For many divorcing and separating parents of special needs children, not only are they new to the law governing divorce and child custody, but also the complex patchwork quilt of state and federal laws that may impact their special needs child’s long-term financial and legal future, into their adulthood …

And the special measures, far beyond the Individual Education Plan (IEP) their child may have, that they, as parents of special needs children, may need to take to protect their special needs children’s long-term legal and financial interests, into their special needs adult life.

This means that these parents have a lot to learn, more than most divorcing and separating parents. And a lot to do.

As far as the divorce or separation itself, child support is, of course, part and parcel of it if there are minor children, and most divorcing and separating parents know that. But many divorcing and separating parents are fuzzy on the particulars of child support.

Many divorcing and separating parents in Florida know that the obligation to support a child generally ends at the age of eighteen, and that the amount of child support is based upon statutory guidelines. True enough.

But what they usually do not know is that, where divorcing and separating parents in Florida have a special needs child, there are a couple of special twists to child support law.

First, the obligation to support a child who is dependent, such as a special needs child, may extend beyond the child’s eighteenth or nineteenth birthday or completion of high school, indeed, indefinitely. The child’s dependency must be the result of physical or mental incapacities from childhood.

Second, the amount of the child support obligation for a special needs child may deviate from the amount provided for in the child support guidelines. A greater amount of support may be awarded based upon the intact family’s preexisting spending to meet the child’s special needs.

Where the divorcing or separating parents of a special needs child have not done any special needs planning for their special needs child, their divorce or separation doubles as an opportunity to learn about special needs planning for their special needs child and to undertake some measures for the protection of their special needs child’s long-term financial and legal interests, into their adult lives with special needs.

Care and treatment for a special needs child over their lifetime can be quite expensive. It is never too early in their special needs child’s life for their parents to :

1. agree on and jointly designate formally a guardian for their special needs child in the event that both parents should die or otherwise be unable to care for their special needs child

2. consider seeking out government benefits available to their special needs child

3. consider ensuring that no gifts or inheritances pass directly to their special needs child, which could jeopardize their special needs child’s access to government benefits, such as Medicaid

4. consider establishing a special needs trust for their special needs child, to provide for their special needs child’s supplemental needs into their adulthood, without jeopardizing any government benefits their special needs child may receive, such as Medicaid

Read more in this Chicago Tribune article: Caregiving? Take care to plan for long term

Husband and Wife divorce. Husband is ordered to pay child support.

Several years later, Wife seeks to modify child support.

Husband, representing himself, writes a letter to the Kentucky family court explaining that he has no attorney and asking the family court to accommodate his request that any hearings be coordinated so that he can attend by telephone, because he is out of state and has military obligations.

The family court coordinates a hearing and makes arrangements for Husband to participate by telephone. But, as so often happens, the docket gets backed up and Husband’s case is not actually heard until two hours later than was expected.

Husband is unable to participate then.

The family court proceeds without Husband, utilizing public records culled from the internet. The family court enters an order retroactive to the first of the month of the hearing.

Wife later files to have Husband held in contempt for not complying with the family court’s modified child support order.

Again, Husband, representing himself, faxes the court a motion to postpone the hearing Wife has scheduled. In his paperwork, he sometimes uses the word “stay”. Husband’s response to Wife’s papers states again that he is in the army and that he was ordered not to go to Kentucky, and explicitly invokes the Service Member’s Civil Relief Act.

Husband also sends a letter from his Commander and his Nurse Case Manager, both indicating that Husband is being treated for significant physical injuries, and is also receiving mental health services and should not have contact with Wife.

Husband also requests sanctions and a protective order against Wife and requests that his child support be reduced.

The family court ignores Husband’s efforts to invoke federal legal protections for service members, as well as Husband’s medical status and efforts to arrange counsel and telephonic participation in the proceedings. Even though Wife’s attorney does bring them to the attention of the family court.

The family court holds Husband in contempt and fines him for failing to comply with the recently modified child support order. Husband is found to be in arrears by approximately $400. The family court also orders Husband to pay Wife’s modest attorney’s fees.

Husband subsequently files to overturn the modified child support order and all the orders entered afterwards, based upon it. Repeatedly indicating that he is in the military and invoking protections under federal law.

The family court denies all of Husband’s requests to appear by phone but allows “reasonable time” for him to arrange to appear in person … or his requests for relief might be stricken or denied without his participation.

The family court then proceeds to deny Husband’s motions based upon his failure to set hearings and attend to press his motions.

Husband appeals.

On appeal, the appellate court overturns all of the child support modification, contempt and related orders entered. The family court failed to consider, as required by law, whether Husband’s inability to participate in the modification hearing would adversely affect his interests.

The Service Member’s Civil Relief Act is supposed to be construed liberally to protect service members called up to active duty to serve their country. Husband substantially complied with the Act.

The family court proceeded to the modification hearing without Husband, despite Husband’s efforts to appear, and denied his later requests to appear by phone or to obtain a continuance due to his service.

The appellate court remands for a new hearing on modification of child support, to be conducted in compliance with the Service Member’s Civil Relief Act.

Read more in this Kentucky Court of Appeals opinion.

Take the state of Louisiana.

Last year, it passed legislation authorizing seizure of winnings at casinos by parents behind on their child support obligations. Not entirely unique.

More recently, Louisiana has been eyeing claims paid out by BP Oil as a result of last year’s oil spill.

It turns out oil spill claims were filed by nearly 10,000 parents in arrears, who owe over $100 million in past due child support.

So Louisiana is now intercepting – seizing – their claims payments sent by BP.

Read more in this UPI news article: Oil spill aid diverted to child support.

But modern Gettysburg is noted for its effectiveness at child support enforcement.

In fact, the entire state of Pennsylvania is.

August is Child Support Enforcement Awareness Month.

Which is especially important in states and communities that aren’t as successful at collecting child support.

The Gettysburg child support enforcement agency attributes its success in part to the impact of automation on what they do … and a bad eonomy discouraging breakups and the need for court-ordered child support.

Technology has also reduced expenses of operations.

More child support than you might imagine is collected through seizure of unclaimed assets such as forgotten bank accounts.

Read more in this [Gettysburg, PA] Times article: County Domestic Relations program proud of work.

Mother and Father, if married, divorce, or, if unmarried, just go their own separate ways.

Then Father relocates to South Florida.

Afterwards, Mother serves Father in a New York action for child support, or enforcement of child support. (Or alimony, or enforcement of alimony, or enforcement of property division agreement or judgment, or enforcement of parenting plan or judgment, etc., etc.)

Living in South Florida now, Father visits a local South Florida divorce lawyer and South Florida family law attorney for help with his defense in this case.

Only, Father is surprised to learn, his local South Florida divorce lawyer and South Florida family law attorney won’t – can’t – help him.

Why not?

Mother’s case is a New York family law case, not a Florida family court case.

And only an attorney licensed to practice law in New York and admitted to practice law in New York may appear and represent a party in a New York family law court case.

That means Father needs a New York divorce lawyer and New York family law attorney (or New York child support lawyer or New York alimony attorney or New York child custody attorney) and so on.

At first blush, it probably sounds like this could get pretty inconvenient and expensive for Father to identify and consult with a New York attorney. And it could.

But it doesn’t have to … Because a New York attorney doesn’t have to be based in New York.

She might have an office right down the street here in South Florida. As I do.

If Father is lucky, his local South Florida divorce lawyer and South Florida family law attorney may refer him to a New York divorce lawyer and New York family law attorney who is located here in South Florida.

But, if not, Father should be able to locate one on his own, now that he knows what he’s looking for.

Needless to say, the above would also apply if Mother was the ex-spouse or parent who had relocated to Florida, instead of Father.

And the same rationale applies for any other state an ex-spouse or parent may have relocated from. New York is just an excellent illustration of the principle, because there are so many transplanted New Yorkers here in South Florida.

Or your hours were reduced.

Or just your pay.

You’ve been trying to keep up with your court-ordered child support.

And/or your court-ordered alimony and spousal support.

But you just can’t do it.

You’re falling further and further behind.

You keep hoping your hours or pay will go back up.

Or maybe that you’ll be able to find a new job, or a second job that will enable you to meet your current obligations, maybe even to catch up.

So you just keep on waiting and hoping … and struggling.

Imagining that you can always go back to court later to deal with any arrearages. (Wrong.)

Soon, your past due support is really out of control.

And, eventually, your ex files to take you back to court because of your arrearages.

What’s wrong with this picture?

Unfortunately, you. Your waiting and hoping.

That didn’t do you any good at all. In fact, it hurt you really badly.

When you are subject to a court-ordered support obligation, whether it’s alimony and spousal support or child support, if you suffer an interruption and/or reduction in your income, you must take swift legal action to modify your alimony and spousal support obligations and/or to modify your child support obligations. No ifs, ands or buts.

Under Florida family law, you cannot reduce your alimony and spousal support obligations or your child support obligations retroactively. In other words, a Florida family court cannot do anything about arrearages you’ve already racked up. You’re stuck with them.

That is why it’s absolutely critical to file a modification of support case immediately. As soon as disaster strikes.

Under Florida divorce and child support law, you can reduce your alimony and spousal support obligations or your child support obligations prospectively, or going forward. In other words, a Florida family court can reduce your support obligations going forward, from the date that you file for modification of support.

So, prompt filing of your modification of child support case and/or modification of alimony and spousal support case is the only way to beat a pile-up of arrearages.

Please don’t be like the many people who wait far too long before consulting Florida divorce and family law attorneys like me about enormous arrearages they’ve already accrued since losing a job.

Father is a billionaire.

Four year old Son leads a privileged life.

Round-the-clock nannies, chauffeurs, security, private school, etc.

Mother tells the Manhattan Family Court she needs child support for Son.

$46,000 … Per Month.

And she gets it, or at least a court order for child support in that amount.

After all, Father already pays five figures a month in child support for Son’s younger half-sister.

And New York is an expensive place to live …

Read more in this US Weekly magazine article: Linda Evangelista Wants $46,000 in Child Support from Ex.

The severity of charges and punishment for breaking the law vary depending on the amount owed and the duration of the arrearage.

Punishment may include a fine and / or imprisonment.

Recently, a Louisiana municipality issued its very first felony warrant for violation of the statute.

And the alleged perpetrator is a deadbeat Mother, now living in Virginia, who reportedly owes over $18,000 in child support.

It is anticipated that Mother will be extradited to Louisiana.

A parent convicted of a misdemeanor violation of the statute who fails to keep up with their payments and discharge their arrearages may be arrested and prosecuted again.

Apparently the statute is exerting a positive impact on support compliance.

Read more in this [Monroe, LA] News Star article: Mom owes $18k, faces extradition.

The family court orders Husband to pay Wife alimony and child support.

Two years after the divorce is final, Husband discovers that one of the couple’s children is not his biological offspring.

But, under state law, Husband must continue to pay child support despite conclusive proof of nonpaternity.

So Husband stops paying alimony. To the tune of $27,000.

Wife takes Husband to court to enforce his alimony obligation and to collect accrued arrearages.

Husband is sentenced to six months in jail.

Interestingly, an internet dating site for people currently in a relationship but who are looking to wander outside their relationship, offers to pay Husband’s accrued alimony obligation. Husband refuses on principle

Two months into serving his sentence, Husband agrees to pay Wife’s alimony. $15,000 in a lump sum, with the balance in monthly payments.

Husband vows to mount campaign against paternity fraud.

Read more in this Parkersburg [WV] News and Sentinel article: Keefe agrees to pay alimony.

Husband and Wife divorce.

Son now lives primarily with Husband.

Husband learns that Son is not Husband’s biological offspring, but rather the product of an affair by Wife.

Husband sues Wife to recover child support and for damages due to emotional distress caused by Wife’s fraud.

At trial, the family court awards Husband $26,000 in child support and $100,000 in emotional distress damages.

Wife appeals. And the intermediate level appellate court strikes the financial awards to Husband.

Husband appeals. And the state Supreme Court will address for the first time whether a defrauded father may sue for child support and/or damages due to paternity fraud.

This is an issue that will not go away. After years of lobbying by men’s rights groups, numbers of states, including Florida, passed legislation permitting legal fathers to disprove that they are the biological fathers of their legal children and avoid future child support payments.

The catch is that the legal father must mount his legal challenge pretty quickly. And that is believed to be true in the other states as well as Florida.

Further, the sole remedy to date is believed to be termination of child support, but not recovery of previously paid support – or damages. That would represent a significant departure and a new page in our law books.

Not to mention the impact it would have on the innocent children who are the subjects of these disputes.

Read more in this WREG TV News 3 article: Tennessee Supreme Court could determine whether paternity fraud is grounds to sue and this Insurance Journal article: Father’s Day: Tennessee Court Considers Paternity Fraud, Damages.

There has long been debate on whether the government should provide attorneys to parents defending in child support enforcement cases.

Some states have decided that, yes, under their state constitution, the government should afford counsel to defendants in child support contempt cases.

Their rationale: if a court holds a parent in contempt, the court can incarcerate them. Such a case is therefore similar to a criminal case, in which there is a right to counsel.

In a recent case before the US Supreme Court, however, the high court ruled not to extend the right to government-provided counsel to child support enforcement cases.

The court justifies its holding because defendants in support enforcement proceedings can earn their own release simply by complying with the court’s order. Not so in criminal cases.

If the parent pursuing enforcement has an attorney though, then the defendant is entitled to certain “substantial procedural safeguards”, but not publicly funded legal representation.

In the case before the Supreme Court, a South Carolina father contended that he was poor and unable to meet his support obligations. But, without a lawyer, he argued, he was unable to present his defense effectively.

The court was mindful of the fact that many parents seeking enforcement of the other parent’s support obligation often don’t have attorneys themselves.

Procedural safeguards include notices that ability to pay is a key issue in the case, requiring the court to make findings as to the defendant’s ability to pay.

Read more in this New York Times article: Court Issues Split Ruling on Poor’s Right to Counsel and this New York Times editorial: Legal Help for Indigent Parents.

Child now works, either full-time, perhaps on a summer job, or part-time.

Husband is a dentist.

Husband allegedly takes all money received from relatives for Child over the years, for birthdays, graduations and the like.

Couple files for divorce.

In the divorce, Husband subpoenas Child’s employment records regarding her salary information.

Husband and Wife are paying for Child’s college education. Child earns a $1,000 scholarship – and Husband demands “his share” of same.

Child objects.

Child is shocked and appalled by Husband’s attitude.

Demonstrating Child’s inexperience with divorce.

Having said that, divorce is governed by state law and may vary from state to state.

Where the parents have an obligation to support a child in Florida, the child’s independent income, be it salary or a scholarship, is a legitimate consideration in determining child support awards under Florida child support law.

But, in Florida, child support obligations end when a Child turns eighteen and has completed high school.

As many people discover when they first become involved with the legal system, the law is often totally unrelated to what many may consider “right” or “moral”.

And all that matters in family court (or any court) is the law.

Read more in this [South Mississippi] Sun Herald column: Misguided parent shows his vindictive side.

Husband is – or at least was – quite wealthy. In 2006, Husband disclosed to a potential creditor assets worth $28 million and an annual income of $1 million.

According to Wife, Husband owns about 135 businesses and numerous properties and trusts.

Wife, on the other hand, appears to be on public assistance due to Husband allegedly withholding reasonable support.

In response, Husband claims to be bankrupted by $180 million in debt and contends that the couple’s debt exceeds their assets.

The New Zealand Family Court freezes Husband’s bank accounts and stocks.

Wife asserts that Husband’s life style has been constant since before the divorce, although he may have created an appearance on paper of hardship.

The New Zealand Family Court appears to be stuck in the middle, persuaded of the reality of Husband’s enormous legal debt load.

The couple separated in 2007 and their case was filed in or before 2008. But there does not appear to be an end in sight.

Read more in this New Zealand Stuff news article: Bankrupt keeps life of luxury says wife.

Husband and Wife divorce.

Husband is ordered to pay child support for Daughters.

But Husband quickly joins the ranks of “deadbeat dads”.

Husband’s past due child support grows to $27,0000.

With interest, past due child support skyrockets to over $93,000.

Thirty years go by.

Daughters are grown.

Wife is unemployed … for over a year.

The state child support agency locates Husband … and a substantial bank account in his name. It has roughly two hundred thousand dollars in it.

The child support agency attaches Husband’s bank account and recovers the past due child support, all $93,000 and change.

Wife, having long since given up on ever collecting the child support Husband owes her, gets a huge surpriser when the child support agency turns the money over to her.

Read more in this [Phoenix] KPHO 5 TV news article: Struggling Mom Gets $93K In Back Child Support.

What to do?

In some places, a good solution may be putting a “boot” on their cars’ tires.

In Michigan, the boots have spikes, which flatten the tires.

Read more in this [Lansing, MI] WLNS 6 TV news article: Parents Not Paying Child Support Will Get The Boot.

$215,000 worth in fact.

For five different children with five different mothers.

And now Father is under arrest on five separate felony counts of nonsupport of children.

Read more in this Detroit Free Press news article: Detroit dad who owed more than $200K in child support involving 5 families arrested.

Husband and Wife divorce.

Husband is court-ordered to pay child support for Children, including thirteen percent of his overtime pay.

Husband’s employer offers its employees the option of receiving compensatory time off for overtime in lieu of overtime pay.

And Husband has opted to forego overtime pay for compensatory time off.

Wife feels that Husband’s election is an effort to circumvent court-ordered child support.

So Wife reports Husband to her local district attorney’s office, which is responsible for enforcing child support where she lives in Tennessee.

And the district attorney’s office advises Wife that Husband is not violating the law … or the court child support order by electing to take compensatory time off instead of overtime pay.

Certainly, it is evident that Husband’s election is not illegal.

But, just as certainly, Husband’s election to take compensatory time off in lieu of overtime pay does violate the spirit and intent of the court order for child support.

Would the outcome be different if the child support court order specifically addressed the possibility of Husband electing to take compensatory time off instead of overtime pay, perhaps by expressly imputing to Husband his voluntarily foregone income and explicitly requiring him to pay child support on it? Wife must be wondering.

Read more in this [Nashville] WSMV NBC 4 TV news article: Mom: Dad Avoids Child Support By Choosing Comp Time.

Yet fifty-five percent more support payments are actually being made through her courtroom.

How is that?

The magistrate helps parents address the reason they are behind in their support payments, be it a substance abuse problem, a homelessness challenge, a criminal record, a limited education or an unemployment situation.

The pilot program is called Problem Solving Initiative, and it specifically targets people with severe challenges, such as those above.

And directs them to community services that may be able to help them, so that they will be able to support their children.

Mental health and substance abuse professionals, as well as college and law school interns, are on hand right in the courtroom.

Read more in this Hartford [CT] Courant article: A Helping Hand, Rather Than Jail, For Parents Who Owe Child Support.

Father wins at a local casino.

Father anticipates exchanging his chips for cash.

And … Father is sorely disappointed.

The casino deducted back child support from Father’s winnings and diverted it to the child support enforcement agency.

Under a new law affecting winning pots of $1,200 or more.

Gamers are prohibited from redirecting their winnings to third parties.

Read more in this New Orleans Times-Picayune article: Louisiana casinos will withhold winnings from parents who owe child support.

Only this Taxpayer has no children. And, no children, no child support obligations. Current or past due.

These things happen.

And, apparently, happen again.

Twelve years ago, there was a different taxpayer who owed back child support. That taxpayer had a similar social security number to this Taxpayer’s.

And a child support services data entry clerk reportedly keyed in a single wrong numeral in that other taxpayer’s social security number. Thereby entering it as this Taxpayer’s exact social security number.

Causing this Taxpayer’s tax refund to be intercepted back then too. Although Taxpayer did get his refund that time, his social security number was never scrubbed from the “deadbeat parents’ database” of social security numbers.

Which is likely how this happened to this Taxpayer not once, but twice.

So far.

Read more in this WUSA TV 9 News Now article: Typo Trouble Costs Taxpayer Thousands.

Husband and Wife split up.

The Australian family court orders Husband to pay Wife $800 per week as temporary support, based upon their pre-separation standard of living.

Later, the Australian family court modifies the support award down to $300 per week.

Wife now seeks increased child support for Son and spousal support for herself. Wife claims that her weekly household expenses come to $1,800.

Among the expenses in Wife’s budget: $60 for their son’s meals at McDonalds over the course of one week.

Husband insists that he cannot afford more than $300 per week.

The Australian family court modifies the support award back up to the originally ordered $800 per week.

But maintains that Wife must adjust her children’s and her own lifestyles and expenses. Such as cutting back on Son’s McDonald’s spending.

Read more in this Australian Herald Sun news article: Mum claims for son’s $60 Maccas habit and this Australian MSN 9 TV news article: Woman bills ex for son’s $60pw ‘Macca’s habit’.

Father used to be a professional basketball player and earns a high income.

But his child support arrearages reportedly have piled up to nearly $1 million.

Finally, Father is charged with three counts of failure to pay support for different children in different states.

Father pleads guilty and awaits sentencing.

Father faces up to six months of imprisonment.

And, perhaps worse, Father will still be required to pay the support he owes.

Read more in this Carmi [IL] Times article: Former southern Illinoisan owes nearly $1 million in support.

Boyfriend has child from another relationship.

Boyfriend owes back child support.

How much?

Enough to land him in jail for nonpayment of support.

Girlfriend wants Boyfriend back home with her.

So, she, consciously or unconsciously, resolves to do what she must to accomplish that.

That turns out to include allegedly robbing a bank for child support money.

Girlfriend also reportedly uses a toy gun.

After allegedly committing the robbery, Girlfriend heads to the jail to pay Boyfriend’s child support arrears.

Needless to say, Girlfriend is caught and arrested.

Eventually, convicted. And sentenced to six years’ incarceration … to be followed by five years of probation.

Now neither Boyfriend nor Girlfriend are at home with Girlfriend’s toddlers.

And Boyfriend likely isn’t seeing his own child either.

Read more in this Imperfect Parent piece: Sentenced bank robber says she did it for child support.

The lynchpin of their efforts is court orders mandating employment training and recruiting services for parents behind in their child support.

The program has proven both empowering for parents and cost-effective for the state.

Every dollar spent in providing services to parents yields a return of three dollars in collected child support.

Further, unemployment claims by noncustodial parents and public assistance claims are reduced, and more children are covered by medical insurance.

Some 7,500 delinquent parents have gone through the program since 2005 … and have since paid more than $25 million in support.

The Texas program is reportedly one of the most successful of its kind in the nation.

Read more in this [Columbus, TX] Colorado County Citizen article: Texas Attorney General helping noncustodial parents stay employed.

Husband is court-ordered to pay child support.

Wife and Children move to Connecticut. Husband moves around from state to state as well.

Husband allegedly has not made a single child support payment in all these years, other than very small amounts garnished from wages and intercepted tax refunds.

Husband’s arrears reportedly come to $175,000.

Husband is indicted for nonsupport, which carries a maximum sentence of two years and a maximum fine of $250,000 … on top of back sulpport.

Read more in this Trumbull [CT] Patch article: Trumbull Man Allegedly Owes $175,000 in Child Support.

Father knows that he will have to pay child support for Child.

Father allegedly beats Mother about the belly.

Father’s reported goal is to destroy the unborn baby … to avoid child support.

Father is charged with attempted feticide and other charges.

Father prepares to enter a plea agreement.

The criminal court fines Father $300.

Then all charges against Father are dropped, with Mother’s blessing.

This is not Father’s first arrest on domestic battery.

Read more in this [Abbeville, LA] Vermilion Today article: Charges dropped against Eunice man accused of attempted feticide.

The accumulation resulted from errors in child support orders and errors in implementation of them. Some accidental and some intentional.

But now the agency, working with UK banks, has corrected the errors and has reinstated the flow of child support money to approximately one thousand children.

It is unclear whether the retained monies earned interest and, if so, where that goes.

Read more in this UK Telegraph article: Missing Child Support Agency money reunited.

Mother actually pays $150 per month or less over the next seven years.

Mother is in child support arrears by about $24,000.

Mother is arrested on five felony counts of criminal non-support of children.

Mother enters an agreement under which she pleads guilty to three misdemeanor counts of attempted criminal non-support and is sentenced to probation. Mother is also required to pay $200 per month in child support until her sentence is complete.

Failure to pay support may be dealt with very differently from state to state.

Read more in this Plattsmouth [NE] Journal article: Plattsmouth woman pleads guilty on failure to pay child support.

Like so many people these days, family court hearing officer is a new and active FaceBook user.

Family court hearing officer has case before him involving Father with twenty-three (23) different children. Father is reportedly compensated for his work in cash, and does not pay taxes on his income.

Family court hearing officer posts information on FaceBook that is not personally identifiable (at least not too easily identifiable) about Father’s case … along with His Honor’s personal opinion that Father should seek additional employment to, uh, more constructively occupy some more of his time.

Now, family court hearing officer suffers backlash as a consequence of his posting on FaceBook.

Specifically, it has been suggested that this family court hearing officer lacks the neutrality and impartiality that every litigant appearing before a judge (or hearing officer) is entitled to.

It has also been suggested that the family court hearing officer’s comments were not “judicial”, that is, befitting a judge or hearing officer.

Family court hearing officer is now thinking twice about commenting on FaceBook again about parties to cases before him.

For the litigant appearing before a judge or hearing officer, there may be a lesson to be drawn from this incident.

It should also be noted that the family court hearing officer is reportedly new to the world of social networking, and apparently is not a judge sitting on the bench full time and exclusively, but rather a working attorney who hears only child support cases, on a part-time basis.

Read more in this [Thibodaux, LA] Daily Comet article: Facebook flap is a good lesson and this Houma [LA] Courier article: Facebook flub cause for regret by administrative judge.

They know they want to settle and it is just a question of arriving at the right numbers through negotiation.

They almost always have very specific final numbers in mind.

It is not unheard of for them to encourage their partner to sign an agreement behind their attorney’s back if they have an attorney or, better yet, before they hire an attorney.

After all, it’s all about the numbers. Not words.

Right? Wrong.

When it comes to legal matters, the words actually matter quite a lot.

As just one example …

Imagine a one paragraph marital settlement agreement. Yes, there really are such things out there.

Such an agreement always gets straight to the point – and the number(s).

“Husband agrees to pay Wife $1 million as full settlement.”

Do-it-yourselfers too often favor this type of language.

But what does that $1 million payment represent?

Is it lump sum alimony?

Is it lump sum child support?

Is it property division?

Is it a combination of all of the above?

Who cares?

Well, the Internal Revenue Service for one.

Precisely what the money represents will bear directly on the tax consequences, if any, associated with the payment.

As a result, both spouses will become interested as well, sooner or later.

For example, unless there is an agreement otherwise, alimony payments are deductible by the spouse who makes them … and taxable as income to the spouse who receives them.

Child support is neither includible nor deductible.

Equalization payments are generally neither includible nor deductible, but payments made in kind (by transferring things) may have tax consequences, sometimes unforeseen and undesirable.

The point is, settlement isn’t just about the numbers at all. The words count a lot.

In the end, all that really matters is the bottom line numbers, not the numbers that may be referred to in the agreement. If the words aren’t right, the bottom line numbers may be very, very different from the numbers specified in the settlement.

And that can be an unpleasant surprise that can hit you between the eyes.

Read more in this Florida Times Union article: TTT – December 28, 2010, Divorce & Alimony.

Mother is apparently unhappy with her child support.

While at her home with Baby, Mother telephones the child support enforcement agency and, angry over the response, allegedly makes a verbal threat to go to their office and murder her child support case worker, social workers and the magistrate presiding over her child support case.

A different person, who had previously threatened violence in connection with his unrelated child support case, recently made good on his threats, killing a woman and then taking his own life.

So the agency takes Mother’s threat seriously and contacts law enforcement.

Police go to Mother’s home to arrest her.

Once at the scene, the officers note that Mother’s home has considerable illegal drugs, drug paraphernalia, weapons, and alcohol on the premises, but little baby formula. The home also has the odor of recently smoked marijuana.

Mother is charged with three counts of aggravated menacing, child endangerment and drug possession, and jailed. With bail set at $1 million.

Baby is placed in the care of his grandmother.

The recent murder and the fact that the telephoned verbal threats were made against agents of the courts may have played a role in what may not be typical handling of similar cases.

Read more in this [Charleston, WV] State Journal article: Woman Allegedly Threatens to Kill Social Workers, Magistrate Over Child Support Arrangements.

Husband and Wife have been separated for about two years.

Husband owns an oil company, and has been paying Wife a previously agreed upon amount of support.

Until Husband unilaterally cuts back on his payment, without notice to Wife, while he is away on business in the middle east.

Frustrated, Wife drives to Husband’s company’s business location, obstructs the entrance, and, wielding a loudspeaker, carries on a protest, with the intention of obtaining additional funds from Husband’s accountant.

Wife intends to repeat her protest until she get satisfaction.

Husband was fined by law enforcement authorities earlier in the year for e-mailing Wife abusive messages.

Read more in this Aberdeen [Scotland] Press and Journal article: Divorce wife ‘driven’ to protest at company.

But when the deadbeat parents show up, there is no stimulus money. And law enforcement authorities handcuff them, confiscate their car keys and lock them up.

And vow to keep them in jail until their debts are paid off.

Of course, as word gets out, this strategy may not be so effective anymore.

Read more in this New Orleans WVUE Fox 8 TV article: Dads who neglected child support are arrested.

Three of the children live with Mother and one with Father.

Mother has been on and off public assistance for years, but has been working of late.

And earning about $11 per hour.

With the three children to support.

Father, her ex, for reasons unstated, does not work.

Father, and their child who lives with him, are on public assistance.

And because Father receives public assistance, the government is requiring Father to seek child support from Mother or risk loss of his public assistance.

The court will rule on Father’s petition for support in a couple of months.

Meanwhile, the stress of the support case has overcome Mother, who is now on leave from her job.

The amount in dispute in Father’s case is approximately $60 per month.

There is no indication whether Father pays Mother any support for their three children who live with her.

It is common for US states to pursue child support from noncustodial parents as well when the custodial parent receives public assistance.

Read more in this [Montreal] CTV News article: Single mom facing child-support squeeze.

At the time, Mother, a lesbian, is in a committed relationship with Girlfriend.

Mother and Girlfriend raise Child together.

Until Child is ten years old.

When Mother and Girlfriend break up.

Court awards parental decisonmaking rights to Girlfriend.

Now Mother seeks child support from Girlfriend…

And the Court denies child support.

The applicable UK law on child support at the time provided that child support is owed only by a legal “parent”, that is, a biological parent or a legal adoptive parent.

Technically, Girlfriend is neither.

Although she has parental decisionmaking rights.

Inconsistent rulings. Incapable of being reconciled.

Which is why UK law recently changed.

Now, both homosexual parents may be recognized as legal parents, with access rights and financial responsiblities, under UK law.

Read more in this [UK] Bio News article: Lesbian mums in dispute: fertility law, child maintenance and what makes a parent.

Wife has access to child support enforcement funds from the federal government.

Husband is removed from the bench for unknown reasons.

And Wife allegedly dips into the public coffers, in part to pay Husband’s salary and also to pay insurance premiums for relatives and a vacation home.

To the tune of $338 thousand.

Wife is charged in state court with embezzlement of public funds and misconduct in office … and convicted.

She is sentenced to five years’ probation – and two hundred hours of community service.

Then Wife is charged in federal court with unlawful conversion of public funds.

Wife pleads not guilty

Maximum sentence for the federal charges against Wife are a fine of $250,000 and ten years’ confinement.

Read more in this Beaufort Gazette article: Ex-court clerk appears in federal court.

Applicable to roughly sixty-four percent of support cases in which such statistics are kept.

Compliance varied from as high as eighty percent to as low as fifty-two percent, with several major regions reporting compliance of roughly sixty-three percent.

Read more in this Ottawa Citizen article: Unpaid child, spousal support tab hits $2.7 billion.

In appropriate cases, it may be well worth it to have a financial advisor and/or tax advisor review a settlement proposal before it is finalized.

One commonly overlooked issue in cases where spousal support and / or child support is involved is assurance to the support-receiving spouse that the support-paying spouse is maintaining a life insurance policy to secure the paying spouse’s obligations.

Of course, it is good to require the paying spouse to provide proof on an annual basis that the policy remains in good standing and full force and effect.

But what if the ex refuses to furnish that proof in years following settlement (or final judgment)?

There are a couple of ways to address this possibility without the receiving spouse having to bring a contempt proceeding.

One way is for the receiving spouse to be designated as the actual policy owner. As owner, the receiving spouse will always be informed of the status of the policy. Even if their ex is ordered to and/or agrees to pay the premiums.

The other way is for the policy to be nonmodifiable and noncancellable without thirty days’ notice to the receiving spouse. There is typically a surcharge for this provision.

But it may be well worth it. This way the ex cannot just pull the plug on the policy without the receiving spouse’s knowledge.

Both approaches accomplish the objective, without the receiving spouse having to chase their ex for proof of the status of the policy.

Then, at least if the receiving spouse does bring a contempt action, they will know that it really was necessary to reinstate the policy and that they will have solid proof of the lapsed status of the policy.

Another important consideration in some cases are tax impacts of alternative divisions of property. Different assets are treated differently for tax purposes.

And this can have a big impact on the ultimate “bottom line” of a settlement or judicial disposition of property by a family court judge … if either party puts on evidence for the divorce court judge to consider regarding tax bases, tax treatments and tax impacts associated with the different marital properties and alternative property divisions in the divorce.

Read more in this Holland [MI] Sentinel article: Making Cents: How to come out a winner in a divorce.

Some base the support amount on both parents’ incomes, such as Florida. Some look only to the paying parent’s income.

Some look to gross income, others net income.

Some use a guidelines chart of support obligations at various income levels, such as Florida. Some apply a percentage to the reference amount.

That’s complicated enough.

States that use guidelines charts generally only specify support obligations at incomes within a certain range, representing portions of the spectrum that are relatively typical.

But not every parent’s income is within the typical range. Some people earn less and some people earn more.

And guidelines support obligations are not specified outside of those typical ranges.

So how is child support calculated for those with incomes outside those typical ranges?

In Florida, a flat percentage is applied to the additional income above the maximum guidelines income.

But Connecticut’s child support guidelines do not provide clear guidance as to how to calculate child support when the parties’ incomes exceed the maximum income under their guidelines.

Because of that omission, a trial court, in effect, pulls out of thin air a percentage to apply to one wealthy couple’s excess income over the guidelines. In this particular case, the couple’s income exceeds the guidelines amount by a substantial margin.

Husband appeals from the trial court’s ruling.

And the appellate court reverses, finding the trial court’s approach to constitute an arbitrary abuse of discretion.

The appellate court’s rationale is that, as income rises dramatically, the percentage of family income allocated to children’s needs declines and, therefore, the trial court’s approach results in an arbitrary transfer of Husband’s income to Wife.

The appellate court also takes exception to awards of hefty percentages of speculative future bonuses.

This holding is consistent with recent legal trends operating to keep the lid on and even to reduce child support awards.

Read more in this Connecticut Law Tribune article: Limits Set On Child Support For High Wage Earners.

In truth, sometimes the question is: can you afford / stand / survive not divorcing.

In which case the question should be: how can you become able to afford to divorce?

For most people, they probably can afford to divorce. But they will probably benefit from, if not have to, make some financial adjustments to their lifestyle.

Hopefully, the positive emotional and psychological adjustments in their lives will more than make up for the possibly less positive financial adjustments.

But everyone should go into a divorce situation with their eyes wide open, having considered how their lives will change and what the costs will be.

Some of the questions to ponder:

1. post-divorce budget:
   expenses – basic necessities, necessary amenities, dispensable luxuries
   income from all sources – work, child support, alimony, etc. less taxes
   leaving surplus or deficit
2. tradeoffs in property division: are you better off to stay in the house or pass on it for liquid assets (this is more complicated if you are upside down, as so many people are these days)
3. consider your financial future a few years down the road, and your path there

Read more in this Denver KUSA NBC 9 News 6am article: Too broke to break up.

Even if the other spouse “takes care of” or “handles” all of that sort of thing with only the very best of intentions, this is a dangerous situation for the coddled spouse.

Never mind the possibility of divorce, for a moment.

What if the financial-caretaking spouse unexpectedly dies? Or suffers a devastating, incapacitating injury or illness?

How will the healthy spouse figure out and pick up the pieces, and manage the situation for the family, even on a temporary basis?

And if either spouse decides to divorce, best intentions may fly out the window.

The coddled spouse is at a severe disadvantage in determining and weighing their courses of action and options.

Depending on the particular circumstances of the case, they may have guaranteed that obtaining full and fair disclosure will be far more time-consuming and expensive than it has to be. And it is so unnecessary.

The coddled spouse is entitled to know about the family finances. And should, for the sake of all concerned, including the couple’s children.

A spouse who refuses to see that and insists upon maintaining total financial secrecy is raising a big red flag. And that should inspire the coddled spouse to take remedial action … and to educate him or herself by consulting an attorney.

Read more in this Wall Street Journal piece: VOICES: Leslie Thompson, On the Uninformed Spouse.

After Mother and Father part company, Children, now legal adults, sue Father for child support for the period since Mother and Father separated.

The amount? In round numbers, $134 million.

After all, Father is a billionaire, in fact, a multi-billionaire. And all Father paid in child support was a measly $3 million.

Children argue that is far less than the court would have awarded had Mother and Father gone to court in the first place. Only they didn’t go to court in the first place.

They allegedly reach an amicable agreement while they were still seeing each other.

Father shows a jury that Father supported the Children in grand style, paying for grad school and giving them luxury cars once they had their licenses.

After a trial to a jury, the jury took Father’s view of the case: enough is enough.

Read more in this Southern California Public Radio KPCC 89.3 news article: Irvine billionare Donald Bren’s adult children fail to win back child support and this Calgary Herald article: Jury sides with billionaire on child support.

No mean feat, considering that she doesn’t even have a child.

She reportedly deceived the Man who paid her the “child support” into believing that she was pregnant with his child.

It seems the Woman may have falsified an initial home pregnancy test which gave a positive result.

Within a month, however, further pregancy tests gave negative results … which she failed to disclose to the Man.

In fact, she allegedly repeatedly maintained the falsehood before the Seattle family court.

And collected about $3,500 in “child support” before the Man got wise to her.

But at least he did catch on before paying the roughly $10,000 hospital bill.

The Woman has been charged with theft, perjury and forgery.

Read more in this KOMO 4 TV news article: Not guilty plea in fake pregnancy case.

Compared to other similarly sized communities, Pittsburgh has a significantly higher rate of collections of current child support. The area also fares significantly better at collecting past due child support.

One reason cited for Pittsburgh’s support collections success is a program to enroll unemployed parents in job training, so that they can qualify for jobs.

Another reason cited is that the community establishes support payments that are realistic. But, for that reason, enforcement is reportedly strict.

Another local initiative aims to divert parents required to pay support from jobs paying them “under the table”.

Read more in this Pittsburgh Tribune-Review news article: Allegheny County child-support plan hailed

The amount of Father’s child support obligation is unknown.

But Father pays his child support.

Father allegedly raises funds to pay his child support by buying over 5,000 cold pills and then re-selling them. Father makes nearly four hundred “shopping trips” to pharmacies.

The buyers reportedly buy the pills from Father to use them in the process of producing “meth”, an illegal drug. Father allegedly knows this.

Father enters a plea bargain with federal law enforcement authorities under which Father pleads guilty to possession of narcotics.

At sentencing, Father faces between nine and eleven years’ incarceration in a federal facility.

It is unknown whether Father has a conventional job by virtue of which he could have paid his child support.

Read more in this St. Louis Post Dispatch article: Arnold man admits selling cold pills to pay child support and this KDSK TV 5 news article: Arnold man sells cold pills to pay bills and child support.