N and O have a child together. N (the father) didn’t find out about the child until he was about 11 years old. This is because O (the mother) is a lunatic. She’s diagnosed with a number of things, including but not limited to BPD, ASPD, BiPolar Disorder, and generally being a total bitch. She was convicted of a crime and was going to jail. At that point she had about 8 men tested for paternity and N came up as the lucky winner.
He promptly begin paying child support - it is not court ordered - N found out what the court ordered amount would be and began paying it to O. It should be noted that N and O live in different countries. When O was to start her sentence someone needed to take custody of the child. O’s entire family (parents, sister, aunts, uncles) refused to take in child. W and spouse stepped in. N was unable to take custody because of personal and work circumstances. When W took custody N began sending support to W (while O was in jail).
O subsequently got out of jail and has regained custody of the child. However, her living circumstances are almost never stable. W wanted to retain custody of the child; however, O told the child that if they didn’t come and live with her child would never see her or any other member of her family again (like I said - she’s mother of the year).
Anyhoodle, due to O’s rather tenuous circumstances, child still comes and stays with W and spouse sometimes including this summer for about 3 weeks.
N found out that child was going to be staying with W. He has decided that for this month he’s going to send O 1/4 of the support payment and the other 3/4 to W.
So - what do all of you think of this plan. I can answer some questions if you have them, but I am trying to maintain a bit of discretion.
On the surface, it sounds reasonable to me, but O isn’t necessarily a reasonable person. Depending on how well off W is compared to her, she may see it as N giving W her money. However, O has long term expenses involved in caring for the kid that W doesn’t, such as renting a larger place than she’d have on her own, clothes for the kid, etc. While it may make logical sense for N to give W 3/4 of his usual payment and O 1/4 of it, I wouldn’t advise it. W isn’t taking on 3/4 of the actual cost of caring for the kid and O could take it badly.
I’d really suggest that N doesn’t want to risk O feeling cheated and deciding to start to get court ordered child support. The Family courts can ignore records of voluntary payments if they want, and then order future child support plus back child support. Esp. if O is feeling vindictive, and starts claiming that the records N is presenting are fraudulent.
I’m kind of inclined to agree - O is in bad circumstances financially - well, in every way, pretty much so she does need the money more than W. However, W has gone out and bought the child a bunch of back to school clothes and would kind of like to be paid back.
FWIW, due to O’s rather unfortunate history, and the fact that she and N live in different countries, apparently any child support order would a) be unlikely to happen in the first place (she would lose custody in a second if ANYONE pushed it - shit, my cat could petition for custody and get it over O) and b) unenforceable so that’s not really an issue.
I suggested to W that she should contact N, tell N to send the full months $$ to O as there are always extra expenses in September, and also send $$ to W to compensate for all the back to school stuff already purchased.
I guess N is pissed at O (because O is bat shit insane and a total bitch) and was wanting to punish her for being such a fuck up. However, as Siege suggested, O does have expenses related to the child that don’t disappear just because the child is away for a while - I compared it to the child being at camp - O would still need to pay rent, and utilities and whatnot.
He should do what he is legally required to do, sending less money to O will come back and bite him in the ass. Now if he has extra money to send to W that would be great, but by no means should it come out of his regular support payment.
I agree with this I think. N will send W extra $$ - he’s very good about sending money to W (who is not batshit insane) when she asks - it just never occurs to him that extra $$ is needed.
Again, I’m not sure how it would come back to bite him in the ass. He’s in a different country than O, and O’s history is SO bad he could say ‘I want full custody’ and he would get it in about 2 seconds. O is well known to child court judges around these parts. She’s lost custody of all her other children to their fathers (there are many) and a child court judge once looked at her and said if it was in his power he would make her get fixed and never see her children again because she’s such a toxic waste dump of a person. So, she’s really doesn’t have a whole lot of leverage when it comes that sort of thing. Also, she’s out on parole and has violated it numerous times - either N or W could contact the court system and she would be back in prison.
I’m torn; on the one hand, the uber-smart CYA thing to do is send O all of the money all of the time.
However, perhaps the more compassionate (though potentially problematic) thing is to do as N is thinking and split the money when the kid is with W. If that’s what happens though, I’d recommend N keep a complete record of all of his payments and to whom they are going and why.
Slight hijack here. OtakuLoki, I don’t know if you are referring to the laws in California and Ontario (where the parties and child live), but what you say is NOT true in New York, which you have listed as your location. In New York State, child support payable to the custodial parent (whether directly or through the Child Support Enforcement Bureau) is only retroactive to the date of filing of the support petition, unless the parties agree otherwise. Support payable to the Department of Social Services (which occurs if the child is placed on welfare by the custodial party, or is put in some kind of placement by a state agency, or is on medicaid or Child Health Plus) is payable retroactive to the date the child started receiving benefits, even if the child is well into the double digits in age before paternity and support are estabished and the child has been on welfare from the day it was born.
Paying support directly to the mother *without a court order * can be risky because it is possible for mom to accept the money from dad and put the child on welfare ANYWAY, lying to D.S.S. about the fact that she is getting money. It is welfare fraud, but it is not uncommon. By the time D.S.S. tracks down dad and files against him, a substantial retroactive liability can accrue. Whatever else “N” decides to do, it is imperative that he document all payments to mom. No receipt + No payment. The burden of proof is on the payor.
If The support payments are voluntary, and unenforceable, then he should do as damn well pleases. Frankly, if the mom is THAT bloody incompetent, and he wants to do good by the kid, then he ought to have sued for custody, rather than sending money.
Yah, I agree with this completely. The mom IS that bloody incompetent. When I think about her I want to pour bleach in her eyes.
However, in N’s defense, O didn’t bother to tell him he was a dad until the kid was 11 years old. He had no idea the child even existed. I think he’s trying to do the best he can, but he never wanted children, he certainly didn’t want the with O, and he certainly didn’t want to find out about it when the kid was 11.
The custody problem now is that unless O does something REALLY nutty (which is not impossible), in order for W or N to get custody, because of child’s age, child needs to stand up in court and say they want to live with W or N. As I said, O told child if that happened, child would never see O or any of O’s family ever again. God she’s such a disgusting human being.
It’s not really legal advice that I was wondering about - as I said, legally mom can be put back in jail if anyone decides she’s pissed them off a bit too much. I was thinking more ethically, or morally - what’s the right thing for N to do?
However, as to the rest of your post - any custody order made in Alberta would be basically unenforceable in California. Further, should N get really annoyed he can quite easily relocate to South America, or where ever due to the nature of his business.
Thanks, alice. Child support would be determined where the child lives, in Alberta, applying Alberta law. An Albertan child support order could be enforced in California because there is a reciprocity agreement in place between Alberta and California. Note that an Albertan child support agreement can easily be turned into an order, which in turn could be enforeced.
Although the court has the discretion to adjust the amounts payable under the Child Support Guidelines due to the child living away from the support recipient for a period of time, I doubt very much if any reduction would be given for only a three week period, particularly since such a short period would not affect the child rearing expenses of rent and clothing.
Best to avoid the problem of an order or written agreement being made, for once in place, the order might prove difficult for N should N’s financial circumstances take a dive, and in any event, N would probably not want the bother and legal costs involved in the making of such an order or written agreement. N should keep paying full child support to O, and pay something extra to help out W if W needs it.
It is imperative that N keep receipts to prove what child support has been paid, so as to avoid a retroactive child support order.
Also, N should consider speaking with social services in Alberta, for if O is on welfare or the like, support owed to her would usually be assigned to the province (meaning that what is owed to her would instead be paid to the province while she is receiving provincial welfare funding). Note that I used the weasel word “consider”. This is because if O is double dipping (getting full welfare including child benefits but at the same time getting child support), his contacting social services could get her in a lot of trouble for defrauding the province, which in turn could set of a nasty chain of events in what is already a precarious parenting situation. I would remove the qualifier and say that he certainly should speak with social services if O were to get a court order for child support or a written agreement for child support. It would be a pity if, sometime after an order is made, N were to find out that he owes the province for the child support that has already been paying to O.
I can not speak on whether or not child support or retroactive child support are tax deductible in California (with the odd exception, in Alberta they are not). That is something that N should look into with a Californian family lawyer.
People from Quebec, where the parties are legendary week long riots, have the right to say that, but not people from Alberta, where the don’t even J-walk after a Stanley Cup win.
Thank you for this information - I appreciate that you took the time to type it out. I’m reluctant to post too much info or specific details - you can PM me if you’re really interested; however, it would be impossible for O to get any sort of child support order enforced against N. Where the circumstances different than I guess it could be possible; however, in this case it just aint gonna happen.
At this point N is paying because he’s trying to do the right thing. Not because O would have any chance of actually getting an order of support against him.