Motion to dismiss people as a party??

[nomeansno]

What is the name of your state? Colorado

My husband has court tomorrow for his request to modify child support due to inability to work. We just got a letter in the mail from the Attorney for the State that is a motion to dismiss people as a party and change of payee.

It says that support enforcement services were provided pursuant to CRS 26-13-105, IV-D services are no longer necessary or authorized. It further requests that all future CS payments received by Family support Registry be sent to the Obligee.

I looked up the statutes as best I could, and I think I understand it, but can somebody please explain it in plain English?


While looking for this statute I came across 26-13.5-112. Modification of an order.

26-13.5-112. Modification of an order.
(1) At any time after the entry of an order of financial responsibility or an order of default under this article, in order to add, alter, or delete any provisions to such an order, the delegate child support enforcement unit may issue a notice of financial responsibility to an obligor requesting the modification of an existing administrative order issued pursuant to this article.

The delegate child support enforcement unit shall serve the obligor with a notice of financial responsibility by first class mail and shall proceed as set forth in this article. The obligor or the obligee may file a written request for modification of an administrative order issued under this article with the delegate child support enforcement unit by serving the delegate child support enforcement unit BY FIRST CLASS MAIL OR IN PERSON.

If such unit objects to the request for modification based upon the failure to demonstrate a showing of changed circumstances required pursuant to section 14-10-122, C.R.S., the delegate child support enforcement unit shall advise the requesting party of the party's right to request the court to set the matter for a court hearing.

The court shall hold a hearing and decide only the issue of modification within ninety days of such request. If the delegate child support enforcement unit does not object to the obligor's or obligee's request for modification, the unit shall serve the obligor with a notice of financial responsibility by first class mail and shall proceed as set forth in this article.
Within thirty days of receipt of the request for modification, the delegate child support enforcement unit shall either advise the requesting party of the party's right to request a court hearing or shall issue a notice of financial responsibility.

If the child for whom the order applies is no longer in the custody of a person receiving public assistance or receiving support enforcement services from the delegate child support enforcement unit pursuant to article 13 of this title, the delegate child support enforcement unit shall certify the matter for hearing to the district court in which the order was filed.

None of which happened in my husbands case. He did notify Child Support Enforcement of his injury by phone, and his worker said he would have to fill out some paperwork to modify the order. She said she would send them to him. After several requests, the paperwork never came and my husband filed directly with the court in June.

When he gave his caseworker the paperwork, she threw a fit saying he should have tried working with her. She said his former worker was no longer there, but she found nothing in his file about the request. She threw her hands in the air and said, I could have helped you out, but now it's in the judges hands" she made it sound like he had just screwed himself...

I understand that we did not file anything with them in writing, which I have since learned is a mandatory part of dealing with their office. However, he wasn't told TO file anything in writing. He was told they would send the needed paperwork to file...

He did include this in the original filing, however it seems that they were supposed to do a lot of things they did not do. He was never advised of his right to file directly with the court we were just desperate. In fact she was quite rude when she found out he DID file with the court.

He isn't trying to get out of his obligation to his child, as soon as he can go back to work and go back to the full amount he will. It's not like we enjoy our new Early American Poverty lifestyle anymore than his ex does... but Child support has fought him every step of the way, they never sent the paperwork they said we had to file, they never asked for any of the supporting documents (medical records and such) until two weeks ago, and he was never advised that there were other options...

So is this a court matter or should he take it up with the CS supervisor?

 

[CJane]

I think, and I sure hope someone comes in to verify/dispute, but I think that it only means that CSE is withdrawing their services because a court action has been initiated.

 

[nomeansno]

I think you are right to a point, I looked all over and finally called someone I knew had access to the statutes. It didn't explain much... as far as I can tell it does mean that child support enforcement is no longer a party to the case.

We don't know what changed, we had court last month on the matter and the CS attorney was unable to make it. Apparently he did not send notice in time for either us or the court to get it. Only the ex had a copy of the letter. The judge was a bit cranky about it...

As of the 18th CS was still involved, because we got a letter saying they were going to suspend his drivers license dated the 18th. This letter was dated the 29th... just a few days before the second hearing and they excuse themselves.

I looked all over to find out WHY they would and found nothing very helpful. Most sites I found said she has either asked them to withdraw, she is no longer entitled to CS, or has refused to comply with their requests for information. I did find some vague refrence to a permanent disability on the non custodial parents part being a cause... if there is no possiblity of earning an income in the future they may withdraw. But that isn't the case here, his injury is clearly a temporary disability.


We are really confused, but I guess we will find out tomorrow. It would be nice if someone explained something... but the judge was really nice last time. Hopefully he will be again.

 

[Accountable]

Here's my best guess:

If the mother is/was not on state aid, then the Title IV agency only has authority to act in this child support case if their services have been authorized by either the mother or father. Even if the mother HAD been on aid of some kind, mandating the agency's involving in enforcing support, once any "debt" for the aid she received as paid off in full through their cut of his support payments, then they would no longer have authority to enforce support without her authorization.

Whoever authorized the Title IV agency's involvement can also "unauthorize" them. This does NOT in any way mean that support is not still owed to the mother...unless the child has reached legal age or otherwise under the terms of the support order.

Until the Court rules on the "people's" motion to dismiss themselves from the case, they are still a party. If the Court allows their removal from the case, that does not mean that the case is dismissed.....only that the state is no longer involved.

 

[nomeansno]

I understood that the case was still active, I just wasn't sure what the motion meant exactly. In the long run it didn't matter as the attorney and CS worker appeared in court and asked the court to ignore the original request. They did not explain the situation, but at several points during the hearing it was mentioned that the CP did not turn in her financial affidavit until very late in the process. Which I believe was mentioned somewhere I read as a reason in the form of refusal to comply. So we have no idea what it was all about, but it didn't matter.

Overall the case went very well. The first thing his ex did was ask that visitation be restricted if back child support was owed to her. It wasn't said very nicely and set the tone for the entire hearing. She was very confrontational with the judge and my husband, and sadly never once mentioned the child's needs only her own, and what she wanted. I felt bad for her. She even complained about me spending $28 on my kids for school supplies and not buying school supplies for her little one as well.

The attorney, and the CS worker did not dispute my husbands injury and the judge said he felt that it was a significant barrier to employment. They offered to re-figure the amount based on minimum wage for both parties, which was nice because the original order did not have an income for his ex at all.

So it lowered the amount by $300 a month, and the judge denied CS request for and extra $50 a month towards arrears, "at this time" which I took to mean hubby better get his butt back to work as soon as possible or it may be ordered later.

All in all, it seemed like it was fair and gave us a little breathing room to get both of us rehabilitated and back to work. The hardest thing about the whole matter was listening to her tell the court that her boyfriend was being more of a father to the little one that husband was... because at least he was supporting her.

We both had to cringe on that one, as we have not heard back from CPS regarding the little ones statements about him hitting her, swelling her eyes shut, and all that. If he really did do all of those things I have no good feelings towards him at all. If her mother thinks that money is all it takes to be a father to a child my feelings towards her are not good either.

However overall it was a good hearing. I even thanked the attorney and the CS worker for their understanding in the matter and for making a fair offer for both parties. The attorney looked stunned and said he doesn't hear that very often. : )

Thanks all for your support and putting up with all of the questions... I hope I don't have anymore court questions for you for a long, long, long time... no offense. Still, thank you, you have been awesome!