Really? So you are now able to predict what every judge in every one of the 50 states would decide?
Amazing.
My response did not remotely state that I knew what every judge in every state would decide. I made a reasonable statement based on the international scope of this case.
There are plenty of cases where support is ordered retroactively, certainly from the date of filing.
Of course there are. US cases. This would not be a US case at this point as the US does not have jurisdiction over the matter because the child was born and resides in another country. The US would not have jurisdiction unless the mother asked the US courts for help. The mother would have no reason to ask the US courts for help if the father was paying according to the orders of her country. If mom decided to do it anyway (and I cannot see why) then as long as dad could prove that he was paying according to the valid orders of another country, the US court would have no jurisdiction regarding retroactive support.
That may be. Seems to me that YOU are the one now suggesting that he should pay a lower amount if the other country allows it. Rather funny considering that you're accusing me of trying to get him to shirk his duties.
I know that you know what "inadvertently" means. Why shouldn't he pay the amount that the country with jurisdiction orders? That order would be based on the standard of living in that country.
I would suggest that he should be paying the necessary support wherever he lives. If he really wants to pay the lower amount, he could take that order into court and have just the CS portion affirmed (since the alimony and dowry are not in compliance with U.S. law), so it would be possible for him to get a court order for the amount that the other country is ordering.
I don't believe that he can do that even if he wanted to do that. The US courts don't have any jurisdiction over this matter as the child was born and resides in another country. Maybe a judge would go ahead and make the order anyway, even without jurisdiction because it would harm no one, but maybe the judge would simply dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction.
Not support his child? As usual, you're making things up. I am encouraging him to support his child BUT GET A VALID COURT ORDER. It is interesting, though, that you specifically said he should accept the foreign CS order because it might be lower. Seems to me that YOU are the one suggesting that he try to cut his obligations.
I made nothing up. I simply pointed out that you were
inadvertently giving the guy the impression that he had a way to avoid supporting his child unless the mother brought the case to the US.
Dowry? You're right about that. Slavery was outlawed in this country a century and a half ago. Dowry is an archaic custom that is completely outside the scope of U.S. law and he has no legal obligation to repay it. PARTICULARLY since she's the one who ran off and decided that she didn't want to be married.
I think that countries where a dowry is still a custom would be a bit offended by you comparing a dowry to slavery. Dowries were still very much a custom in Great Britain not much more than 100 years ago, and I am pretty sure that slavery ended there long before it ended in the US.
If he is a devout Muslim he might have a religious obligation to repay it that would be outside the scope of US law/US mores.
Of course if you are going to focus on US laws in a situation where they probably don't apply, then 1/2 of that dowry, at least, is marital property and belongs to her anyway.
