Florida Divorce * Child Custody * Domestic Violence Law Lawyer | Boynton Beach

Nebraska Mother is court-ordered to pay monthly child support of $244.

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.

Louisiana family court hearing officer presides over child support cases.

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.

Some clients (or opposing parties) are really quite businesslike in their approach to divorce.

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.

Ohio Mother has ten month old Baby.

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.

Scottish Husband and Wife have been married for about fifteen years. They have three Children together.

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.

In Louisiana, letters are sent to parents who are behind on their child support obligations … inviting them to come down and collect their economic stimulus money.

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.

Canadian Mother and Father have four children together.

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.

UK bio Mother has Child through artificial insemination.

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.

South Carolina Husband and Wife are, respectively, a drug court judge and the clerk of court.

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.

Canada reports that total child support and alimony arrears across the nation exceed $2.7 billion Canadian.

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.

Evaluating a divorce settlement proposal isn’t always as straightforward as one may think.

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.

Different states approach child support calculations differently.

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.

A divorce financial analyst poses the question: can you afford to divorce?

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.

All too often, one spouse knows virtually nothing about the family’s financial picture.

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.

California Mother and Father, never married, have two Children.

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.

A Washington state Woman has successfully managed to collect 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.

When it comes to collecting child support, Pittsburgh seems to be doing something right.

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

Father is court-ordered to pay child support.

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.

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

Husband stops paying child support in the fall of 2009. Husband alleges that he was unable to work due to illness, but produces no corroboration.

Law enforcement authorities set out to attach some of Husband’s property to auction it off to reduce Husband’s child support arrearages.

And the authorities do in fact seize … four beehives on Husband’s property. Worth less than one fifth of the amount of Husband’s arrearages.

Read more in this Russian News and Information Agency RIA Novosti article: Bees seized.

British law allows admission into evidence of assets a spouse’s private documents obtained by the other spouse peacefully but by stealth.

Until now. The British Court of Appeal, an intermediate appellate court, just struck down that vast body of law.

In the case before the appellate court, office mates of the Husband copied files from office computers for Wife’s use in their divorce court case.

The holding will make it more difficult and expensive for spouses ignorant of the other spouse’s financial affairs to prove their spouse’s income and assets for purposes of determining child support, alimony and property division.

The Court’s justifications? Concerns about violating privilege and encouraging illegal and / or unethical conduct.

The appellate court has denied leave to appeal to Britain’s highest court.

Read more in this Forbes article: Private documents no longer allowed in divorce and this UK Guardian article: Covertly found assets no longer valid in divorce.

Florida Husband and Wife divorce in 2008, after more than twenty years of marriage.

Husband and Wife have four Children together.

Husband, a cancer doctor with an annual income close to $1 million, is ordered to pay Wife $35,000 per month in alimony and child support.

Husband is also ordered to pay Wife $1 million as part of property division on their $5 million marital property estate.

But Husband apparently doesn’t want to pay … anything.

And, thanks to a complex, layered network of small business operations, garnishment is frustrated. Each business is in a position to be able to claim that another entity writes the check.

And so Husband has reportedly paid only $60,000 and is running a support arrearage of close to $700,000.

If Husband persists in nonpayment of support, the state may suspend his medical license and his driver’s license.

But that won’t get support into the hands of Wife and Children.

Read more in this Lakeland Ledger article: Doctor’s Medical License in Jeopardy.

There are various available measures for enforcement of support obligations, some more effective than others.

One of the harshest, suspension of a deadbeat’s driver’s license, is a double-edged sword.

Driving with a suspended license is illegal, so suspension may impede efforts to work. And reinstating a driver’s license is somewhat involved.

A recent Michigan law opens the door to a new enforcement mechanism that should be just as effective, but less of a double-edged sword.

An automobile “boot”: a device that prevents a car from being driven anywhere until authorities disengage it.

Read more in this Holland [MI] Sentinel news article: Giving deadbeats the boot.

Divorce is complicated.

When the spouses have a special needs child, it gets a a lot more complicated.

Parents of special needs children have to plan together for their child’s future … even if they won’t be together themselves.

In the specific context of the parents’ divorce or separation, the parents should know that child support obligations for a dependent child may continue beyond the age for children who don’t have special needs. Possibly indefinitely.

And that support may include significant health-related expenses that don’t apply to children without special needs.

Additionally, timesharing with a special needs child may involve significant expenses that don’t apply to a child without special needs.

Both support and access expenses should be addressed by the parents’ divorce or custody case.

Especially if a special needs child receives or will be eligible to receive benefits or government services related to their special needs, it may be advisable to establish a special needs trust to protect the child’s right to those benefits and to ensure compliance with the applicable law so that benefits and/or services are not inadvertently forfeited.

Additional matters to cover in such a trust are future housing, medical insurance and potential inheritances for the child.

Beyond the financial aspects, caregiving for a special needs child is more complex and demanding than for a child without special needs.

If responsibilities are going to be allocated, there should be a clear and comprehensive allocation of responsibilities.

If not, one parent should be designated as primary custodian and caregiver and be awarded sufficient parental responsibility and authority to provide appropriate care unfettered.

Designation of an alternate legal guardian should be made in the event that the primary caregiver dies or becomes unable to care for the special needs child. In appropriate cases, a legal guardian may be appointed for a special needs child who is an adult based on chronological age but nonetheless in need of a legal guardian.

A primary caregiver should maintain a care journal that captures the daily caregiving routine, to aid any successor guardian. It should include information about the child’s preferences and behaviors.

Read more in this Lexington [Kentucky] Herald-Leader article: Divorce planning for children with special needs.

Israel appears to be behind the US in regards to its child support enforcement infrastructure … but poised to overtake us before long.

Behind the US in that they are just now establishing governmental child support collection specialists who focus on support enforcement to assist custodial parents with enforcement. The specialists will have access to tax, inheritance and other financial transactions records of deadbeat parents.

Poised to overtake, with some proposed new measures with teeth, including:

1. denial of government benefits to parents behind in paying child support
2. exclusion of deadbeat parents from public office
3. prohibition of ownership of cellular phones by parents who don’t pay their child support and
4. barring of deadbeat parents from government employment

Read more in this Israel Haaretz news article: New bill may keep deadbeat dads from cell phones, state jobs.

Father has Children with Mother, his first wife, as well as his current wife.

Father lives a high lifestyle from his loft in the SoHo neighborhood of Manhattan.

Father uses multiple aliases and holds himself out as being a wealthy Austrian prince.

In reality, Father is an FBI informant from Michigan, with both a psychiatric history and a criminal history.

And Father allegedly owes $200,000 in past due child support to his first wife.

Father is now under arrest in Michigan and confined in jail for nonpayment of child support.

For which charge an attorney has been appointed by the Court.

Read more in this New York Post article: Phony prince outed after child-support bust

Missouri Mother and Father have two Children together.

Children live with Father.

Mother is ordered to pay child support of $325 per month for the Children.

Mother is allegedly behind in her child suppport payments … by a full year’s worth of payments.

A summons for Mother’s arrest on two counts of nonsupport has been issued.

These are felony charges.

If convicted, Mother may be sentenced to as long as four years in prison, as well as a fine of $5,000 for each count of nonsupport.

Read more in this Marshall [MO] Democrat-News article: Marshall woman accused of failing to pay child support.

A Detroit area Man is facing incarceration for not paying his court-ordered child support.

For a child who isn’t his, according to a paternity test.

Because the Mother identified the Man as the child’s father on her application for public assistance.

The problem is that the DNA test was performed long after the Michigan family court entered its child support order – and beyond the time limit allowed by law.

But this wasn’t the all too commonplace case of an alleged father ignoring child support papers served on him.

No, this Man was actually incarcerated in Michigan at the time of the child support case brought by the Michigan child support agency.

And it appears that the Man was not properly served in the case. Even though the court was aware that the Man was incarcerated.

And the state did not provide the Man with a paternity test to potentially disprove that he was the father.

As required by Michigan law.

The Man is awaiting his day in court and hoping he will be released from his child support obligation.

Once a man is legally determined to be a child’s father, that father will generally be legally responsible for child support – even if a DNA test later conclusively establishes that he is not the father.

Read more in this Detroit WXYZ ABC TV news article: He has a DNA test to prove it’s not his son, but still has to pay child support.

The city of Worcester, MA marked Father’s Day this year with the arrest of sixteen fathers reportedly owing more than half a million dollars in child support arrears collectively.

Are these parents simply ignoring their responsibilities?

Well, according to federal data, two-thirds of so-called deadbeat dads are at the poverty level of income, with only four percent reaching $40,000 per year in income. Pre-recession.

Massachusetts imposes the highest rate of interest on child support arrearages in the nation: eighteen percent.

And last year Massachusetts increased its reportedly already high child support guidelines even more. During the recession.

Parents suffering reversal of fortunes rarely take the proper legal steps to modify their child support obligations, and even more rarely succeed in obtaining a child support reduction.

In many instances, fathers who fall behind in child support borrow from their parents to avoid being held in contempt of court and jailed.

Of course, there is no reason to think that custodial parents are faring any better in the recession than noncustodial parents.

Read more in this Worcester [MA] Telegram article: ‘Deadbeat dad’ raids unjust.

North Carolina Mother and Father are no longer together.

But they have two children together for whom Father was ordered to pay child support.

Father reportedly is more than $90,000 in arrears in his child support obligations.

In 2009, the North Carolina family court issued an Order for Arrest of Father.

Mother keeps tabs on Father’s criminal record daily through the North Carolina courts web site.

Now Father is arrested on an unrelated matter.

Mother springs into action in pursuit of her children’s overdue child support.

Upon Mother’s inquiries, court personnel have no knowledge of the Order of Arrest.

But Mother doesn’t give up. And finally the Order for Arrest is located in the court file.

Unfortunately, there is no record of it in the courts’ computer system.

So law enforcement authorities would not be in a position to serve the Order on Father but for Mother’s vigilance and diligence.

When Father comes to court on the unrelated charge, he is served with the Order for Arrest.

Now Mother awaits the Court’s action upon the order and Father’s arrearages.

Mother’s difficulties reportedly stem from the fact that Father lives in a different county from her and her children.

It’s not clear why Orders for Arrest aren’t entered into the state’s computer system.

Read more in this Charlotte [NC] News 14 article: Mother frustrated by county’s handling of child support

North Carolina Husband and Wife have two children.

Husband works as corrections officer.

Wife files for child custody, support and alimony.

Trial court orders Husband to pay $1,100 in monthly child and spousal support.

Husband quits his corrections officer job after entry of the support order. …

And joins a religious commune which forbids members from making money outside the commune.

Husband fails to pay court-ordered support.

Wife files for contempt.

Husband defends on the basis of religious freedom and inability to pay.

Trial court finds that Husband’s new religious beliefs are genuine. …

And holds Husband in contempt anyway.

Husband’s change of religious heart flies in the face of the court’s order.

Husband appeals.

Appellate court affirms and holds Husband to his court-ordered support payments.

Read more in this Courthouse News Service article: Faith Is ‘Irrelevant’ to Child Support, Court Says.