Court decision based on innacurate information

[jlane00]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Pennsylvania
A family member of mine was taken to court by his wife, who separated from him. I'll call him Jim and I'll call her Jill - not their real names. Jill claimed she takes care of the 2 kids (who I'll call Dawn and Steve) more often than she does - Jim has Steve about 80% of the time. The court decided Jim has to give Jill most of his salary excluding what he pays in rent and a little extra. (I guess for food?) This seems wrong. I would think someone would have found a third party to clarity the claim that Jill has the kids as often as she said, but this didn't happen. Is there anything that can be done to change the outcome?

 

[Ohiogal]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Pennsylvania
A family member of mine was taken to court by his wife, who separated from him. I'll call him Jim and I'll call her Jill - not their real names. Jill claimed she takes care of the 2 kids (who I'll call Dawn and Steve) more often than she does - Jim has Steve about 80% of the time. The court decided Jim has to give Jill most of his salary excluding what he pays in rent and a little extra. (I guess for food?) This seems wrong. I would think someone would have found a third party to clarity the claim that Jill has the kids as often as she said, but this didn't happen. Is there anything that can be done to change the outcome?

You don't know all the facts. Your family member can either post here himself and answer questions or hire an attorney. If a third party was needed, your family member should have subpoenaed witnesses.

 

[single317dad]

The court decided Jim has to give Jill most of his salary

Well, that seems like a bit of hyperbole.

 

[latigo]

"Court decision based on innacurate [sic] information"?

A family member of mine was taken to court by his wife, who separated from him. I'll call him Jim and I'll call her Jill - not their real names. Jill claimed she takes care of the 2 kids (who I'll call Dawn and Steve) more often than she does - Jim has Steve about 80% of the time. The court decided Jim has to give Jill most of his salary excluding what he pays in rent and a little extra. (I guess for food?) This seems wrong. I would think someone would have found a third party to clarity the claim that Jill has the kids as often as she said, but this didn't happen. Is there anything that can be done to change the outcome?

I think I've got it now.

What you are telling us - even though second hand - is totally "acurate" [sic] and free of bias whereas the "information" provided and acted upon by the family court was bias and totally "innacurate" [sic]. Right?

Would it shock you to know that until a court having appropriate jurisdiction orders otherwise parents have equal rights to the custody and control of their minor children. And that the percentage of parental care PRE-DIVORCE alone has nothing or little to do with anything!

Also it was very thoughtful of you not to reveal family given names. We wouldn't want to confuse them with say a John, Mary, Betty or Frank.

 

[jlane00]

Thanks

Would it shock you to know that until a court having appropriate jurisdiction orders otherwise parents have equal rights to the custody and control of their minor children. And that the percentage of parental care PRE-DIVORCE alone has nothing or little to do with anything!

Thanks, latigo. This was the most helpful bit of info I've received this far, not being an attorney and not having $ for one either. But my understanding was the court DOES have jurisdiction over how much care is provided to the mother.

Also it was very thoughtful of you not to reveal family given names. We wouldn't want to confuse them with say a John, Mary, Betty or Frank.

Sarcasm? So I should call them John Doe and Jane Doe? I seem to remember agreeing to a lengthy statement that I wouldn't provide too much identifying information about anyone when I signed up for these forums.

 

[stealth2]

Thanks, latigo. This was the most helpful bit of info I've received this far, not being an attorney and not having $ for one either. But my understanding was the court DOES have jurisdiction over how much care is provided to the mother.



Sarcasm? So I should call them John Doe and Jane Doe? I seem to remember agreeing to a lengthy statement that I wouldn't provide too much identifying information about anyone when I signed up for these forums.

You do realize that this is not your legal affair, yes? You would be wise to leave it to your family member to deal with himself.

 

[Zigner]

...the percentage of parental care PRE-DIVORCE alone has nothing or little to do with anything!

That's not accurate in family court. If one parent is the primary care-taker while the other parent is a cross-country trucker that spends only 2 nights at home every 2 weeks, then the primary care-taker parent is much more likely to retain his/her status as primary caretaker. (Just as an example.)