Thinking along the lines of Mellon, the woman deprived Jim of his right to timeshare with the daughter. Timeshare that would have ultimately led to his support being reduced. Also, how can they pull a number out of a hat regarding support? Did Jim offer up his employment info and income to the other side?
Just some thoughts.
Sam
P.S.- I am not a lawyer and the foregoing does not constitute advice, just thoughts.
My god, what attorney does Jim have? He should certainly get another opinion from an attorney specializing in family law.
Sauron thinks that this woman is a true waste of flesh.
I have no knowledge of the law, but Jim seems to be getting the shaft in more ways than one here. When Aries28 was relaying the story to me, I kept thinking, “If Jim had just gotten the woman to sign a note 10 years ago saying she wanted him out of her life and didn’t want him to have anything to do with the child …”
I have seen firsthand how children can be used as pawns in adult relationships, but I have never seen anything like what this woman is doing. First she punishes Jim by not allowing him to see the child, and according to Aries28, it took him years to get over that. Once he finally did, and moved on with his life, he met Sarah. They began building their life together. Now, this woman surfaces again, and proceeds to wreck his life anew.
Somebody go kick the Cosmic Scale of Justice. That sucker’s seriously out of whack.
Mr. S suggests that Jim go for having the back support (the $21,000) put in trust for the daughter’s college fund, or available to her when she turns 18/21, or something like that that prevents this money-grubbing witch mother from getting her hands on it. After all, it’s money for THE CHILD, right, that she managed to do without up until now, right?
Jim’s lawyer sounds like a moron. He needs to find someone who specializes in stuff like this. Her case is weak, weak, weak.
I have no sympathy for this guy. If he really wanted to assert parental rights ten years ago, he could have. If the woman really didn’t want him in his life he should have insisted on having her sign some proper waivers. It was irresponsible of him to knock up a married woman in the first place.
What matters now is the child and he needs to take responsibility. His feelings for the mother are irrelevant. I hope that kid gets every cent. She deserves it. He is her father and he has never been legally absolved of any responibility. Fuck him.
The other problem with fighting this in court is that, even if he wins and doesn’t end up bankrupting his family, it’s going to prove to the daughter that every lie her mother told her about her father was true.
Pay the money, and do everything he can to be a part of his daughter’s life. Money’s just money. The girl is family. Besides, if Jim’s as good a guy as you think, and the mom’s as detestable as she seems, there will, eventually, be a huge pay-off.
Monthly child support: $675
Five years of back support: $21,000
The child finally realizing that her mother spent ten years lying about her father to cover up what a scheming, irresponsible bitch she is: Priceless.
Damn, you ain’t seen nothing! I see this stuff* every single day.
Sam
*- and worse-much, much worse
Jim needs another lawyer. NOW! It’s very likely that once her foot is in the door, she’ll keep wanting more, more, more.
I, too, have always heard that a child born in wedlock is the (then) current spouse’s responsibility.
This is a very sad story.
Another no sympathy for Jim vote. I do feel sorry for Sarah, though, an unwitting victim. You can’t hide for past actions, and he needs to take responsibility. If he really wanted to be part of the child’s life, he should have been more aggressive up front.
I do think that it would really suck if the mother got $21,000 and didn’t really use it for the daughter…I wonder if there’s a way he can put that money (or some of it, at least), in an account for her to get when she turns 18.
And I agree with Miller, this is an opportunity for him to prove himself to his daughter and become an influence on her. If his fear of “hate” from her is what holds him back, then he hasn’t really grown up or learned from this experience.
Lastly, there is no way it’s unfair to Jim (again, probably to Sarah and the daughter). It would only be unfair if Jim got to die before he was not called on it.
Sorry, harsh reality.
Do tell, please do tell!
It’s my understanding that no waiver or contract to absolve a parent of responsibility can be enforced. The courts will always void them, with the reasoning that the child is the one with the right to financial support, and neither parent has the authority to waive that right.
Mayhap you’re right…
However, doesn’t child support end when the woman remarries?
She’s remarried twice. The child has been financially supported by her original husband, then by the next guy she was married to.
Regards,
-Bouncer-
Yep. That’s pretty much what I was thinking too.
I think you’re thinking of alimony.
Only if the new spouse adopts the child and the non-custodial parent’s relationship is completely legally severed.
I think you’re talking about spousal support (alimony) that ends as soon as the former spouse remarries.
If the woman intended to return to her husband Jim could have insisted that either the husband adopt the child as his own (which would have required Jim’s signature relinquishing parental rights) or that she allow him his normal rights as a parent. A court could have enforced that if necessary. He obviously didn’t want to a father bad enough to go to court so now he’s stuck with the consequences.
BTW, I suspect that Aries and possibly Jim’s wife are getting somewhat of a one-sided and perhaps self-serving version of the story from Jim. There is always another side to stuff like this. Don’t be so sure that the other woman is so evil or that Jim is so saintly.
I’m not surprised about the decision Jim has made. From what I’ve read (which isn’t too deeply, I admit) the courts generally decide based on where they can get the money from, for the child.
That results in some men paying for children that aren’t theirs, simply because they were conceived in what the poor man thought was a marriage. And it results in some men paying for children that are biologicaly theirs. And it results in men who have raised their children suddenly finding out they aren’t biologically theirs after a divorce and then having no rights at all, a child they consider ‘theirs’ removed from their lives completely.
Until the courts get their acts together and start making consistent decisions, the mess will just get worse. I’m personally in favour of biology deciding the financial support, circumstances deciding the custody / visitation arrangements.
And back support is a joke. If she knew the child was Jim’s, but didn’t pursue support because it wasn’t needed, fine. If she now needs support to provide for the child, fine, Jim has to pay for his child. But back support ? I disagree with back support, unless it can be proved that one parent has been chasing the other for support by every legal means possible and the other was evading it. He may well have gotten off much more lightly than he would’ve be fighting it, judging by some court decisions. I’m just concerned about visitation. If I was Jim I’d be pursuing that avenue vigorously, though, as it’s the only positive in the situation.
I always heard that once the mother remarries, the father is no longer responsible for paying child support.
Or at least that’s the reason my mother gave me for not marrying her live in boyfriend for a number of years. Of course, I claim no official knowledge of this, whatsoever.
Dio, I think you’re being a little bit harsh here.
IANAL, but mr.stretch is a Support Enforcement Officer here in the lovely state of Washington (please don’t hate me). Per mr.stretch, under WA law during the time the woman was still married to her original husband, he was legally the father and responsible for support of the child unless something was done at that time to establish Jim’s paternity. So, at least for the first 4 years of the child’s life, Jim should have no financial liability.
After that, things can get complicated. Given the timing of the divorce, both in relationship to the age of the child and in regard to the way child support laws have been changing, the court could have gone a few different ways. But
it seems that support for this child was not determined to be the responsibility of the first husband. A little unusual - when did Jim have the paternity test done; right after the birth, or when he was served with the support paperwork? It’s a little surprising she waited this long to serve him with a support order; normally support for both children would be set somehow during the original divorce proceedings. If she had thought to have Jim named the father at the first divorce, she would have been collecting support from him all along, regardless of the second marriage.
Tennesee state law will vary from Washington state law, of course. mr.stretch says he has never had to deal with Tennesee support enforcement, so I can’t tell you if they are good or bad. Jim could try to contact his local support enforcement office and ask them what the laws say. If he can’t find someone helpful in support enforcement, he can at least get the laws that govern support in Tennesee and do some of his own research.
In mr.stretch’s experience, attorneys who do support orders really vary in their ability to do a good job. Does Jim have past experience with this attorney?
I’m sure you left things out for brevity, so I’m interested in clarification on the timeline. Again, WA law, but Jim should have been notified that an order for support was being entered before support was set and before a back debt was established. If he was served, but a court date hasn’t been set and the order hasn’t been entered yet, now is negotiation time. He needs to get educated. Establishment of current support is based on his pay and her pay–if it’s unequitable he needs to have an alternative to present. He should have been given papers showing her financial obligations and income, he can use that information to formulate his response. For establishing back debt, she should have to show that she has tried to contact him–his defense is it not possible to prove that she didn’t try to contact him; you can’t prove a negative. She should be able to show where she attempted to send certified mail, ran ads, or something in an effort to contact him, if she did try.
If an order has already been filed, he needs to file an immediate temporary modification lowering the support to a reasonable level. In Washington, there is a webpage that gives all the forms needed to file anything in family court - maybe Tennesee has the same. mr.stretch and I did our own support modification for mr.stretch’s boy at a cost of nothing but filing fees and copies. Of course, mr.stretch does this for a living, but I have faith that others can do the same.
This is getting long, and I’m doing this on the fly; mr.stretch is pretty sick or I’d get more help from him. I’ll try to keep checking the thread and I’ll post if I think of anything helpful. Good luck to Jim and Sarah.
On preview, it doesn’t matter if the custodial parent remarries - the obligation for support is with the parents of the child or the person determined by the court to be financially liable, not with the spouse of the custodial parent.