"equitable estoppel"

My ex-wife left colorado where i live in early 1990. She didnt tell me where she was going and did not contact me since. We had a young kid and definite paternity issues.I had just gotten out of the military and told her I would be pursuing a paternity test from a 1988 divorce ($150/mo child support). Back in 1996 Social Services in the County where i live informed me I OWED APPROX 700 DOLLARS to the county from her past case. Before she left town a warrant for her arrest was issued for defrauding Social Services and the 700 dollars was at the tail end of it. She got in trouble for not reporting the child support I was paying at the time. When she left town I did not pay anymore child support as Colorado Social Services wanted the 700 dollars it was owed and after I payed them off closed her case in Colorado. Years went by and in early 1997 I learned she was murdered in New York in a drug robbery. Her and her boyfriend than husband who had been in the military with me previously were apparrently drug dealers.I tried to contact her family and talked to a detective in New York. He said he couldnt give me anyone's number but would tell her family to contact me since my name is on that childs birth certificate. No one has contacted me to this day regarding that child.However, in late 1999 I was contacted by the State of Wyoming where I was divorced on behalf of the State of New York. Upon several conversations with Wyoming they informed me that New York wanted thousands of dollars for a period from 89 -94. After more conversations with Wyoming Child support services it turned out she had also gotten AFDC from Wyoming and they wanted $1350 for back support. I aked New York and Wyoming why I had not been contacted by either State in at least nine years since they had these cases and no one could give me an answer. I have been in the same town in Colorado since 1989.For some reason she did not report that she knew where I was. I think for fear of the arrest warrant that is still in effect to this day. New York did not even know there was a divorce decree involved. I have proof she recieved AFDC from the three States at the same time at times. Wyoming has already reduced the amount they wanted because of the amount I had to pay to Colorado. She recieved child support from me from 1988-to the end of 1990.New York wants to be payed back for 89-94.I'm waiting for copies of the New York case Irequested from Colorado Social Services to verify what I already know is true. She was recieving welfare from three states at times and not reporting that she knew my whereabouts while I didnt know where she was. I went to see a lawyer recently and totally blew his mind it seemed at the time as to the question of whether I have any right to fight any of this. Recently he called me back and told me he found a principle of "equitable estoppel" for which we could use to fight the back child support. It dealt with the fact that I should not be held responsible for her fraudulent activity. Ive been trying to get this straightened out for over a year now. Im curious if I should proceed with the lawyer or throw in the towel.I need help.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by randolke:
[b]My ex-wife left colorado where i live in early 1990. She didnt tell me where she was going and did not contact me since. We had a young kid and definite paternity issues.I had just gotten out of the military and told her I would be pursuing a paternity test from a 1988 divorce ($150/mo child support). Back in 1996 Social Services in the County where i live informed me I OWED APPROX 700 DOLLARS to the county from her past case. Before she left town a warrant for her arrest was issued for defrauding Social Services and the 700 dollars was at the tail end of it. She got in trouble for not reporting the child support I was paying at the time. When she left town I did not pay anymore child support as Colorado Social Services wanted the 700 dollars it was owed and after I payed them off closed her case in Colorado. Years went by and in early 1997 I learned she was murdered in New York in a drug robbery. Her and her boyfriend than husband who had been in the military with me previously were apparrently drug dealers.I tried to contact her family and talked to a detective in New York. He said he couldnt give me anyone's number but would tell her family to contact me since my name is on that childs birth certificate. No one has contacted me to this day regarding that child.However, in late 1999 I was contacted by the State of Wyoming where I was divorced on behalf of the State of New York. Upon several conversations with Wyoming they informed me that New York wanted thousands of dollars for a period from 89 -94. After more conversations with Wyoming Child support services it turned out she had also gotten AFDC from Wyoming and they wanted $1350 for back support. I aked New York and Wyoming why I had not been contacted by either State in at least nine years since they had these cases and no one could give me an answer. I have been in the same town in Colorado since 1989.For some reason she did not report that she knew where I was. I think for fear of the arrest warrant that is still in effect to this day. New York did not even know there was a divorce decree involved. I have proof she recieved AFDC from the three States at the same time at times. Wyoming has already reduced the amount they wanted because of the amount I had to pay to Colorado. She recieved child support from me from 1988-to the end of 1990.New York wants to be payed back for 89-94.I'm waiting for copies of the New York case Irequested from Colorado Social Services to verify what I already know is true. She was recieving welfare from three states at times and not reporting that she knew my whereabouts while I didnt know where she was. I went to see a lawyer recently and totally blew his mind it seemed at the time as to the question of whether I have any right to fight any of this. Recently he called me back and told me he found a principle of "equitable estoppel" for which we could use to fight the back child support. It dealt with the fact that I should not be held responsible for her fraudulent activity. Ive been trying to get this straightened out for over a year now. Im curious if I should proceed with the lawyer or throw in the towel.I need help. [/b]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My response:

Check with your attorney on the following California interpretation of estoppel and laches:

Estoppel not binding on county: Where the custodial parent has obtained public assistance payments for the child and has assigned the right to child support arrearages to the county or other public entity (Ca Wel & Inst §§ 11350(a), 11477(a)), conduct that might estop the custodial parent from enforcing child support arrearages cannot be imputed to the county to bar its right to obtain from the noncustodial parent public assistance reimbursement and child support arrearages. [Marriage of Comer (1996) 14 Cal.4th 504, 510, 529, 59 Cal.Rptr.2d 155, 156, 169 (expressly disapproving several conflicting intermediate appellate court decisions); see Marriage of Walters (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 998, 1005-1006, 70 Cal.Rptr.2d 354, 358]

This rule finds support on several grounds:

· The county has a statutory right to recoup reimbursement from the primary obligor for public assistance benefits provided, as well as for ongoing support (Ca Wel & Inst §§ 11350, 11477(a); ¶6:76 ff.). [Marriage of Comer, supra, 14 Cal.4th at 523, 59 Cal.Rptr.2d at 164]

· After an assignment of rights to the county as a condition to obtaining AFDC, the custodial parent's subsequent conduct cannot defeat the county's statutory reimbursement rights. It is well-recognized that an assignor cannot cancel or modify a completed assignment, or impair the assignee's rights, by unilateral action. [Marriage of Comer, supra, 14 Cal.4th at 522, 59 Cal.Rptr.2d at 164; see Marriage of Shore (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 290, 296, 139 Cal.Rptr. 349, 353]

· Estoppel requires some affirmative act or representation by the party to be estopped. Thus, unless the county (or its authorized agents) has done an affirmative act or made an affirmative representation that induces reliance, no estoppel can be found. [Marriage of Comer, supra, 14 Cal.4th at 522, 59 Cal.Rptr.2d at 164; see Marriage of Walters, supra, 59 Cal.App.4th at 1005, 70 Cal.Rptr.2d at 358]

· Imputing an estoppel to the county could frustrate codified policy to encourage family unification and frequent and continuing contact with both parents (Ca Fam § 3020). [Marriage of Comer, supra, 14 Cal.4th at 528, 59 Cal.Rptr.2d at 168]

"Because the noncustodial parent could be relieved of some or all of a sizable debt to the county if the custodial parent fails to rebut the concealment defense, the [estoppel against the county] approach . . . either would foster unnecessary litigation regarding acts of concealment, or encourage collusion between parents designed to deprive the county of the reimbursement to which it is entitled. Under either scenario, the noncustodial parent may be strongly motivated to 'pay off' the custodial parent with a portion of the conserved funds . . ." [Marriage of Comer, supra, 14 Cal.4th at 528, 59 Cal.Rptr.2d at 168]

County's lack of diligence in locating concealed parent irrelevant: As a condition to public assistance eligibility, federal law requires the applicant/recipient to cooperate with the state in locating the parent of a child for whom aid is claimed and obtaining support from that parent (45 CFR § 232.12; see Ca Wel & Inst § 11477(b)). But there is no authority holding that the noncustodial parent may be released from the statutory AFDC reimbursement obligation based on the custodial parent's failure to cooperate with the county or the county's failure to act diligently in locating a parent. [Marriage of Comer, supra, 14 Cal.4th at 525, 59 Cal.Rptr.2d at 166; see also Marriage of Walters, supra, 59 Cal.App.4th at 1005-1006, 70 Cal.Rptr.2d at 358]

Immaterial that reimbursement to county not of direct benefit to child: Concededly, the children are not the direct beneficiaries of public assistance reimbursement (they have already benefited from the county's payments to the custodial parent and the reimbursement is payable to the county). Nonetheless, public policy strongly supports the county's right to seek reimbursement because it helps ensure that public funds will be available for distribution to other needy families. [Marriage of Comer, supra, 14 Cal.4th at 527-528, 59 Cal.Rptr.2d at 168; see Marriage of Walters, supra, 59 Cal.App.4th at 1006, 70 Cal.Rptr.2d at 358]

Laches defense to arrearages enforcement? Despite Ca Fam § 4502 (support judgment enforceable until paid in full, laches (obligee's unreasonable delay in seeking arrears to obligor's prejudice) is a viable defense to the collection of past-due spousal support. [Marriage of Plescia (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 252, 262, 69 Cal.Rptr.2d 120, 126]

It is unclear, however, whether the defense might apply to the enforcement of child support arrears. Despite prejudice to the obligor, the State's paramount policy interest in the welfare of mi

i understand the concern about the money, however i did not read one thing in their about you asking about the well being of your child. what is up with that?