I’m in an odd position in which my friend’s ex is being held in contempt for not paying child support per divorce decree (after 15 years). Father is fighting it. Friend has asked me to testify to the fact that Father said he’d always take care of the mother and child (a conversation I had over 10 years ago with him)
I’m confused, because I’d figure if you hadn’t abided by the divorce decree, then this would be open and shut.
Any legal experts want to guess what might be going on?
What does what he said, have to do with his financial obligation to his children? That’s set down in the law and not subject to, ‘but he once said…’, as far as I can tell.
Can you explain a little more? This doesn’t seem to make much sense.
I see it the same way. That’s all the detail I have on the subject. I don’t understand how such an apparently straightforward case could depend on a short, awkward conversation I had with someone I haven’t seen in many years.
I want to help this child get their due, but all I know about legal proceedings is from television and I don’t want to get unexpectedly caught up in some crazy weeks-long thing.
What does the friend’s attorney say?
Regards,
Shodan
That will be my next conversation. I don’t expect to be told more than “it could help the case if you’d appear in court on this date”.
With this bare smattering of information, I’d be inclined to think at first to tell your friend that you will testify if called as a witness, and then wait and see if your friend’s attorney calls you to do so, which seems unlikely. I seriously doubt whether anything will come of this, so for now, just say Sure, you’ll testify if called, but that you will have to admit that you don’t have a clear recollection of it.
Then I agree with you that it seems pointless. If the ex isn’t living up to the terms of the decree, I can’t see how it will make any difference if he said he would fifteen years ago.
Regards,
Shodan
If all they can tell me is, ‘it could help the case’, and they effectively dodge the direct question I posed, I’d be telling them no. Unless they can explain, I’m out!
My only guess would be statute of limitations for contempt intersecting with some other time event like the child turning 18. I still don’t see what a conversation 10 years ago would prove except perhaps a future intention to extend support beyond the age of 18. I obviously am not your lawyer.
Go and just be honest. Let all concerned know you will ONLY give honest answers!
He probably thinks it’s relevant that he said that 10 years ago, and probably wants to argue that he’s been doing everything that he can, but (jobs, health, emergency spending, bla bla) and the order was just too onerous.
I doubt his lawyer thinks it’s relevant. But maybe he told his lawyer he knows you’ll say some really helpful things and so maybe his lawyer said he’d give you a call.
Your testimony is not going to make one lick of difference. In fact it may hurt him. He needs someone to testify as to why he can’t pay child support, and even then it’s a long shot because the courts do not look kindly on this.
Op’s friend is the Mother.
If the father had a short colon I would definitely testify against him. If he had a long colon I would not as it might offend that god-like man.
Other way around… I’d be a witness for the mother, testifying that the father told me he intended to meet all his child support obligations without a formal agreement (which there actually is a divorce decree, which he didn’t follow, which is why we’re going to court, so I don’t understand what weight I can add to that fact).
Hey, I just watched someone go through a very similar thing. Divorce done already, few years of abiding an agreement between them, etc.
In the end, the very problem with such agreements, is that they are not enforceable, because they are not court ordered.
So, sooner or later, sometimes after years, one party or the other, eventually comes up against the fact that, unless you got it on paper, and sometimes even then, it is, in fact, unenforceable! (At least it proved so where I live anyway!)
I wish your friends Good Luck, it’s going to be very unpleasant I expect.
Thanks, and sorry; read Friend as Father.
Perhaps for some period of time the support agreement was reached in lieu of going to court on that issue, and she’s trying to recover an arrearage for that period of time in addition to the amount that was ordered? In other words, T-13 years ago, they agree that he’ll pay X dollars per month and she won’t file for support, and T-10 years ago he tells you he’ll always take care of them, and then T-8 years ago or whenever, she realizes he isn’t paying up, and files for a formal support order?
That seems to fit, given what little I know. Thanks for stepping through that scenario.
Edited to add: so how am I helpful in this situation?
Corroboration of her side of the story. It may be a case of every little bit adds up to overwhelming evidence. Your bit may not seem like much alone. Hopefully, it doesn’t all rest on you.
In that scenario, your friend would be essentially arguing that a verbal contract existed between the two of them, and dad would be presumably arguing no, I never agreed to that. If during that period of time that’s in question, dad said to you that he was always going to take care of them, the argument would be that this is relevant as evidence that dad did have the intent to form that agreement.
Still not super persuasive, but corroborative, at least.