back child support

[cablecomp]

in minnesota can a child sue their parent for back child support?

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

in minnesota can a child sue their parent for back child support?

My response:

No.

IAAL

 

[smh33]

IAAL:

How does that work? Given support required, said right of/due to child....why would child not have right to pursue? Is it age,being a minor?
This assuming case is support order in place and not paid...even at reach of 18 yrs, a child cannot sue for owed/back support?

Would this vary by state?

Thanks.

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

My response:

In effect, a child support Order is a form of "contract" - - the parties to the "contract" are the court, the father, and the mother. A child is merely the "beneficiary" of the contract, and is not eligible to "enforce" the contract. Only the parties to the "contract" have the right, and "legal standing", to enforce the Order of the court.

If the "obligee" of a support order fails, for whatever reason, to have the Order enforced, the "obligor" (the paying parent) never owes the debt "directly" to a "beneficiary" (the child) of such Order.

IAAL

 

[smh33]

Thanks....In cases where back support pursued, how is granting backsupport validated in cases where 'obligee' failed to endorse but 8 yrs later decides to do such? Is there anytype of 'no fault' defense since contract party failed to uphold contract by having it enforced...would that not be breach of contract?
Seems like punishing/holding accountable one for lack of action of another person...is it not considered 'obligee's' responsibility to enforce contract?
Since this contract is support would these issue fall under state jurisdiction...subject to differences by state.
Theoretically...could 'obligor' take legal action against an 'obligee' for not taking action to enforce contract? Understand that is also working against 'obligor',self incrim...just curious if possible.

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

Thanks....In cases where back support pursued, how is granting backsupport validated in cases where 'obligee' failed to endorse but 8 yrs later decides to do such? Is there anytype of 'no fault' defense since contract party failed to uphold contract by having it enforced...would that not be breach of contract?
Seems like punishing/holding accountable one for lack of action of another person...is it not considered 'obligee's' responsibility to enforce contract?
Since this contract is support would these issue fall under state jurisdiction...subject to differences by state.
Theoretically...could 'obligor' take legal action against an 'obligee' for not taking action to enforce contract? Understand that is also working against 'obligor',self incrim...just curious if possible.

My response:

Assuming, for the sake of this example, that the obligation is not being made and paid directly to an enforcement agency, most States have, allow, and recognize, a Statutes of Limitations and/or the defense of "Laches" for the Obligee's failure to enforce the support Order. Some States do not recognize such defenses. California does, as one example.

IAAL

 

[smh33]

Thank you...can you take look at question/thread about 'conflict of interest'? Appreciate, Thanks again.