Case Study: Non-Custodial Parent

     In the United States today more than one-half of all marriages end in divorce. The purpose of this paper is to examine the reason why women have typically received custody of the children far more often than the fathers. In order to better understand child custody one must first examine how fathers have often times been left out of the picture, and conversely why mothers have had such hard times raising children on their own. This paper will first examine the perspective of a father who has lost custody of his children.

Christopher Lambesis (Father) and Erin Lambesis (Mother) were divorced in 2013. In the divorce decree, Father was ordered to pay Mother $100 per month for child support for the two minor children. In October 2014, Father filed a Petition to Modify Child Support. Based on his own calculations using the Parent’s Worksheet for Child Support, he requested Mother pay him $100 per month. Mother requested a hearing in response including her own calculations indicating that Father should be paying her $123 per month. An evidentiary hearing was held and the court ordered Father to pay mother child support amounting to $149.30 per month. Father filed a Motion for a New Trial stating that he was not provided with documentation regarding Mother’s financial status in a timely manner and that the family court’s child support obligation calculations were incorrect. Mother filed an Application for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs. The court denied Father’s request for a new trial and granted Mother’s request for attorney fees. Father filed a motion to reconsider the allocation of parenting time coordinator’s fees. This motion was also denied. Father appealed the court’s decision.

Like I have mentioned before I was attempting to gain full custody of my child, but due to the Florida Parenting Law (61.13), this would not be possible. I also attempted to get the relocation of my child to the State of New York, but it was also denied. The court order is attached to this memo and states that my son has to stay in the state of Florida and he should stay assigned to the Orange County school district.

Mr. Wayne Bias’, the non-custodial parent, testimony revealed that DHR levied his wife’s, Venita Bias, bank account and that she has proof that the money that was levied is not his. He also stated his name was associated with the account.

Lee County DHR’s testimony revealed that the case with the non-custodial parent (NCP), Felton Harley, Jr., begin back in 1992 when the custodial parent(CP), Wanda Marshall, applied for services to establish a paternity order, income withholding (IWO), and medical. An order was established and the NCP was paying child support. On July 9, 2008, the CP requested enforcement; DHR filed contempt against the NCP because he had not paid a child support payment since April 2008. The NCP appeared in court and paid $400.00; the court dismissed the review because an IWO had been mailed and the payments were being received through the IWO. On November 5, 2010, a contempt action was filed again, due to the NCP not paying child support since August 2010.

The agency contact DHR Legal to get an opinion on this order. While child support judgement cannot be discharged; the major question to Legal was did this render the order unenforceable. DHR Legal stated that if the court had made a factual finding that there was no arrears owed, and then there would not be any arrears owed. Instead, the court responded to DHR’s petition and the CP’s request for an income withholding order. The order stated that the arrears could not be determined after testimony. The order was silent as to what exactly made the arrears indeterminable, the order does not state that there would never be a way to determine the arrears in the future with additional evidence, it does not state the arrears has been satisfied or zeroed, and it does not state the arrears are unenforceable. DHR Legal quoted from a civil appeals case in which the court had not preserved the arrears; the Court of Civil Appeals rule that the court did not have to preserve the arrears. Therefore, at this point, the agency believes the order is valid and enforceable. The order bring back the policy 9.1.2.a.C which is paraphrase as when the client comes in and there is an order established prior to application, have the client to fill out of the Affidavit of Past Due Support, gather all available payment records; this is what the

Summary: It is the most stressful part in anybody’s life to fight a case for the protection of your children. The Family Lawyer for Child Custody Denton TX does a fabulous job for the protection of children legally.

Re: Whether the trial court acted appropriately in excusing Mr. Eldridge form paying $3,500 accrued in child support.

Did the trial court err in its determination that, under the Child Support Guidelines, as provided in § 12-204(i)(1), that the Defendant should contribute to private school via his child support payment

Petitto v. Petitto, 147 Md. App. 280, 307 (2002). In determining whether a change is material, “[a] change ‘that affects the income pool used to calculate the support obligations upon which a child support award was based’ is necessarily relevant.’” Id. (quoting Wills, supra, 340 Md. at 488 n.1).

Mr. Walker’s legal representative revealed that he wished to give an open statement as to the reason for the administrative hearing. The legal representative stated that he represents the non-custodial parent (NCP), Michael Walker. He stated that the NCP and his wife maintained four bank accounts jointly, and that in October 2015 the NCP’s wife deposited over $23,000.00 in the bank account that she withdrew from a personal savings retirement account that the NCP did not contribute to before it was deposited in the financial institution. Those funds were solely the NCP’s wife; the funds assisted in purchasing a home, furnishing, and the rest a different savings account. Prior to the wife being able to follow through with the process,

Custody cases can be hard on everyone involved and it is often seen that courts tend to favor the mother in custody cases. The truth is that custody is decided by what is in the best interest of your child or children. This can involve a lot of factors and employment should only be a small part of the deciding factors. Having a job or not having a job should not be the deciding factor in any custody judgement, however you may find that whether you can or can not financially care for your children will be a factor.

Russell County DHR representative’s testimony revealed that on July 14, 2003, the case with the CP, Juanita James, and the NCP was established. The NCP was ordered to pay child support of $190.10 per month. At the time the case opened, the parties were married, and the NCP was ordered to pay the amount of child support as stated in the divorce decree. The court incorporated and adopted the child support order into the divorce decree order. The NPC was already paying child support on those cases. In 2007, the CP applied for services, the case opened and was referred to the District Attorney’s office. Once the case was referred, the arrears were set on the case at the time of enforcement. The CP stated there were no direct payments received. All payments that were received through the payment center were calculated and received along with entering the Affidavit of No Direct Payments. The representative stated based on those facts, the interest was calculated on the child support amount in the order. The NCP was ordered to pay $190.10 per month beginning June 20, 2003 and an additional $25.00 per month toward retro support; the current arrears owed are $24,635.30. In April

The first case that was presented involved a man that was currently incarcerated in the Vanderburgh County jail. The inmate was able to plead his case, telling the judge that he was not able to work because he was injured, and therefore had no income to pay for child support. After looking at the past payments the inmate made through the court, it revealed that before he was incarcerated he had made one payment to the child’s mother. He claimed that he was out of work because he had broken his leg, but failed to provide an statements from his employer stating he was either let go or not able to work because of an injury. All payments had stopped for whatever reason. The judge found the inmate in contempt of court for failure to obey a court order. He could not prove to the judge that he deliberately disobey the court’s order to pay child support. In the end, the judge found him irresponsible and sentenced him to 90 days in jail along with a $1000 fine. After he was sentenced, he was escorted out of the front of the courtroom by the bailiff.

Over the years, we've noticed that child custody Plano TX is almost always at the very top of the priority list for parents going through a divorce. This shouldn’t come as a surprise, considering how the term “custody battle” has made its way into our vernacular, but there are ways to resolve child custody peaceably and without the battle. Here are four common-sense tips that will help you keep your poise and receive a favorable ruling.