Can You Get an Order for Child Support from a Non-Working, Welfare Collecting Parent

[llworking]

You can attempt to convince a court to impute income to her. Assuming the court is inclined to do so, however, it's unlikely that she has any assets or income that could be attached to pay support. Do you have a goal here other than expressing anger through judicial process?

She stated her goal. She is trying to strip mom of her parental rights so that OP can do a stepparent adoption. She doesn't want her husband to collect child support from mom. She wants mom ordered to pay child support, and then NOT pay, as additional ammo to strip mom's parental rights.

[misskkay]

You can attempt to convince a court to impute income to her. Assuming the court is inclined to do so, however, it's unlikely that she has any assets or income that could be attached to pay support. Do you have a goal here other than expressing anger through judicial process?

How would one go about convincing the court to impute income? During the last hearing at family court, the judge ordered her responsible for paying the agency supervised visitation fees. She claimed she couldn't afford it because she is on welfare and supported by her husband, but the judge felt her husband made enough for her to pay for these visits. I thought that was odd since everything I have read about child support makes it sound like they can not use your spouse's income to determine how much you can afford to pay. However, this was in family court for a child visitation modification, it wasn't specifically for child support. Considering this, would family court be a better route to get an order to impute income (as opposed to DCSS)?

My goal is to get an order for bio mom to pay child support. If this occurs, 1 of 2 things will happen: either bio mom will step up her game and be a part of the child's life to minimize support obligations (right now dad has child 100% of the time), or she will consent to a step parent adoption to stop the child support order.

- - - Updated - - -

Why should she? You're the one looking to strip her of her rights, why shouldn't you be the one to bring the proof?

You are talking about something else here, I am asking about child support specifically. I am unclear about the child support process, which is why I asked if there is a burden on ncp to prove they are looking for work. In a contested step parent adoption, i could claim parental rights should be terminated based on the grounds of abandonment. In this type of trial, it would be bio moms burden to prove that the assertion she abandoned the child is not true. This is why an attorney would be appointed to her in this type of case. Your assertion that I would be the one that needs to bring the proof is entirely false.

[Dogmatique]

What several posters have tried to gently explain is this:

YOU have no leg to stand on here. Your rights to the child are the same as mine. Ie, none at all.

That aside, you're likely going to be in for a nasty surprise in terms of stripping Mom of her rights.

[misskkay]

What several posters have tried to gently explain is this:

YOU have no leg to stand on here. Your rights to the child are the same as mine. Ie, none at all.

That aside, you're likely going to be in for a nasty surprise in terms of stripping Mom of her rights.

I understand I have no rights to the child. I understand that step parents have no legal rights to a step child. I understand that I can not go to court for anything in regards to this child.

I am not asking about striping parental rights. I am asking about the child support process. I am not planning to go to court and ask for child support, my husband is.

[Dogmatique]

I think most of us are getting at is that we can see what you're planning and it's not really going to work like that.

Yes, you WERE talking about stripping parental rights (striping is a different matter completely and tends to involve industrial strength paint). We can see the plan. You are assuming that Mom has the burden of proof in such matters...and on this one, you're dead wrong.

[misskkay]

I think most of us are getting at is that we can see what you're planning and it's not really going to work like that.

Yes, you WERE talking about stripping parental rights (striping is a different matter completely and tends to involve industrial strength paint). We can see the plan. You are assuming that Mom has the burden of proof in such matters...and on this one, you're dead wrong.

On what matter? Contesting abandonment?

I am not asking for advice as it pertains to a step parent adoption. The only reason I mentioned that is most people feel it is pointless to ask for child support from a parent that is unemployed; you are basically spending thousands to get pennies. So to avoid the questions that would inevitably follow, I felt it necessary to prove a brief synopsis as to why I do feel it WOULD be worth the time and effort to get an order for support.

Apparently, the majority of posters are allowing their judgments of my ethics to cloud their responses. Such responses in regards to step parent adoption shows just how little many know of the process here in California. I need no opinions as to "if my plan will work"; all I am looking for is advice as it pertains to getting an order for child support from a parent that is unemployed and on welfare.

[Disagreeable]

Since we have established you understand your legal position, let me explain moms to you. She is receiving gov't subsidies to assist with her household based on income. The only effect an implied support order would have would be to circumvent and redirect the benefits of a low income program to your family who does not qualify for the subsidy. It would be the judicial equivalent of hubby demanding food stamps to feed the child at your home.

[Dogmatique]

Okey dokey then.

I wonder when Mom will submit to the court her feelings about alienation.

[misskkay]

Since we have established you understand your legal position, let me explain moms to you. She is receiving gov't subsidies to assist with her household based on income. The only effect an implied support order would have would be to circumvent and redirect the benefits of a low income program to your family who does not qualify for the subsidy. It would be the judicial equivalent of hubby demanding food stamps to feed the child at your home.

As I explained previously, a judge would not order her to pay child support for this very reason. The money she collects from welfare is for the well being of the children that currently reside with her, it would not make sense to take the food out of their mouths so to speak. What I am curious about is whether or not a judge would impute income that would garnish a tax return or wages if she were to gain employment in the future. Government assistance is supposed to do just that, assist you until you get back on your feet. We are talking about a person who has been on government assistance since 2006. Are you suggesting that when a parent is low income and collects government assistance they are not responsible for financially supporting ALL their children?

- - - Updated - - -

Okey dokey then.

I wonder when Mom will submit to the court her feelings about alienation.

What brings you to that assumption?

[Dogmatique]

The courts cannot use finances (or lack thereof) in determining custody or modification of custody/visitation. If Mom is genuinely in need, the court can raise Dad's obligation.

(In other words, if she can show she's actually in need of aid, the court isn't going to penalize her either now or in the future)

You need to understand that your (over) involvement can be used against Dad.