Improperly served - CASA help!

[NITM]

What is the name of your state? CA

As I figured, as soon as CP closed the case with Dept. of Child Supp. Services, she's started harassing NCP already. She mailed a "Request for Info After Order" wanting NCP's employment info, W2's, paystubs, etc., which I know she's allowed to do, as NCP also is. However, CP improperly filled out and signed the "Proof of Service by Mail" herself, which I thought she's not allowed to do since she's a party to the action? NCP has no problem with providing the info to her, however, he does not wish to devulge his employer's name to her, as she has a history of harassing companies he works for (as well as mine - I'm NCP's wife). Is he allowed to white-out the company name on his check stubs, etc?

Also, last year as well as this year, NCP also served the same Request for Info on CP, but she replied with an "objection" paper stating that since she's not employed (but lives off of her husband's substantial income as an attorney) that she doesn't have to provide that info and it is an invasion of her privacy. I believe her husband's income IS relevant in this case - am I wrong? So we never get her info, but have to give her ours?? CP also stated on the Proof of Service form that she was mailing it from her "business address" and used the name of the affluent private community she lives in as the "business", but she's not employed. Can she do that? We also know she's been babysitting for cash under the table most of last year, but she will still claim $0 as her income. Can NCP send his own objection notice that he was improperly served to at least delay giving her the info for another 30 days? Is there anything else he should/could do?

Any info is much appreciated.

 

[LdiJ]

What is the name of your state? CA

As I figured, as soon as CP closed the case with Dept. of Child Supp. Services, she's started harassing NCP already. She mailed a "Request for Info After Order" wanting NCP's employment info, W2's, paystubs, etc., which I know she's allowed to do, as NCP also is. However, CP improperly filled out and signed the "Proof of Service by Mail" herself, which I thought she's not allowed to do since she's a party to the action? NCP has no problem with providing the info to her, however, he does not wish to devulge his employer's name to her, as she has a history of harassing companies he works for (as well as mine - I'm NCP's wife). Is he allowed to white-out the company name on his check stubs, etc?

Also, last year as well as this year, NCP also served the same Request for Info on CP, but she replied with an "objection" paper stating that since she's not employed (but lives off of her husband's substantial income as an attorney) that she doesn't have to provide that info and it is an invasion of her privacy. I believe her husband's income IS relevant in this case - am I wrong? So we never get her info, but have to give her ours?? CP also stated on the Proof of Service form that she was mailing it from her "business address" and used the name of the affluent private community she lives in as the "business", but she's not employed. Can she do that? We also know she's been babysitting for cash under the table most of last year, but she will still claim $0 as her income. Can NCP send his own objection notice that he was improperly served to at least delay giving her the info for another 30 days? Is there anything else he should/could do?

Any info is much appreciated.

Yes, you are wrong (or rather your husband is since you have no dog in this fight)...her husband's info is irrelevant...as is yours.

The only thing that is relevant is the respective incomes of the parents....OR what the parents could be earning if they were working.

If service by mail is allowed in the jurisdiction then yes, she can fill out the "proof of service by mail"....and obviously your husband WAS served since he is aware of what is going on. He might be able to dodge service but what is the point?

 

[NITM]

The Proof of Service form itself states that you can not be a party to the action to use it. Maybe it's just a CA thing. The point is that CP is a miserable, harassing, golddigging witch who never leaves us alone. We've received 14 pieces of correspondence from her in just the past two months alone. NCP wants to postpone things a bit until we can find out if he "has" to give her the name of his company.

She tries to make herself sound like a pauper on the verge of welfare on her I&E Statement, when she's well off and doesn't work because she doesn't have to. She also keeps changing what she "used" to earn and falsely claims she has "special needs children" so they won't impute her former income and lies about income she's making under the table now.

 

[ezmarelda]

Yes, you are wrong (or rather your husband is since you have no dog in this fight)...her husband's info is irrelevant...as is yours.

The only thing that is relevant is the respective incomes of the parents....OR what the parents could be earning if they were working.

If service by mail is allowed in the jurisdiction then yes, she can fill out the "proof of service by mail"....and obviously your husband WAS served since he is aware of what is going on. He might be able to dodge service but what is the point?

directly from CAFC @ http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=22688410007+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve

4057.5. (a) (1) The income of the obligor parent's subsequent
spouse or nonmarital partner shall not be considered when determining
or modifying child support, except in an extraordinary case where
excluding that income would lead to extreme and severe hardship to
any child subject to the child support award, in which case the court
shall also consider whether including that income would lead to
extreme and severe hardship to any child supported by the obligor or
by the obligor's subsequent spouse or nonmarital partner.
(2) The income of the obligee parent's subsequent spouse or
nonmarital partner shall not be considered when determining or
modifying child support, except in an extraordinary case where
excluding that income would lead to extreme and severe hardship to
any child subject to the child support award, in which case the court
shall also consider whether including that income would lead to
extreme and severe hardship to any child supported by the obligee or
by the obligee's subsequent spouse or nonmarital partner. (b) For purposes of this section, an extraordinary case may
include a parent who voluntarily or intentionally quits work or
reduces income, or who intentionally remains unemployed or
underemployed and relies on a subsequent spouse's income. (c) If any portion of the income of either parent's subsequent
spouse or nonmarital partner is allowed to be considered pursuant to
this section, discovery for the purposes of determining income shall
be based on W2 and 1099 income tax forms, except where the court
determines that application would be unjust or inappropriate.
(d) If any portion of the income of either parent's subsequent
spouse or nonmarital partner is allowed to be considered pursuant to
this section, the court shall allow a hardship deduction based on the
minimum living expenses for one or more stepchildren of the party
subject to the order.
(e) The enactment of this section constitutes cause to bring an
action for modification of a child support order entered prior to the
operative date of this section.

She CAN NOT "personaly" nor by mail serve NCP
if she used this form http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/forms/documents/fl335.pdf it states very clearly "I am at least 18 years of age, not a party to this action, and I am a resident of or employed in the county where the mailing took
place."


*sometimes LdiJ you need to remember we are a world of our own out here in Cali-land

 

[LdiJ]

"(2) The income of the obligee parent's subsequent spouse or
nonmarital partner shall not be considered when determining or
modifying child support, except in an extraordinary case where
excluding that income would lead to extreme and severe hardship to
any child subject to the child support award, in which case the court
shall also consider whether including that income would lead to
extreme and severe hardship to any child supported by the obligee or
by the obligee's subsequent spouse or nonmarital partner. (b) For purposes of this section, an extraordinary case may
include a parent who voluntarily or intentionally quits work or
reduces income, or who intentionally remains unemployed or
underemployed and relies on a subsequent spouse's income. (c) If any portion of the income of either parent's "

And that is relevant because? Mom is boing to be imputed an income...that is a given.

 

[ezmarelda]

And that is relevant because? Mom is boing to be imputed an income...that is a given.

OP said nothing about mom's income being imputed...and it is NOT a "given"

and it is relavant because mom is living only off hubby's $$ and claiming to be unemployed

I am not usualy one to argue but L you are wrong on this one

 

[NITM]

Thanks Sorry eme, at least I know I haven't completely lost my mind. Years ago, when NCP had an attorney, CP did have to provide her husband's info. Yes, they SHOULD impute an income on CP, but because CP is a chronic liar and says that she has "special needs children" and claims that's why she "can't work", they've only imputed less than half of what she's able to earn. (CP has two other children from current husband and they're all perfectly healthy, including my stepson) All I would need is to make CP provide school IEP forms to prove she's lying, because there are no IEP forms on her children.

Can you tell me which legal form I need to use to ask CP to provide those forms? I access the Superior Court of Orange County site, but don't know which is the proper form to use . . . I think it's some kind of Request to Produce Information? Or would it be better to request this information directly from the school? Also, I'm assuming NCP would need to ask the person she's been babysitting for (who we also know) to sign some kind of statement saying she's paid CP $$ for babysitting services as proof? I know when we receive her Income & Expense statement, she'll claim $0 again as her income. NCP really needs a way to finally prove CP is a liar.

Thanks

 

[weenor]

Thanks Sorry eme, at least I know I haven't completely lost my mind. Years ago, when NCP had an attorney, CP did have to provide her husband's info. Yes, they SHOULD impute an income on CP, but because CP is a chronic liar and says that she has "special needs children" and claims that's why she "can't work", they've only imputed less than half of what she's able to earn. (CP has two other children from current husband and they're all perfectly healthy, including my stepson) All I would need is to make CP provide school IEP forms to prove she's lying, because there are no IEP forms on her children.

Can you tell me which legal form I need to use to ask CP to provide those forms? I access the Superior Court of Orange County site, but don't know which is the proper form to use . . . I think it's some kind of Request to Produce Information? Or would it be better to request this information directly from the school? Also, I'm assuming NCP would need to ask the person she's been babysitting for (who we also know) to sign some kind of statement saying she's paid CP $$ for babysitting services as proof? I know when we receive her Income & Expense statement, she'll claim $0 again as her income. NCP really needs a way to finally prove CP is a liar.

Thanks

You can either send a Request for Production with Interrogatories- Look in your rules of civil procedure.

 

[NITM]

Thanks, you guys are the best! I found the form.

 

[Ohiogal]

Thanks, you guys are the best! I found the form.

As NCPs wife you cannot DO ANYTHING. Unless of course you are either a licensed attorney in that state or you want to be charged with practicing law without a license.

 

[NITM]

NCP does everything Pro Se - I just complete the forms for him to sign. CP does the same thing . . . are you saying she shouldn't be preparing legal forms/requests herself either? She also does everything Pro Se. She even personally sends legal papers to NCP's employer trying to request personal info, which was stopped by the objection I typed up for NCP. Is there some action NCP can take to make her stop doing this?

 

[Ohiogal]

NCP does everything Pro Se - I just complete the forms for him to sign. CP does the same thing . . . are you saying she shouldn't be preparing legal forms/requests herself either? She also does everything Pro Se. She even personally sends legal papers to NCP's employer trying to request personal info, which was stopped by the objection I typed up for NCP. Is there some action NCP can take to make her stop doing this?

Technically you should not be completing the forms for him. NCP can file for an injunction however if you are involved in litigation or there is a court order entitling her to the information then you cannot make her stop completely.

 

[NITM]

There is no court order entitling her to anything - she just "thinks" she's entitled to any info she desires, but refuses to provide any of her info and lies about the rest.