Ex Parte Child Support Hearings

Quote:

---

Quoting mmmagique

---

You're not making any sense. You're not making your questions clear, you left out all the states involved, and you seem to just want to make your own rules and laws.

---

Really..hmmm? I’m the one who’s not making any sense? Are you referring to the procedures that were used on this child enforcement case? If you’re confused then join the band wagon – and that’s why I’m posting the general informative information on-line and please be specific? This was a URESA case between two states (The Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act concerns interstate cooperation in the collection of spousal and child support. It lays out the procedure for enforcement in cases in which the person owing alimony or child support is in one state and the person to whom the support is owed is in another state (hence the word "reciprocal")

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

“The original Act was first passed in 1950 by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws. It was amended in 1952 and again in 1958. The most recent amendments were enacted in 1968 and included improved machinery for finding the person owing support; guidelines for the conduct of the trial in the responding state; guidelines for cases where paternity is in question or where there has been interference with visitation rights; and simplified procedures for registering and enforcing out-of-state support orders. Such acts, substantially similar in content, have been passed in all 50 states.”

---

Quote:

---

“In 1950, The National Conference of Commissions on Uniform State Laws published the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA). The Commission stated that, “The purposes of this act are to improve and extend by reciprocal legislation the enforcement of duties of support and to make uniform the law with respect thereto.” URESA sought to enforce the provisions in two ways: criminal enforcement and civil enforcement. The criminal enforcement relied upon the obligee state demanding that the obligor state extradite the obligor to the obligee state, or for the obligor to submit himself/herself to the jurisdiction of the obligee state. The civil enforcement relied upon a system where the obligee would initiate proceedings in his/her state. The initiating state would determine if the obligor had a duty of support. If the initiating court held that the obligor had a duty of support, the initiating court would forward the case to the obligor’s state. The responding state, which would have personal jurisdiction over the obligor, would provide notice and a hearing for obligor. After this hearing, the responding court would enforce the support order.”

---

Quote:

---

“RURESA provided new protection for mothers against noncompliant fathers; however, RURESA created the problem of multiple support orders. Since every state could enforce and modify a support order, the possibility of having multiple support orders arose. If the father moved from State A to State B to State C to State D, and if the mother continually registered and had the order modified, then there would be four separate and independent support orders. RURESA provided that the state courts could modify the original order so long as the court applied its own procedural law and the substantive law of the original state, unless that application of substantive law contravened its own public policy. The Commission intended to correct the problem of inconsistent multiple orders by only allowing the support orders to be modified based upon a single state’s law. In theory, states A, B and C could only modify a support order based upon the original state’s law; thus, all the support orders should be identical. In practice, however, this rule created ambiguities concerning whether child support guidelines are procedural or substantive, and if substantive, whether application of that substantive law contravenes some public policy. Therefore, it became possible that there could be multiple orders based upon different states’ child support guidelines.”

---

---

I did not make up my own law – where and underneath this information does it say that the receding state can enforce and address custody under the UREASA. My understanding of this is that the state where the custodial parent’s lives must have given up that rights to a hearing on custody and allowed the reciprocal state (receding state) jurisdiction. Would this be a correct statement, and if this is so then we have a problem. After hiring an attorney – why wouldn’t or why couldn’t we have had the custody case transferred to the custodial parent’s (my state) court system? Since there was, at the time, another civil matter being addressed.

Quote:

---

“Child support is established in proceedings in which the court has personal jurisdiction over both parties, i.e. the mother and father.”

---

The custody was addressed and also handled without as much as a notification to the custodial parent from the receding state? By a District Court referee (an attorney who is appointed by judges from the county district court to act as a judicial hearing officer for “certain types of cases” --- which a majority of cases heard by the District Court Referee are cases initiated by the State of XX against a non- supporting parent or stepparent to establish paternity or to establish or enforce an order for child and medical support. Where does it say anywhere under that definition – “and” to address custody or to address the custody on the behalf of another state? Next question, define conception law for me and as well as to others on the board. At the time when custody was being addressed, and by the receding state “who did not” base their laws under conception at the time, readdress custody using it? When a URESA is out-going and not in-coming from reciprocal state what does it say?

Please put your snark back to bed. It's far too early on a Monday morning.

If you don't appreciate or understand the replies you've received, by all means call a few attorneys and have them answer your questions.

Quote:

---

Quoting Dogmatique

---

Please put your snark back to bed. It's far too early on a Monday morning.

If you don't appreciate or understand the replies you've received, by all means call a few attorneys and have them answer your questions.

---

Dogmatique,

I don't think that I was being snarky about my reply back but felt that I was rehashing the same information (given). Also, I've seen on a few posts outside this board that posters (if need be) don't have to discuss which state or states are involved. I thought just general pertinent information could be given and also I do understand that the laws are different (in regards to custody) but this case falls under the URESA guidelines on "who" holds jurisdictions.

Quote:

---

URESA applied both to the enforcement of support orders and to original claims for support. Its procedures enabled the claimant to file in the local forum, which forwarded the complaint to the state where the defendant was present. The court of the second state then exercised personal jurisdiction over the defendant and entered the appropriate support order. Particularly important was the act's choice-of-law provision stating that the support obligation was to be determined according to the law of the state where the defendant was present at and during the time for which support is claimed.

In 1992, the National Conference of Commissioners of Uniform State Laws approved the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA) to replace URESA. Since 1992, UIFSA has been enacted by all states; while some states completely repealed URESA, some states retained aspects of URESA, and some states retained the entire URESA.

---

- - - Updated - - -

Also....

Now a second question:

If the custody issue was being heard in another state - State B.
but, another "whole new" case (and in regards the same child) was being heard (at the same time) in the state that you reside why split the cases from one jurisdiction to another?

For example: If allegation charges were being filed in your State but the custody case was being heard in the father's jurisdiction - aren't both court systems splitting the child from one jurisdiction to another?

Quote:

---

Quoting cremmes

---

I've seen on a few posts outside this board that posters (if need be) don't have to discuss which state or states are involved.

---

Then visit those boards. Here on THIS board, knowing the state is relevant, vital, information if you want answers that are correct or in compliance with established procedures in the proper state. We don't ask the question just to annoy you.

Quote:

---

I thought just general pertinent information could be given

---

Yes, VERY general, such as "we can't give you an answer with only half the information, feel free to consult an attorney in your unnamed state".

Quote:

---

and also I do understand that the laws are different (in regards to custody) but this case falls under the URESA guidelines on "who" holds jurisdictions.

---

"Laws" are NOT the only issue. They are PART of the issue, but there are also procedural matters. Why not just ANSWER the question when directly asked? Is it THAT difficult?

Quote:

---

Now a second question:

---

Oh goody.

Quote:

---

If the custody issue was being heard in another state - State B.
but, another "whole new" case (and in regards the same child) was being heard (at the same time) in the state that you reside why split the cases from one jurisdiction to another?

---

We can surmise "ifs" all day long...is this what is ACTUALLY happening?

Quote:

---

If allegation charges were being filed in your State

---

Allegation of WHAT?

Quote:

---

but the custody case was being heard in the father's jurisdiction - aren't both court systems splitting the child from one jurisdiction to another?

---

Depends. Custody is one matter and one court has jurisdiction over it. The other case....we have no information about.



Does anyone have any Novocain?? How many teeth are left?

Quote:

---

Quoting cremmes

---

Dogmatique,

I don't think that I was being snarky about my reply back but felt that I was rehashing the same information (given). Also, I've seen on a few posts outside this board that posters (if need be) don't have to discuss which state or states are involved. I thought just general pertinent information could be given and also I do understand that the laws are different (in regards to custody) but this case falls under the URESA guidelines on "who" holds jurisdictions.



- - - Updated - - -

Also....

Now a second question:

If the custody issue was being heard in another state - State B.
but, another "whole new" case (and in regards the same child) was being heard (at the same time) in the state that you reside why split the cases from one jurisdiction to another?

For example: If allegation charges were being filed in your State but the custody case was being heard in the father's jurisdiction - aren't both court systems splitting the child from one jurisdiction to another?

---

I am just going to be blunt. Nobody understands what you actually are trying to accomplish. Nobody understands what you are actually worried about. You are not clear with your questions.

Your child is an adult. Custody and child support, and the jurisdiction of custody and child support no longer matter.

I get the vague impression that you are somehow wanting to stop or control any contact between your adult child and his father. That is impossible. They are adults, that is between them.

Quote:

---

Does anyone have any Novocain?? How many teeth are left?

---

Yes, I have some but it's an old bottle and it dates back.

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Quoting llworking

---

I am just going to be blunt.

---

Alright but while you are being totally blunt about "nobody" understanding the problem - there's seems to be a insurmountable amount legal work that is waiting to be addressed with both court systems.

- the father had ordered ex parte orders when there has been "No" contact and no communication into the state "he" resides - how do I find about the length of time on this restraining order and also the information that was given for the reasons in order to contest it and also to find out how far it dates back. Also, if the father "now" wants contact with the son do those restraints just automatically get lifted. Also, and if he has a restraining order how then can another family member be in contact with me while those restrains are in place?

- When the custody was being approached with the referee in that state (which this question was never answered - under the URESA - and was not served with proper notification). It's makes it so virtually impossible to come to court to address this issue and to ask questions when no one gives out any information to begin with - this should have been given at the time I called the child enforcement agency. Again, I have never been asked to attend these hearings on child support nor did I feel that I needed to attend since I had a child enforcement work who was aware of his own behavior on another child support case "PLUS" he had a restraining order from a previous relationship that ended.

- Frankly, I don't know what you don't understand (and I'm not being snarky) when there's been so many legal actions that have been filed on this case, so someone's understanding it.


-

Quote:

---

I get the vague impression that you are somehow wanting to stop or control any contact between your adult child and his father. That is impossible. They are adults, that is between them.

---

please! from the perspective of the restraining orders (or ex parte orders) filed against me without cause and after trying to address the custody issue in another state - I'm not the one with the control buttons I believe someone else does or did. I think (and don't take it personal) if (and I feel) my son has had somewhat some contact with the father (or his family) and he's not willing to be up front about it (yet) and there have been some definite changes in his attitude and approach with me and my family (and speaking in away of going behind someone's back) .... that's not control on my end.

Do you guys notice that I make it a general rule NEVER to respond to threads where each and every post by the OP has to be a novel? There is a reason why we tell people to be succinct, leave out all the extraneous information and emotion and just get to the issue. When you don't? You get all this stuff that is a bunch of drivel going around in circles where no one gets who's on first.

If this was a site where people had to pay per word, per post or by the hour, they wouldn't do that. A good indication that your post is TOO DARN LONG is if the site times out before you get to hitting submit (thanks, Aaron).

With that, I'm going to recommend that the OP get out their favorite check book, Visa, Mastercard, Discover or American Express, call a few family law attorneys and buy their time at $200 or $300/hr.

I'm usually very good at figuring out other people's questions, even when others don't understand. This one? Not a clue...

Quote:

---

Quoting mmmagique

---

I'm usually very good at figuring out other people's questions, even when others don't understand. This one? Not a clue...

---

That is my problem as well. I honestly have no clue what the actual problem is.

Quote:

---

Quoting llworking

---

That is my problem as well. I honestly have no clue what the actual problem is.

---

I suspect a lot is being left out, and that it is just impossible to answer her question(s) in a reasonable way without knowing the full story.