wife moved to Sweden w/kids, divorce final, now wants alimony

[vikingkidsdad]

Hey there,

I'm an American, married in Los Angeles 15 years ago. 5 years ago wife moved back to her native Sweden with our 2 children (now age 15& 11). I filed for divorce in Sweden and it was granted there and a decree issued 6 weeks ago.

Swedish law does not permit alimony except under extreme circumstances (which we don't fall under), as they expect each adult to support themselves once a marriage is over.

I send plenty of child support each month. My ex has just retained an attorney in LA seeking alimony. I'm sweating bullets. Can she make a claim here? Would a California court have jurisdiction? Can she do this after the divorce is final?

Thanks for any advice!

[LdiJ]

Originally Posted by vikingkidsdad

Hey there,

I'm an American, married in Los Angeles 15 years ago. 5 years ago wife moved back to her native Sweden with our 2 children (now age 15& 11). I filed for divorce in Sweden and it was granted there and a decree issued 6 weeks ago.

Swedish law does not permit alimony except under extreme circumstances (which we don't fall under), as they expect each adult to support themselves once a marriage is over.

I send plenty of child support each month. My ex has just retained an attorney in LA seeking alimony. I'm sweating bullets. Can she make a claim here? Would a California court have jurisdiction? Can she do this after the divorce is final?

Thanks for any advice!

Well...obviously her attorney thinks she can, since her attorney took the case. Its probably time for you to consult with an attorney of your own.

[rmet4nzkx]

Are you positive the divorce in Sweeden is final?

[vikingkidsdad]

Thanks for your responses. Yes, the divorce in Sweden is final. The Swedish court send me the decree about 6 weeks ago. They leave it up to the parties involved to equitably split community property, and the court will only get involved on that front if there is a problem.

We have agreed on how to split everything, just haven't finalized all the details yet. She hired an attorney in LA to make sure our agreement is drawn up correctly - but when I met with him Friday, at one point he started talking to me about alimony... and I started sweating.

I've put everything we have on the table, no hidden assets, all very straightforward stuff - but this threw me for a loop, hence the heavy perspiration

[LdiJ]

Originally Posted by vikingkidsdad

Thanks for your responses. Yes, the divorce in Sweden is final. The Swedish court send me the decree about 6 weeks ago. They leave it up to the parties involved to equitably split community property, and the court will only get involved on that front if there is a problem.

We have agreed on how to split everything, just haven't finalized all the details yet. She hired an attorney in LA to make sure our agreement is drawn up correctly - but when I met with him Friday, at one point he started talking to me about alimony... and I started sweating.

I've put everything we have on the table, no hidden assets, all very straightforward stuff - but this threw me for a loop, hence the heavy perspiration

How did he talk to you about the alimony? What was he saying?

It would make sense to have a property agreement made in the US if most of your community property is there...but I don't quite see how a US court could order alimony unless you actually agreed to that as part of the property settlement. CA doesn't have jurisdiction of the divorce. Maybe someone else has other thoughts on the matter.

[vikingkidsdad]

Thanks for your response. He said that under California law she was entitled to alimony since we had been married over 10 years. (Last 5 her living in Sweden). I kept mum, but my head was spinning. He said that roughly for every dollar I earned, 1/3 would go to taxes, 1/3 to my ex, and 1/3 to me.

He also said there was a formula for deciding child support. But again, would a US court even get involved in that? (I already send more than usual in Sweden). There are no health care costs in Sweden, cost of living way below here, schools free... plenty of monetary support available for a single mom with kids, etc.

I agree that it makes sense to have an agreement on property division filed here - since almost all that we have is in California.

Still sweating the alimony issue, however. Appreciate any and all feedback.

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

My response:

I would REALLY like to see her "authorities" allowing, or requiring, California to have jurisdiction concerning spousal support of a foreign decree of Dissolution. She's the one who chose the forum and since Sweden, in effect, doesn't have spousal support laws, then California has no jurisdiction to intervene or change a Swedish decree.

Sounds like she's attempting an "end run" around Swedish law, and attempting to inflict California law; i.e., Section 4336 establishes a rebuttable presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence that a marriage of 10 years or more, from the date of marriage to the date of separation, is a marriage of "long duration" for purposes of retaining spousal jurisdiction [Ca Fam § 4336(b)], where it doesn't belong. California NEVER had jurisdiction over the Dissolution or other issues. Again, she chose the forum, and must abide by that forum's laws.

Ask for her legal authorities on the subject, and give me the case name(s).

IAAL

[rmet4nzkx]

Originally Posted by I AM ALWAYS LIABLE

My response:

I would REALLY like to see her "authorities" allowing, or requiring, California to have jurisdiction concerning spousal support of a foreign decree of Dissolution. She's the one who chose the forum and since Sweden, in effect, doesn't have spousal support laws, then California has no jurisdiction to intervene or change a Swedish decree.

Sounds like she's attempting an "end run" around Swedish law, and attempting to inflict California law; i.e., Section 4336 establishes a rebuttable presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence that a marriage of 10 years or more, from the date of marriage to the date of separation, is a marriage of "long duration" for purposes of retaining spousal jurisdiction [Ca Fam § 4336(b)], where it doesn't belong. California NEVER had jurisdiction over the Dissolution or other issues. Again, she chose the forum, and must abide by that forum's laws.

Ask for her legal authorities on the subject, and give me the case name(s).

IAAL

I was thinking the same thing, since the foreign divorce is final, Ca doesn't have jurisdiction, could Ca have jurisdiction since he has not left CA and if there was a child custody/support/visitation agreements when and or after she left for Sweden? In fact he might file for custody of the children in Ca and win if he can use
CALIFORNIA FAMILY.CODE. [url]http://www.aroundthecapitol.com/cod...ction=3040-3048[/url] This is often used in cased on international abduction?

Also can you help Thersa out on this thread/s she is in over her head and up against a deadline.
[url]http://forum.freeadvice.com/showthread.php?t=284634[/url]

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

[quote=rmet4nzkx]I was thinking the same thing, since the foreign divorce is final, Ca doesn't have jurisdiction, could Ca have jurisdiction since he has not left CA and if there was a child custody/support/visitation agreements when and or after she left for Sweden? In fact he might file for custody of the children in Ca and win if he can use


CALIFORNIA FAMILY.CODE. [url]http://www.aroundthecapitol.com/cod...ction=3040-3048[/url] This is often used in cased on international abduction?

MY RESPONSE: I went to this site, and came up with nothing. Can you point to the exact item, or cite the authority, you want me to review? Like I said, California NEVER had jurisdiction. Our writer agreed to the Swedish jurisdiction by responding to the Swedish Complaint for Dissolution. It doesn't matter that he resides in California. California simply doesn't have jurisdiction - - especially a foreign decree - - unless there was a signed agreement to that effect.



Also can you help Thersa out on this thread/s she is in over her head and up against a deadline.

MY RESPONSE: No. For one, she has multiple threads. For another, she is starting off under an incorrect principle of law, or she's misunderstanding it, and it would take reams to explain where she's wrong, and why. I'm not going to write a treatise on Governmental Claims, or her incorrect reasoning concerning her "inability to represent her children." In one of her threads, I told her to buy a book on the litigation process.

IAAL

[rmet4nzkx]

[quote=I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

Originally Posted by rmet4nzkx

I was thinking the same thing, since the foreign divorce is final, Ca doesn't have jurisdiction, could Ca have jurisdiction since he has not left CA and if there was a child custody/support/visitation agreements when and or after she left for Sweden? In fact he might file for custody of the children in Ca and win if he can use


CALIFORNIA FAMILY.CODE. [url]http://www.aroundthecapitol.com/cod...ction=3040-3048[/url] This is often used in cases on international abduction?

MY RESPONSE: I went to this site, and came up with nothing. Can you point to the exact item, or cite the authority, you want me to review? Like I said, California NEVER had jurisdiction. Our writer agreed to the Swedish jurisdiction by responding to the Swedish Complaint for Dissolution. It doesn't matter that he resides in California. California simply doesn't have jurisdiction - - especially a foreign decree - - unless there was a signed agreement to that effect.

CALIFORNIA CODES
FAMILY.CODE
SECTION 3040-3048
I'm sorry that link didn't work. Am I forgiven?????

Also can you help Thersa out on this thread/s she is in over her head and up against a deadline.

MY RESPONSE: No. For one, she has multiple threads. For another, she is starting off under an incorrect principle of law, or she's misunderstanding it, and it would take reams to explain where she's wrong, and why. I'm not going to write a treatise on Governmental Claims, or her incorrect reasoning concerning her "inability to represent her children." In one of her threads, I told her to buy a book on the litigation process.
IAAL

I was afraid of that and she has interrogatories due next week, she went at it Bass Ackwards, trying to file a complaint formed from a Fed template in Ca superior court. I told her to file administrative complaints then she doesn't need an attorney.

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

Originally Posted by rmet4nzkx

CALIFORNIA CODES
FAMILY.CODE
SECTION 3040-3048
I'm sorry that link didn't work. Am I forgiven?????

My response:

Yes, you're forgiven. However, why are you using California law? The writer never filed in California. California never had jurisdiction. He agreed to Swedish jurisdiction. If our writer has a "beef" concerning the children, or of any other issue, Sweden is the forum for those concerns, not California.

IAAL

[LdiJ]

Originally Posted by I AM ALWAYS LIABLE

My response:

Yes, you're forgiven. However, why are you using California law? The writer never filed in California. California never had jurisdiction. He agreed to Swedish jurisdiction. If our writer has a "beef" concerning the children, or of any other issue, Sweden is the forum for those concerns, not California.

IAAL

Would CA be able to take jurisdiction for the purpose of calculating child support? Just curious.

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

Originally Posted by LdiJ

Would CA be able to take jurisdiction for the purpose of calculating child support? Just curious.

My response:

Ldij, stay off of threads where I've responded - - especially where you can't understand the English language or the concepts of law being discussed. What is wrong with you? If you had read, and understood, what I've written, you wouldn't have asked your completely, utterly, stupid question.

IAAL

[LdiJ]

Originally Posted by I AM ALWAYS LIABLE

My response:

Ldij, stay off of threads where I've responded - - especially where you can't understand the English language or the concepts of law being discussed. What is wrong with you? If you had read, and understood, what I've written, you wouldn't have asked your completely, utterly, stupid question.

IAAL

I asked my question, because it is not uncommon for the ncp's home state to take jurisdiction of child support, even when another state retains jurisdiction for all other purposes. Therefore, I was curious as to whether or not that might work the same way internationally.

However, you don't have to answer, I will simply go see whether or not there is a child support treaty between the US and Sweden, and find my answer out that way.

Edit to add more information:

There does not appear to be a child support treaty between the US and Sweden. However, in the child support treaty between the US and Norway, CA apparently could make orders establishing the amount of child support to be paid....or at least be involved in the calculation. Therefore the question wasn't quite as stupid as you may have felt it appeared.

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

Originally Posted by LdiJ

I asked my question, because it is not uncommon for the ncp's home state to take jurisdiction of child support, even when another state retains jurisdiction for all other purposes. Therefore, I was curious as to whether or not that might work the same way internationally.

However, you don't have to answer, I will simply go see whether or not there is a child support treaty between the US and Sweden, and find my answer out that way.

Edit to add more information:

There does not appear to be a child support treaty between the US and Sweden. However, in the child support treaty between the US and Norway, CA apparently could make orders establishing the amount of child support to be paid....or at least be involved in the calculation. Therefore the question wasn't quite as stupid as you may have felt it appeared.

My response:

Yeah, okay, sure, whatever. Stay the hell off of these threads. Do you enjoy mixing apples and oranges? God damn it, we're not talking about Norway, so it WAS a stupid question! And, it wouldn't have mattered if the U.S. had such a treaty with Sweden! The children live THERE, not here. The issues were decided THERE, not here. Jurisdiction is THERE, not here!

Please, you just don't understand the concepts involved. So, stop it.

IAAL