[purplewings]

That's really the crux of this. The state won't tell him why he's paying this huge amount. Evidently, the mother has applied for benefits from ADC and this goes into his child support. The father of the other two children is not available for paying anything at this time. I think as some have said earlier, he needs to get an attorney to straighten this all out.

[asking]

Under very rare situaton child support can be waived. Most of the situations invole paying off the total amount in whole

Isn't that just paying it in advance?

And of course I agree with everything you've said.
Asking

[cdad]

Isn't that just paying it in advance?

And of course I agree with everything you've said.
Asking

Yes that's what it is. But usually can only be done if things will be stable or at least assumed to be. Lets say you have a child that's 16 y/o and the NCP has been paying child support on time. If it were say $500 per month and if that's a figure that the courts agree on then it may be possible for the NCP to pay a lump sum of $12,000 to the custodial parent and have the courts OK it thereby relieving the NCP of further support ( assuming it runs until 18 years of age ) but is DOEST NOT relieve the NCP of paying their fair share of medical related expenses nor can the drop insurance on the child that must remain in effect for the duration. A lot of courts don't really like to adjust child support much more often then every 2 years at most. They can do it sooner but they have enough caseload already.

I hope that clears it up for you.

BTW if the NCP tried that with $60,000 and make a one time payment for 10 years worth of child support then that most likely can't be done because a lot can happen in 10 years.

[cdad]

That's really the crux of this. The state won't tell him why he's paying this huge amount. Evidently, the mother has applied for benefits from ADC and this goes into his child support. The father of the other two children is not available for paying anything at this time. I think as some have said earlier, he needs to get an attorney to straighten this all out.

The state must tell him because they can't just take monies from you without a court order in place. I know they will try to do anything they can but it doesn't sound legal to me. What state is your son in or that his case is out of. Anytime they take anything from you they owe you an explination.

[purplewings]

This is Michigan and our state is really in need of money right now. There was no court order in his case. They may have needed something like that to get the money directly from his bank account, but he was given nothing in explanation. He had sold some securities through the bank and was waiting for a $5,000 check so he could move, but before the check arrived, he was sent a notice from the Securities department that $4,700 had been taken by the state. Directly after that he received notice saying he owed another $680. Prior to that they froze his checking account and took his $3500 certificate of deposit. He didn't even know they had frozen his bank account until he wrote checks that bounced. In all it was over $13,000 and appears to have no end. He was not in arrears and in fact, because the court signed the agreement to end all FOC claims in his case, this seems like mobsters more that government.

[Username Here]

He isn't a legal guardian of the child, so he never had any obligation to pay anything. He CHOOSE to pay what he did his case would be dismissed.

Hope this helps,
Louis.

[GV70]

That's really the crux of this. The state won't tell him why he's paying this huge amount. Evidently, the mother has applied for benefits from ADC and this goes into his child support. The father of the other two children is not available for paying anything at this time. I think as some have said earlier, he needs to get an attorney to straighten this all out.

Of course he needs a lawyer.
But I am still confused.What does exactly mean"huge amount"... for me "huge amount" is $ 500,000,000

[GV70]

He isn't a legal guardian of the child, so he never had any obligation to pay anything. He CHOOSE to pay what he did his case would be dismissed.

Hope this helps,
Louis.

He HAS legal obligation to support his step-child when parents do not support this child but his expences should be reimbursed.

A mother and father owe a duty to support their children, and this duty is not displaced by the custodial parent's marriage to a new spouse, the "stepparent," or by the fact that the parent may be cohabitating with another person. E.g. Utah Code Ann. § 78-45-4.2 (1992) (the duty of a stepparent to support a stepchild does not relieve the natural parent of his or her duty of support). See DeTavis v. Aragon, 104 N.M. 793, 727 P.2d 558 (1986); Monroe County ex rel. Palermo v. Palermo, 192 A.D.2d 1114, 596 N.Y.S.2d 252 (1993); Stack v. Stack, 141 Pa. Super. 147, 15 A.2d 76 (1940); Niesen v. Niesen, 38 Wis. 2d 599, 157 N.W.2d 660 (1968). The natural parents owe the child the primary responsibility of support, and stepparets' liability for support can only be secondary. E.g. Duffey v. Duffey, 113 N.C. App. 382, 438 S.E.2d 445 (1994); Brandriet v. Larsen, 442 N.W.2f 455 (N.D. 1989).
A stepparent is obligated to support a stepchild during the marriage where (1) there is a statute imposing such a duty, or (2) the stepparent undertakes to act in loco parentis to the child.
B. Statutory Duty of a Stepparent to Support a Stepchild
Twenty states now have statutes imposing a duty on stepparents to support their stepchildren:
(1) Del. Code Ann. Tit. 13, § 501(b) (1994) (stepparent liable for support of stepchild during marriage);
(2) Haw. Rev. Stat. § 577-4 (1993) (stepparent liable for support of stepchild during marriage);
(3) Iowa Code Ann. §§ 252A.2(3) (Supp. 1996) (including stepchild in definition of children to whom a duty of support is owed);
(4) Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 205.310 (1995) (stepparent has duty to support stepchild during marriage);
(5) Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. Tit. 19, § 752(6) (Supp. 1995) (support may be ordered against third party where such party takes custody after divorce after showing of parental unfitness);
(6) Mo. Ann. Stat. § 568.040 (Supp. 1996) (criminal nonsupport statute applies equally to parents and stepparents);
(7) Mont. Code Ann. § 40-6-217 (1995) (if stepparent receives stepchild into family and supports him or her, stepparent is presumed to do so as a parent);
(8) Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-706 (1995) (criminal nonsupport statute applies to stepparents);
(9) Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 62.044 (1996) (stepparent liable to same extent as parent for neglect and dependency of child);
(10) N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 546-A:1, -A:2 (1974) (stepparent owes duty of support to stepchild during marriage);
(11) N.J. Stat. Ann. § 30:4C-2 (Supp. 1995) (includes as child under neglect and dependency proceedings a stepchild);
(12) N.Y. Fam. Ct. Act § 415 (1983); N.Y. Soc. Serv. Law § 101 (1992) (stepparent liable for support of stepchild to prevent the same from becoming a public charge);
(13) N.C. Gen. Stat. § 50-13.4 (1995) (any person standing in loco parentis to child has duty of support);
(14) N.D. Cent. Code § 14-09-09 (1991) (extending stepparent support duty during the marriage and so long thereafter as the stepchildren remain in the stepparent's family);
(15) Okla. Stat. Ann. Tit. 10, § 15 (1987) (stepparent has duty of support to stepchild);
(16) Or. Rev. Stat. § 109.053 (1990) (stepparent has duty of support to stepchild);
(17) S.D. Codified Laws Ann. § 25-7-8 (1992) (a stepparent shall maintain his spouse's children born prior to the marriage);
(18) Utah Code Ann. § 78-45-4.1 (1992) (imposes support duty on stepparent that terminates on divorce);
(19) Vt. Stat. Ann. Tit. 15, § 296 (1989) (stepparent has duty of support of stepchild);
(20) Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 26.16.205 (Supp. 1996) (imposes duty of support on stepparent which shall cease on termination of relationship between husband and wife).

[GV70]

Where a statute provides that a stepparent has a duty to support a stepchild, the statute is essentially no more than a codification of the doctrine of in loco parentis doctrine. The in loco parentis doctrine states that if a stepparent takes stepchildren into his or her family or under his or her care in such a way that he or she places himself or herself in loco parentis, then the stepparent assumes an obligation to support the stepchildren.

In loco parentis means “in place of parent.” The in loco parentis legal doctrine can be applied to both governmental and non-governmental entities, and is implicated “when a person [or legal entity] undertakes the care and control of another [person of legal incapacity] in the absence of such supervision by the latter's natural parents and in the absence of formal legal approval.”

Application of the in loco parentis doctrine requires, at minimum, that 1) the minor's parents are absent (either voluntarily by overt act or by forbearance, or because of an incident beyond the parents' control), 2) the adult caretaker on the scene is not the minor's legal guardian or custodian, and 3) the adult caretaker on the scene has, for the relevant time, assumed control over the routine care and basic control of the child (e.g. shelter, safety, food, medical care, bathing, clothing, transportation, education, nurturing).
The traditional in loco parentis doctrine entails a temporary delegation of parental power, not a permanent and involuntary derogation of parental liberty

[cdad]

OK I think we are talking apples and oranges here?? Im a bit confused so I hope to clear up what Im seeing ( even with glasses on.. lol )

Quote ( purplewings ) " My son and the mother of his daughter did the same thing. He paid her a specific amount and they went to FOC together, where she signed off on all arrearages and dropped her claim. It's very legal. Hopefully you have kept a copy of this because some states are great at collecting from people who have no proof it's been dropped.

In my son's case, the child support had ceased but the state went after him in an identical amount to pay back so-called funds the mother had collected from ADC, (even though she was married and had two other children at this time). His father passed away last year, leaving him a reasonable inheritance. The state immediately moved in and ceased $13,000 of his funds claiming it was repayment to the state for the above mentioned costs. He had never been told he owed anything and the state had attached all of his tax refunds for years previous. Now he continues to receive bills monthly as if he'd paid nothing.
SAVE ALL RECEIPTS AND INVOICES!

Let's hope the guy calms down and finds another outlet because it's never nice to have to fight to prove these things.

If the man had objected to it previously, that was the time to say so. Now he'll just sound like a vengeful idiot. Best of luck to you. ( end ) Quote


It seems that in the case of purplewings son he had no relationship with the children as a step parent. ??? She didnt have the children during the time of thier marriage. After moving on she had 2 more children by another man from the new relationship ???? Now the state is obligating him to support those children for which he has no rights whatsoever.


If thats the situation then he needs a lawyer to straighten it out because he has no legal obligation to those children. Now mind you in alot of cases the " state " will maximize deep pockets to their fullest in so much as if you son makes good money he may have been bumped to the highest possible rate for child suppot for only 1 child while the other parent skates by with only a minimal payment. Either way he needs to get a lawyer and find out what's going on. If he has been receiving statements ( i.e. he still owes money ) then those should say what its for and the distribution of funds. Again he needs a lawyer.

And GV70.. Great post!! ( thanks )

[GV70]

If thats the situation then he needs a lawyer to straighten it out because he has no legal obligation to those children. Now mind you in alot of cases the " state " will maximize deep pockets to their fullest in so much as if you son makes good money he may have been bumped to the highest possible rate for child suppot for only 1 child while the other parent skates by with only a minimal payment. Either way he needs to get a lawyer and find out whats going on. If he has been recieving statements ( i.e. he still owes money ) then those should say what its for and the distribution of funds. Again he needs a lawyer.
And GV70 .. Great post !!!!! ( thanks )

Thank you!
Here we are in agreement.Let's use Michigan CSC.
EXAMPLE:A woman has one child from John and four children from Peter. John earns $5,000 a month,Peter earns $1,000.In according to Mi state guidances John has to pay more than $900 for his child but Peter has to pay about $600 for four children as Child support.

[purplewings]

I can understand a law that allows the same payments for the same number of children and in the same state, BUT to differentiate payment based solely on income seems unjust. Income could mean one person went to college which cost plenty and may need to be repaid, or worked two jobs, which requires extra effort, or was just a more ambitious and capable human being. Should the court make those good attributes punishable by asking more money? OR is it true a court doesn't see the human being, but only possibilities?

[JudyKayTee]

I can understand a law that allows the same payments for the same number of children and in the same state, BUT to differentiate payment based solely on income seems unjust. Income could mean one person went to college which cost plenty and may need to be repaid, or worked two jobs, which requires extra effort, or was just a more ambitious and capable human being. Should the court make those good attributes punishable by asking more money? OR is it true a court doesn't see the human being, but only possibilities?

If it's by Statute there really are no other choices - it's based on income and in some States, reduced by debts.

I think a child is entitled to live the best he/she can and that is determined by the income of the parents. I prefer not to think of child support as punishment for good attributes - I think it's supporting children in the best way a parent can.

If support by Statute is eliminated, what would replace it?