General legal information furnished as a service of Fort Lauderdale / West Palm Beach family law attorney Janet Langjahr
The Missouri child support enforcement agency reportedly admitted making a huge mistake in at least one father’s income withholding for child support.
A data entry clerk allegedly entered the amount of an arrearage in total as the recurring monthly obligation. This resulted in fifty percent of the man’s pay being withheld.
The father, without the help of an attorney, was unable to work within the system to have the error corrected.
Sadly, his frustration recently spawned a quadruple murder-suicide and a rape.
The support agency subsequently disclosed that a child support investigator had noted in the file the discrepancy between the court-ordered obligation and the income deduction order.
It doesn’t appear that he or she initiated any corrective measures.
Read more in this Kansas City Star article.
Foster kids who aren’t ever adopted age out of their support system in a blink when they turn eighteen. They are thrust out on their own without much (if any) further social, financial or emotional support.
Now the State of Florida is considering providing more support for children transitioning from the foster care social support system to total legal independence. With more assistance, these children could get off to a better start in their adult lives. Safe housing, more and better education, more promising career opportunities and so on.
Read more at Former foster kids may get options.
According to this Arizona Daily Star article, a successful businessman-turned-candidate for governor successfully urged the family court to halve his child support obligation - and shortly thereafter committed $100,000 of his own personal funds to his campaign.
The candidate was quoted as saying that the reduced support payment “for one kid for a four-year marriage is pretty darn generous.”
The candidate is also reportedly extremely delinquent in his spousal support obligations to his ex-wife.
The candidate seeks political office that would make him the director of the state of Arizona’s public policies.
If he wins election, will Arizona’s children and ex-spouses face across-the-board reductions in child support and spousal support?
Is paternity fraud rampant? That’s the proposition featured in a National Law Journal article.
The basis for the proposition is that, in numbers of cases, DNA tests eventually conclusively disproved paternity of the supposed father - after he was held to be the child’s father.
The article does not mention that, in the vast majority of cases, those men had the opportunity to prevent such a holding from being made, simply by requesting or submitting to DNA testing, before the holding was made - and shared with the child and the people that make up the child’s universe.
Why did they wait?
Now, an Illinois man is defending a pending paternity claim against him. But DNA testing won’t help him.
According to a Chicago Sun Times article, the man contends that he was merely a sperm donor and, therefore, should not be responsible for his biological children.
The man reportedly met the birth mother on a dating website, not a sperm donor bank. They apparently dated for a full year before they broke up.
And, later, he allegedly signed what sounds like an acknowledgment of paternity - while in a bank.
Although the article doesn’t mention the word “fraud”, that certainly sounds like the essence of the father’s defense.
Fraud as a ground to disestablish legal paternity. A potentially slippery slope.
From an article in the Seattle Times.
He’s not the ordinary (alleged) deadbeat non-custodial parent.
In the 1980s, he made millions in biotech.
In 1988, when he married, his prenup generously promised 70% of the couple’s community property to his bride.
In 1996, when they divorced, both alimony and child support obligations were substantial.
But a court later upped the amounts - because it ruled that he had previously hidden assets.
He reportedly stopped paying support for his three children around 2002 / 2003. The arrears allegedly eventually climbed to $165,000.
His defenses were:
He was convicted of willful failure to pay child support.
Legislation is under consideration in Georgia which, according to reports, would dramatically diminish child support obligations.
According to an Atlanta Journal Constitution article, Georgia’s non-custodial parents think child support guidelines are too generous and Georgia’s custodial parents think they are inadequate.
Child support guidelines in Florida are undoubtedly different from those in Georgia. But non-custodial parents and custodial parents in Florida (and every other state) seem to feel the same way as their counterparts in Georgia.
To some extent, these attitudes are functions of human nature, reflecting attitudes of many divorced people toward their ex-spouses. Their children are just innocent casualties.
The problem with child support guidelines is that they are relatively cut-and-dried, simplified formulas.
The benefit of child support guidelines is that they are relatively cut-and-dried, simplified formulas.
If it weren’t for guidelines, however imperfect, family courts would be backed up far worse than they already are - just dealing with setting child support in divorce, support-only, paternity, dependency and other similar cases.
Guidelines are practical necessities.
To work well, however, they must be written with the proverbial typical middle class family in mind, with built-in mechanisms facilitating adjustment for lower income and higher income families.
They must also allow for deviations - under appropriate circumstances.
Given the complexity of coming up with guidelines in the first place, careful consideration is surely warranted before trading in guidelines that have stood the test of time. The welfare of children is at stake.
The Utica (NY) Observer-Dispatcher recently ran an interesting article, New Court Combines Domestic Cases. In upstate NY, the article reports, they have been introducing Integrated Domestic Violence Court.
What’s that? In a nutshell, if family members appear in domestic violence court, any subsequent family legal matters (such as divorce, crimes between family members, custody and visitation issues, etc.) will be heard in that same courtroom, before that same judge.
Here in Florida, we have been gradually implementing throughout our state a variation on that theme. In Florida, we call itUnified Family Court. Under this new paradigm, all family type cases are now heard in a Unified Family Court by the same judge.
Although demanding of our judges and our court clerks, this new court model finally enables and empowers the courts to do what family lawyers have always done: (directly or indirectly) serve the family as a whole.
As part of this transformation of the family court system in Florida, Unified Family Court judges are reportedly receiving more comprehensive training in allied legal disciplines than previously. With a thus specially-trained presiding judge observing the entire family dynamic firsthand, he or she will be in far better position to rule holistically on all family-related legal issues.
As a bonus, the legal process should also be less disruptive and more beneficial for families.
As too many custodial parents know, dedicated non-payors of support have a lot of tricks up their sleeves. In recent years, technology has inadvertently provided a new one.
In a relatively short time, the cell phone has become ubiquitous - and more. Not only does just about everybody seem to have one.
These days, some people have only a cell phone. In some cases, that just suits people’s perfectly legitimate, very mobile lifestyles.
In other cases, dropping their landline has liberated people, enabling them “to fly under the radar”, without listings of their phone or address in telephone directories.
This, in turn, has made it harder for custodial parents and support enforcement agencies to keep track of non-compliant, non-custodial parents who are legally obligated to pay child support.
The state of Maine is considering fighting back - with proposed legislation that would require cellular telephone companies to disclose billing addresses of account holders who owe child support.
Of course, the proposal has its dark side, which privacy advocates have been quick to point out.
You can read more about it in The Morning Sentinel and The Portland Press Herald.
The Libertarian Party’s candidate for North Dakota’s governor in 2004 has authored an unusual divorce initiative which he hopes will land on the state’s voters’ ballots later this year.
The initiative would:
Anyone who wants to learn more about this unusual initiative can read the Grand Forks Herald article.
Not surprisingly, many parents who allegedly default in their child support obligations don’t have the money to hire a lawyer to defend them at enforcement and / or civil contempt proceedings.
So, like it or not, they often defend themselves at these hearings on a pro se basis, a lawyer’s term for representing yourself.
According to a New Jersey Star Ledger article, when the circumstances are severe enough to warrant criminal contempt proceedings, the allegedly delinquent parent should get a bonus: free legal representation from a court-appointed attorney.
Ironically, this reported holding may have an unintended and counter-intuitive impact: custodial parents may now favor the civil remedy and non-custodial parents may now actually favor the criminal remedy.
An organization known as The National Center for Men has reportedly filed a questionable federal court lawsuit on behalf of a baby’s admitted biological father.
The theory behind the suit seems to be that: men are denied equal protection of the law, because the biological mother’s reproductive rights supersede the biological father’s reproductive rights.
Therefore, the organization’s argument apparently goes, it is unconstitutional to impose child support obligations on a father - unless the father wanted, planned or later accepted the child.
The reported facts of the case indicate that the father alleges that the mother told the father she was unable to conceive. The article did not indicate whether the mother knew the truth.
Interestingly, it does not appear from the article whether the father asserted the mother’s alleged fraud as a defense in the state court paternity case that imposed the child support obligation.
Arguably, doing so may have quietly put an end to this particular father’s cause.
One way the anticipated custodial spouse can probably save an ailing marriage (where there are minor children) is simply to advise the expected non-custodial spouse of how much child support he or she would be obligated to pay in the event of a divorce.
At least that’s the cynical conclusion of a study recently reported on by the Observer UK. But “word on the street” in this country does lend some support to the study’s conclusions even outside the UK.
You can read more about reaction to the study in the UK in Cash fears lead to fall in divorce rates.
It is no secret that some custodial parents face constant challenges collecting child support, and that other custodial parents face similar challenges from time to time. Most custodial parents have already heard the most common explanations / justifications.
But here’s one from South Carolina that most probably haven’t heard (or ever thought to hear). S.C. Police: Man Faked Death More Than 25 Years Ago to Avoid Paying Child Support.
Based on the report, the non-custodial parent could not have had any contact at all with his children for all those years…
According to a provocative article in the Virginian-Pilot, relatively inexpensive home DNA kits have become popular purchases - by men firmly established in their roles as fathers to children.
The article correctly points out that such tests, by themselves, generally have no legal significance.
But, the article underscores, the arguably unreliable tests may have enormous social significance and consequence - particularly to the innocent children to whom these men acted as fathers - at least up until the test results came in.
The article pins the blame squarely on the manufacturers of these apparently profitable home DNA tests. But that may be a somewhat oversimplified view that calls for deeper examination.
Back in September, I posted on the topic of Artificial Intelligence Previews Alternative Final Judgments. My post was totally inspired by an article I had read in the Sydney Morning Herald about a software project in Australia. You can read my original post with the text of the Herald article here.
One of the developers of the profiled software, Professor John Zeleznikow of the School of Information Systems at Victoria University, recently e-mailed me with some comments on my post. I thank Professor Zeleznikow for his readership, for sharing his insights and for granting me permission to post his comments below.
A very interesting article.
I think you have misunderstood some of our research. Reading a
newspaper article does not give the full details of our work.First of all, we do not claim everything can be reduced to rules. In
some areas we use machine learning to try to understand patterns of
judicial decision making. And we accept there should be no
inferencing re child welfare or refugee law.In Australia, child support is mandated - the court has no discretion.
We have learned how judges distribute property.
We do not argue that child custody should be awarded to a parent
simply because that parent wants it the most and allocates the most
points to it. In fact we explicitly say interest based negotiation is
more relevant to industrial relations than child welfare issues.In Australia, parents do not have automatic rights to see for or care
for their children (the only test is the paramount interests of the
child). Nevertheless, some parents still negotiate as if they own
their children.
I stand by my original post, which, like my comments in this post, are about family law dispute resolution software generally and not about any specific piece of software in particular . As to the Victoria University software project, I have no specific firsthand knowledge or experience with it.
Still, I don’t think Professor Zeleznikow and I are in disagreement.
Rather, I think my original post focused on why I think the glass is half empty with respect to family law dispute resolution software in general. And Professor Zeleznikow’s comments focus on why he thinks the glass is half full.
I think we both agree on what it is that is in the glass though.
I look forward to following the progress, evolution and adoption of Professor Zeleznikow’s intriguing software in the field.
Substantial arrearages in child support payments are a large and growing problem for many custodial parents and the states. There are many reasons for the arrearages, some of which might be reasonably characterized as mitigating circumstances, if not justifications.
On the other hand, according to the Tahlequah (OK) Daily Press, there are also multi-million dollar lottery winners who manage to hide their winnings from the other parent of their child and the state - all the while paying not a dime in current support or toward arrearages accumulated over years.
You can read the unusual (but not unique) article here.
An article in the Kansas City Star reports on a Missouri court ruling that is consistent with the law of many states, but goes against the grain of many. The court held that a man must still support a child who was eventually proven not to be his biological (or adopted) child.
The article rationalizes the ruling by concluding it “pits fairness to men against what is considered best for children”. Certainly, the guardians of public policy stand watch over the rights and interests of innocent children.
But another, more general legal principle is just as key: once a case is decided, it’s decided. This fundamental principle is known as res judicata.
In this case, a paternity hearing was held in 1993. The alleged father apparently had notice and an opportunity to appear to dispute his paternity.
He didn’t do so. Without evidence from the alleged father to contradict the mother’s evidence, the paternity court determined that the alleged father was the legal father of the boy.
Further, even after the man learned that he wasn’t the boy’s biological father, he waited another three years to take action. Way too late.
Where the supremacy of the interests of children does come into play is in consideration of proposed legislation that would bar a paternity determination until a DNA test is produced.
If such legislation passed, any alleged father could evade his obligation to contribute to the support of his child by simply refusing to submit to a test and / or ignoring paternity proceedings - as the father in the reported case did. That would be harmful to children - and against public policy.
A FOX News article reports that thirty-two percent of fathers ordered to pay child support don’t pay in full and on time - if at all. This may not really be news to many people.
What may be news is the report that forty-three percent of non-custodial moms court-ordered to pay child support also don’t pay in full and on time - if at all. Yes, according to the article, there are 674,000 non-custodial moms ordered to pay child support.
In truth, both percentages are staggering. What do they really tell us about non-custodial parents - or child support calculations and orders?
Well worth reading.
Custodial parents and employers of non-custodial parents alike should take note of Changes for Florida Child Support Enforcement, which go into effect tomorrow.
Support enforcement infrastructure has been streamlined and made more efficient via greater use of technology.
Medical child support is given greater emphasis, with penalties imposed on employers for failing to comply with medical child support notices.
Both measures should have a positive impact on support and care for children.
I have a different take from the author’s on the interesting article from Australia which appears below. Artificial intelligence (’AI’) is impressive (although it still has a way to go).
But more to the point, all software (even software that doesn’t claim to be AI) functions according to rules and formulas built into it. Unless and until the underlying process intended to be automated can be boiled down and captured in detailed, hard-and-fast rules and/or formulas, no software can do (or be expected to do) the job. Period.
That’s not the limitation or the fault of the computers or the software.
Rather, that’s because the underlying process the programmers are attempting to automate or computerize is more art than science, sometimes hinging, in the final analysis and in truth, on impressions and gut-feelings for the particular situation and people.
Because of the importance in many cases of that je ne sais quoi element, the artist-practitioners of the process (legislators and judges) haven’t yet been able (and probably never will be able) to nail the entire dissolution process down to tight, iron-clad rules and formulas that can be handed off to the programmers.
The large number of je ne sais quoi cases and the je ne sais quoi elements of many other cases is why human judges don’t have to worry about being replaced by computers, and why lawyers will not become ‘unnecessary’ or dispensable in the divorce process any time in the foreseeable future.
Family court is not tax court. Discretion and judgment are vital to doing the right thing for the ever-growing numbers of regular people drawn into the legal system to end, modify, regulate and get supervision of their family relationships (or aspects of them).
Lawyers and judges earn most of their keep working very hard in the trenches of je ne sais quoi-land:
In these cases especially, people need vigorous legal representation (not just advice) and a Solomon-wise judge. Neither AI or ordinary computer software is going to change that anytime soon, and probably never.
I’m an avid booster of technology - for those tasks for which it is well-suited. It’s not well-suited for the cases bulleted above.
(No, child custody should not be awarded to a parent simply because that parent wants it the most and allocates the most points to it. Any child-molesting parent out there would likely win custody with that approach. )
Legislators and judges have gotten extremely good at “scientificizing” much of child support calculations and property division and, in some jurisdictions, to a lesser extent, alimony calculations.
For those cases where disputes are confined within the black-and-white boundaries of such subject matter, the AI software described in the article may help amicable spouses visualize realistic alternative monetary outcomes and thus motivate and encourage them to reach a settlement, rapidly, easily and inexpensively.
As long as such software’s capabilities and limitations are fully understood by its users, the legal system should embrace its use in appropriate cases. That just may free up scarce legal system resources for the difficult cases where lawyers and judges are needed the most and contribute the most.
Divorce? Let the computer be the judge
By Adele Horin
September 21, 2005
She wants the cat and so does he. He wants the car and so does she. And they both want the kids.
After a marriage breaks down, couples can spend a fortune in legal fees wrangling over property and custody.
But a new computer program called Family Winner may short-circuit the court battles. Developed by Emilia Bellucci, a lecturer at Victoria University’s school of information systems, and John Zeleznikow, professor of information systems, the program requires a couple to prioritise their demands, assigning each a numeric value so that the sum is 100.
“Then the program distributes everything according to who wants it the most,” Professor Zeleznikow said.
The program is part of a package he hopes will be taken up by the 65 Family Relationship Centres being funded by the Federal Government.
With separating couples required to try to resolve disputes before filing with the Family Court, Professor Zeleznikow expects there will be a need for mediators and counsellors to deliver information quickly and cheaply. Computer programs that show the likely outcomes of court cases, or apply artificial intelligence and game theory to the allocation of possessions, may be part of the answer, he believes.
A second program called SplitUp, developed with Andrew Stranieri of the University of Ballarat, calculates the likely results of property settlements in Family Court proceedings, Professor Zeleznikow said.
The program had highlighted surprising results, he said, such as the importance judges assigned to the relative ages of the protagonists, and the lesser significance attached to the assets each brought into the marriage.
“I was surprised to see that if a woman with little work experience is, say, 10 years younger than her husband who is a professor on a good salary, the assets are likely to be divided reasonably equally, when you might expect the professor would need less,” Professor Zeleznikow said.
“Are these systems better than a good family lawyer? Absolutely not. But you will pay a lot of money and take some time to get advice from a good lawyer. And this could be available for everyone.”
For informational purposes only and not intended to infringe on Copyright © 2005 The Sydney Morning Herald
According to the Seattle Post-Intellligencer, Washington state has a statute protecting sperm donors from child support claims. Despite that, the paper reports, not surprisingly, Supreme Court: Man must pay child support for in vitro children.
This case is just another illustration of how a court may not apply a statute according to its literal terms in a paper vacuum. Although the man in this case was a sperm donor, the facts demonstrate that he was also much more. The children here were conceived out of a long term affair and the man had very much played the part of the children’s father.
The court evidently felt that this man was not whom the legistlature intended to protect with the statute. And, therefore, didn’t protect him with the statute.
ScienceDaily reports that Michigan is going “to try child support amnesty”. The program gives parents the chance to avoid all civil and criminal consequences of their delinquency by simply bringing their existing past due obligations current by the end of the year.
The reader may walk away from the article with the impression that the amnesty program is too harsh. At least until they read this piecefrom the Virginian-Pilot.
Newsweek is carrying an article with advice from a divorce financial analyst. The article shows some ways that investing in the services of a financial analyst may maximize the marital assets and, therefore, lead to more property ultimately being distributed to one or both spouses. A financial analyst may also help to optimize allocation of the spouses’ future income(s) among each other and their children.
In appropriate cases, good financial analysts can add tremendous value to the divorce process. The spouses would do well to remember, however, that some financial analysts tend to view support and property division in a purely mathematical way.
But the impact of divorce can’t be boiled down to a straightforward mathematical formula.
For example, remaining in the marital home may help maintain some stability, emotional security and continuity for minor children whose parents are divorcing. This value to the entire family cannot be captured by a financial formula.
Similarly, tax savings, while important, may not be the overriding objectives for one or both spouses. Touching on an example in the article, alimony and child support serve different purposes and do not continue for the same periods of time. In some cases, it could ultimately prove detrimental to attempt to characterize payments for one as payments for the other just to achieve better tax treatment.
The totality of divorce is a complex process for the spouses and the family. Wherever possible, spouses/parents should evaluate alternative divisions of property and future support issues with their attorneys in the larger contexts of the divorce and the family.
A Vermont case against a Florida mother appears to raise a novel question: is it unconstitutional to penalize for prolonged non-payment of child support a mother whose church reportedly prohibits paid third-party employment and apparently requires instead that church members perform goodworks for other church members on a full-time basis?
Although the mother is a Florida resident, the support orders and enforcement orders were entered in Vermont under Vermont law. But Florida and other states similarly allow for suspension of driver’s licenses as a penalty for non-payment of child support in appropriate cases. Florida, specifically allows for a qualified suspension permitting certain driving, including driving for income-producing or “church…purposes“, as may Vermont.
The church pays this mother a modest amount of money that may be variously characterized as income, housing allowance or a stipend. That money seems to be the only source that the state of Vermont seeks payment of past due child support from. The mother reportedly did not challenge the support orders at the time they were entered.
Unusual child support case goes before High Court
By John Zicconi Vermont Press Bureau September 5, 2005
MONTPELIER — The Vermont Supreme Court will decide whether a former Vermont woman can avoid paying child support because of her religious beliefs.
The Vermont Office of Child Support in 2003 received a court order allowing it to suspend the driver’s license of Joyce Stanzione, a former Vermont resident who has not paid child support since she separated from her husband in 1991.
Stanzione is a long-time member of the Twelve Tribes Messianic Community in Florida and is not allowed under church law to have an income, said Jean Swantko, her attorney.
Suspending Stanzione’s driver’s license because she has no income violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which protects religious freedom, said Swantko, who is also a member of the Twelve Tribes Community.
Stanzione appealed the lower court decision. The Supreme Court will hear arguments on Tuesday.
“She cannot pay because of her faith,” Swantko wrote in a legal brief to the high court. “Suspending (her) right to drive is punishment for the free exercise of her religious beliefs.”
Twelve Tribes has some 25 settlements worldwide, including Island Pond, which was the site of a raid by the state of Vermont in 1984. State officials alleged the community was abusing its children, but a judge dismissed all charges for a lack of evidence.
Stanzione now lives in another state, Swantko said, but suspending her Vermont right to drive would also bar her from driving in Florida because states honor each other’s suspensions.
Losing her ability to drive would prevent Stanzione, 54, from doing church work, Swantko said.
“She drives every day for the work she does in the community,” Swantko said. “She shops for the elderly and drives them around.”
Stanzione was ordered in 1991 to pay $50 per week in child support when she and her husband divorced and he left the religious community to return to Vermont along with three of the couple’s five children, according to court papers.
She never contested the order but made no payments, court papers said.
The youngest of her children turned 18 in 1999, but three years later Stanzione was brought back into court and ordered to pay $4,800 to the state to make up for the welfare payments Vermont taxpayers supplied her children while they lived with their father.
Stanzione again made no payments, and in 2003 the Office of Child Support successfully moved to have her driver’s license suspended. The suspension, however, has been put on hold pending the Supreme Court appeal.
“It’s a fairness issue,” said Jeff Cohen, director of the Office of Child Support. “The taxpayers supported three kids for a long time. We are just asking for a reasonable amount of assistance.”
Cohen said the state is not trampling on Stanzione’s religious freedom by asking her to help support her own children.
“There are a lot of low-income people out there who make good efforts to support their kids,” Cohen said. “There is an element of public policy behind this. It sends a message that people have to take responsibility for their kids.”
The Office of Child Support suspends about 24 driver’s licenses each year, he said.
A child-support order says Stanzione receives an annual “pro-rata share” of the church community’s income. That came to about $5,000 in both 2000 and 2001.
Stanzione has income, which is why the state suspended her license, Cohen said.
“I don’t think there is any question she has the ability to pay,” Cohen said. “If she did not have the ability, we would write it off.”
Swantko said Stanzione does not receive income from the church.
Members receive money “for tax purposes and to spend on food and shelter,” Swantko said. “They don’t get to spend it on themselves.”
Swantko said it is unconstitutional for the state to punish Stanzione, a church community member since 1983, for not having a personal income when it is against her religious beliefs.
“You cannot suspend someone’s license unless the person has the ability to pay,” Swantko said. “The reason she does not have any money is because of her religious beliefs. They don’t want to face that.”
Contact John Zicconi at john.zicconi@timesargus.com
Reprinted for educational purposes only and not intended to infringe on © 2005 Times Argus
| Listen to Janet |
See if the nonprofit Association against Hidden Family Abuse, Inc. can help you or someone you care about.