Support of Disabled child Over 21 yrs

[auntina]

What is the name of your state? Mo

My step daughter is 23 yrs old and is permanently disabled. She resides with her mother in the State of California and receives SSDI. My husband has been paying child support for the last 6 years and, of course, that amount is deducted from her SSDI. How long are we legally required to pay child support?

 

[VeronicaGia]

http://ocse3.acf.dhhs.gov/ext/irg/sps/selectastate.cfm

Click on MO. Support can continue indefinitely for a child who is incapable of taking care of him/herself and has not married and is "insolvent."

 

[ktarra617]

there is no we in paying child support, your husband owes it and here's a thought in most states the child support becomes a debt of the estate to continue to pay which means if something happened to your husband then the debt falls to his estate, usually social security pays it is my understanding.

It might be a good idea for your husband to take out a life ins policy unknown to his ex to provide for his daughter in trust when the time comes.

just a thought.

 

[auntina]

Really? Are you trying to tell me that all parents of "disabled" young adults are paying for the care of their children for the rest of their lives? You've got to be kidding! How many adults do you know that collect SSI whose parents are still alive and well? Perhaps I'm not comprehending something?



http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10026.html#3ways

Rules For Children 18 And Older
When a child turns age 18, we no longer consider the parent's income and assets when we decide if he or she can get SSI. A child who was not eligible for SSI before his or her 18th birthday because the parent's income or assets were too high may become eligible at age 18.

 

[ktarra617]

yes children who are declared disabled are entitled to support and care from both of their parents for the duration of their lives. Which means quite frankly that until a court sees otherwise your husband will pay to support his daughter indefinetly.

(this is why my ex has remained married to his wife, they have two disabled children, and he could not afford to support them if he didn't live with them, which he has been told by a lawyer here that if he divorces her that he will pay support for the rest of his life for his disabled children because they also recieve ssdi.)

And if his daughter is in good health otherwise she may outlive both her parents in which case it would be a good idea for both mom and dad to have life insurance in trust for her care until her death.

We are not kidding, but let me ask you this, if the young lady is disabled and not able to support herself, why should dad get off the hook just because she physically is of age?

That still leaves mom on the hook because the young lady lives with her? How is that fair to the young lady or her mother? The young lady deserves the support of both her parents especially since she can't support herself, it is not up to the taxpayers to support her, which I can bet is what would happen if dad quit paying. In which case then dad would find himself on the recieving end of a Child Support Enforcement agency!

Not a good thing!

Best bet is to just deal with it and make plans to have the young lady provided for when the time comes.

 

[auntina]

I understand your point when it comes to the Tax Payer. I'm not crazy about people who abuse the sytem.
Yes, she lives with Mom, only because Mom refuses to put her into the available mainstream programs that could enable her to physically take care of herself; ie: cooking, work trade, etc. And, she is left unattended when Mom goes to work.
You know, I don't think it really does boil down to the issue of how long he will have to pay, but perhaps that his daughter is being restricted in development. No, it's Moms way of punishing Dad for their seperation, and the system allows it. In doing this, the system itself is also disabling her opportunity to blend in with society. Maybe Dad should seek order to enforce that his daughter be permitted and allowed to enter into these programs.
Should Mom and Dad not have a policy for her upon their passing, who will be paying for her then? You, me, and everyone else who pays taxes.

Thanks, you've brought light to another matter.

 

[ktarra617]

just a thought if you feel the child is being held back in terms of what she could learn to do for herself then why has dad not sought custody of his daughter?

If he truly feels that his daughter is not being taken care of properly in allowing her to take some control of her existance then he should do something about it.

He needs to document, document, document, show that the young lady is being left alone for hours on end, if she is really disabled, how is this safe?

And there is no reason he could not seek a court order, ordering both himself and his ex's to carry sufficient life ins so that she is provided for.

I'm sorry that mom is using the situation to punish him. That is sad when a parent does that.

Your best bet is to consult a lawyer in your area and then consult with one in CA. As a matter of fact IAAL is an attorney in CA and he answers posts on here, perhaps you should pose your questions to him in reference to CA laws!

He has a lot of knowledge to impart, and just give him the facts of the case, he likes to get straight to the point, I've noticed.

He can offer a lot of info on the CA laws.

Good luck!

 

[auntina]

Thanks for the info.
How do you know IAAL is a lawyer? Have you personally seen his references?
Thank you again for the referral, but I have not seen where this IAAL has been anything but critical to the people who visit here.
And, for someone who has such a well established career such as that posted by IAAL, I'd be in fear that my case would be neglected due the amount of time he spends at this site.

 

[ktarra617]

I realized after I posted that and read another post where you and IAAL butted heads that you might not take the referral very well but I had already made it so I couldn't very well take it back.

As for your questions, honestly I don't know he's a lawyer or not, I have never met him, nor am I likely too. He has however given some very sound advice in the past that has ended up being confirmed to me by my own attorney so he must know something of the law.

IAAL is a straight to the point kind of guy, he's not going to hold your hand and try to make you feel better, he'll tell you how it is and he's not been wrong on many occassions that I know of and I have been posting around here for well over a year now.

I was not trying to offend you or anyone else for that matter so if you don't want to talk to him feel free to contact any other attorney in California for their legal opinion, however my advice still stands, you have a situation on your hands and it needs to be dealt with.

good luck.

 

[auntina]

I appreciate the time you have taken to respond.

I'm sorry for the way I feel about IAAL. If he has given sound advice to some, then he should continue that practice. If each of us were aware of the legalities to our questions, we wouldn't be here. All of us come from different social and economical backgrounds. There is no reason that he should be so rude and degrading to anyone!
If he doesn't have anything helpful to say, then he shouldn't reply.
If you really look around, I am not the only one who feels this way about him. Others have butted heads with him, too.

Again, thanks for everything



P.S. Thought I'd get this in to you before IAAL uses his empowerment to have me removed

Sorry for the sarcasm.....just don't think it's nice to respond to people the way he does.

 

[Boxcarbill]

Thanks for the info.
How do you know IAAL is a lawyer? Have you personally seen his references?
Thank you again for the referral, but I have not seen where this IAAL has been anything but critical to the people who visit here.
And, for someone who has such a well established career such as that posted by IAAL, I'd be in fear that my case would be neglected due the amount of time he spends at this site.

Let me see, how do I know? If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is probably a duck. Both his general legal knowledge as well as his specific legal knowledge is too extensive to be anything other than a lawyer, regardless of whether he is retired, on the bench (they play a lot of solitare on the computer) is a professor or is a senior partner.

I don't think that IAAL worked that hard to acquire legal knowledge for the purpose of pretending to be a lawyer on the Internet for free advice. But hey if people are convinced by degrees and license that a person is who they purport themselves to be, then that explains why some people get away with practicing medicine for years before their fraudulent degrees and license are exposed.

As to his no nonsense approach that is a benchmark of lawyers. As to rudeness, another benchmark. Some posters as in real life situations are just too asinine for anything but humor; others are just too selfish and manipulative for anything other than contempt. There are a never ending supply of people with legal problems on this board and in real life. So I can assure you that you not asking IAAL for advice will not be considered a loss.

 

[auntina]

We have a variety of social and econmical backgrounds here. Some educated, some not. Doesn't everyone deserve to be treated the same? On the bench, off the bench, retired, whatever? Noone deserves to be belittled or treated in a direspectful manner.

As you said "Some posters as in real life situations are just too asinine for anything but humor; others are just too selfish and manipulative for anything other than contempt."

I'm sure IAAL will miss me as much as I will him.


Thanks for reiterating the fact that this is a cruel world we live in.

 

[Boxcarbill]

We have a variety of social and econmical backgrounds here. Some educated, some not. Doesn't everyone deserve to be treated the same? On the bench, off the bench, retired, whatever? Noone deserves to be belittled or treated in a direspectful manner.

As you said "Some posters as in real life situations are just too asinine for anything but humor; others are just too selfish and manipulative for anything other than contempt."

I'm sure IAAL will miss me as much as I will him.


Thanks for reiterating the fact that this is a cruel world we live in.

No, everyone does not deserve to be treated the same way. Each case turns on it own facts. That is why we have both civil and criminal law so we can treat people differently. That is why we have a range of punishment for any given offense--so that we can treat the offenders who commit the same offense differently. Social and economic backgrounds are not the basis for treating people differently but factual situations and individual personalities are the basis.

I, personally, have taken cases pro bono (for the benfit of the good) as well as for a fee under $10.00 (because the client didn't want charity) and I have refused to represent people because I didn't like them or I didn't like the facts of the case-- in rare instances it was because of liked neither. I don't know where people got the idea that because a lawyer hangs out a shingle that they have to represent whatever walks in the door with money in hand. They don't. And they don't have to be nice or polite about it if they are self-employed.

 

[auntina]

No, everyone does not deserve to be treated the same way. Each case turns on it own facts. That is why we have both civil and criminal law so we can treat people differently. That is why we have a range of punishment for any given offense--so that we can treat the offenders who commit the same offense differently. Social and economic backgrounds are not the basis for treating people differently but factual situations and individual personalities are the basis.

I, personally, have taken cases pro bono (for the benfit of the good) as well as for a fee under $10.00 (because the client didn't want charity) and I have refused to represent people because I didn't like them or I didn't like the facts of the case-- in rare instances it was because of liked neither. I don't know where people got the idea that because a lawyer hangs out a shingle that they have to represent whatever walks in the door with money in hand. They don't. And they don't have to be nice or polite about it if they are self-employed.
/QUOTE]


Thanks for the info.. I think I got a little side tracked and lost sight of why I initially came here.