Temporarily stay child support order

[joanjet]

This is a generic question - that is no more
Thank you

 

[stealth2]

Are you Parent B or a third party? (yes, it matters)

 

[adjusterjack]

The court is sympathetic to the situation, understands Parent A has condcuted bad faith litigation, but is unwilling (or hands are tied) to hold Parent A accountable for anything (esp financially) due to the child support contempts and unclean hands.

Reality check.

Despite your eloquent prose, the court isn't going to do squat for you as long as you don't pay your child support arrears.

 

[joanjet]

Reality check.

Despite your eloquent prose, the court isn't going to do squat for you as long as you don't pay your child support arrears.

Please cite the code sections that provide for witholding custody visitation based on financial defeiciency?
You see, the constitution defines parenting as primary right. It doesnt mention child support AT ALL
so your reality check is really the assertion of an unwritten code in family courts that is unconstitutional and illegal?
change my mind...

 

[Zigner]

Let's start with this: Who are you in this situation?

 

[stealth2]

Please cite the code sections that provide for witholding custody visitation based on financial defeiciency?
You see, the constitution defines parenting as primary right. It doesnt mention child support AT ALL
so your reality check is really the assertion of an unwritten code in family courts that is unconstitutional and illegal?
change my mind...

While custody/parenting time are separate animals, Parent B cannot unilaterally decide to stop paying. That contempt of court is what the court will hit him with.

We are all still waiting to discover who you are in this amazingly specific "generic" (to use your word) situation.

 

[commentator]

I'd be very surprised if the "alienation" word doesn't get you an eye roll from any court officer who's hearing from anyone who uses it. IF there were an attorney anywhere involved in representing Parent B, I would suggest that Parent B listen to them. But then again, who are you?

 

[joanjet]

I thank you for your "answers". I am the the person asking a generic hypothetical. Do you ask who is asking the question when you consider a hypo during a CLE seminar?
Alienation is now so prevalent, you hear it all the time. If a court officer is rolling their eyes, that is evidence of an utterly broken system that permits children to be alienated, not cause to mock the 10 millionth parent whis children will never talk to him again. isnt it?
I always wondered why bar associations block family law reform. Change is coming. your ambivolence reminds me of the gentry mocking the slaves. Slavery persisted for 400yrs. How long has this all been going on? at least 100

 

[adjusterjack]

Oh boy, we have a consummate troll here.

 

[Zigner]

I am the the person asking a generic hypothetical.

Oh, fantastic. That makes things much easier.
This forum is designed to give general information and non-legal advice to those who may be involved in a legal matter.
Hypothetical questions are better served elsewhere.

Best of luck to you!

 

[not2cleverRed]

Please cite the code sections that provide for witholding custody visitation based on financial defeiciency?
You see, the constitution defines parenting as primary right. It doesnt mention child support AT ALL
so your reality check is really the assertion of an unwritten code in family courts that is unconstitutional and illegal?
change my mind...

Codes vary by state.

However, generally "the best interests of the CHILD" is what is considered..

 

[joanjet]

Codes vary by state.

However, generally "the best interests of the CHILD" is what is considered..

Thank you for your answer.
If there is clear lifestyle evidence of extreeme wealth vacations, mansion, cars, then a litigant is required to file amotion to recalculate child support. The problem is, this is heard in a kangaroo court that already decided that this issue and will just makes it impossible to redress it. As attorneys you dont see the dirty tricks they use. They delay, kick the ball down the field, trip you up with documents and dates then just take the motion off calendar. Its not worth of a Putin regime.
But even if you were to attempt this soul destroying task, it could take 3 years. with discovery non cooperation etc etc, whcih means by the time you are sucessful, assuming you are, the children are totally alienated.
The jaded and indifferent here will be rolling their eyes again, but parental alienation causes parents to loose kids and it damages the kids
So, if we are going to use a best interests analysis, financial matters are irrelevant unles there is lack in the childs lives like pow income families. The majority of cases are not that, in which case, best interests are served by preventing alienation it would seem
In this hypo
a hypo because this is the wide open web and I notice the snarks dont use their real names either

 

[AlmostThere]

As you deleted your post, and have not told us who you are in this scenario, I am going to look at it both ways:
1) You are Parent A - the custodial parent looking for more support. Child support is based on Parent B's income. It is generally irrelevant if Parent B lives a lavish lifestyle because their spouse/partner/parent has deep pockets.
2) You are Parent B - It does not matter if Parent A has a large income, many assets, a wealthy spouse, etc. As a non-custodial parent, you are still responsible for supporting your child.

The idea is both parents, and only the parents are responsible for supporting their children.

 

[Just Blue]

Thank you for your answer.
If there is clear lifestyle evidence of extreeme wealth vacations, mansion, cars, then a litigant is required to file amotion to recalculate child support. The problem is, this is heard in a kangaroo court that already decided that this issue and will just makes it impossible to redress it. As attorneys you dont see the dirty tricks they use. They delay, kick the ball down the field, trip you up with documents and dates then just take the motion off calendar. Its not worth of a Putin regime.
But even if you were to attempt this soul destroying task, it could take 3 years. with discovery non cooperation etc etc, whcih means by the time you are sucessful, assuming you are, the children are totally alienated.
The jaded and indifferent here will be rolling their eyes again, but parental alienation causes parents to loose kids and it damages the kids
So, if we are going to use a best interests analysis, financial matters are irrelevant unles there is lack in the childs lives like pow income families. The majority of cases are not that, in which case, best interests are served by preventing alienation it would seem
In this hypo
a hypo because this is the wide open web and I notice the snarks dont use their real names either

There are 2 people responsible for supporting their children...mom and dad. Not stepparents, grandparents, bed buddies...just the parents.

Now, Joan, if you have a real situation and would like guidance, please post the facts (sans identifying information) ... if you are here to get on a bandwagon at the unfairness of child support laws...this is not the place. There are dozens of debate sites...this is not one of them .

 

[Eekamouse]

As you deleted your post, and have not told us who you are in this scenario, I am going to look at it both ways:
1) You are Parent A - the custodial parent looking for more support. Child support is based on Parent B's income. It is generally irrelevant if Parent B lives a lavish lifestyle because their spouse/partner/parent has deep pockets.
2) You are Parent B - It does not matter if Parent A has a large income, many assets, a wealthy spouse, etc. As a non-custodial parent, you are still responsible for supporting your child.

The idea is both parents, and only the parents are responsible for supporting their children.

And let's not forget:
3) You are the meddling new gf who is trying to find a way to help her new jewel of a man get out of his child support obligation since he isn't exercising his visitation rights anyway.