Legal Question in Family Law in California
boyfriend (great father) mother (in Burbank) called one Friday and said, I can't keep the son right now. You need to enroll him in the school near you in Valencia." She said it was temporary (many emails to prove it) She wanted to keep support order the same since it was temp. He agreed because it was temporary. When he didn't deposit the support check, she demanded it! because it was temporary.
After many excuses and 17 months later, he told her he couldn't continue to pay her anymore (and keep the kid 90% of the time). she had no interest in the kid, except she called for daily reports to see what dad was doing.
She said she didn't want order changed that she would agree to no child support now (email) This email was submitted to the judge for consideration.. B/f had atty write it up THEN she refused to sign. So he stopped paying, he couldn't do it anymore. Support to her and supported the kid at his home. Dad had to pay for everything. She contributed nothing. Mom tells kid all adult conversations and happening so dad tried to keep the peace.
Dad had kid 3 years. He paid for 17 months of the 3 years. For 19 months he didn't pay but had the kid.. looking back, she did write that it would be her forced savings acct. She's the type of person that looks for free money. She just requested a modification thru L.A. county. He told worker that he had the kid. Worker said file for a "jackson Credit"He did..
The county supplied her with a free atty. while he went pro per. Judge told him the money paid to date is gone ($8500). but get me a time frame you had kid, he had him 90% she only 10%. She support order was based on her having kid 75% of the time. she already got the free $8500. and now she gets another $15,000 plus interest for the time HE HAD his son, while she paid ZERO towards any support. She has decent job. B/F is just a nice guy that gets taken advantage of.
Now she's taking him back for NO visitation, (won't happen) increased child support and sole custody, based on kid doesn't want to visit (due to mother lets him run freely). Smart kid (16) but f student-refuses to follow rules or do homework. wants drivers license, dad will not sign for it.
My question: How can a judge order this to be paid PLUS interest? The kid was being supported-and very well, I might add. As soon as kid went back to mom, B/F started paying again. She gets off with NO SUPPORT for 3 years and the free money?? this doesn't seem right.just because there's no case law to back this. This is unique case and should be judged on own merit. How many dads take the kid in house AND keep paying the mom child support for a 1 1/2? I am sure, not too many.
The mother clearly hood-winked the (decent) father. and now she gets the reward . What is this teaching the kid?? BTW: kid has been to both hearings-no school for the F student.
1 Answer from Attorneys
What it's teaching the kid is don't breach a court order just because someone says, "don't worry about it, it's only temporary." An order for support is an order of the court. You follow it until you modify it. You don't just stop obeying it and hope for the best, you get it changed if the circumstances change. It's a harsh reality, but if you look at it from the standpoint of the judge, you see it makes sense. They don't have time or inclination to undo a three year old mess of disputed issues, presented by someone who is in pro per and doesn't know the law or how to present evidence, when that same person chose to ignore the court's order and expects to be let off the hook because it's "unfair." It also teaches the kid that if you think you cannot afford an attorney, then you better be able to afford to lose the case.