Now, don’t confuse “he has every right to ask for receipts” with “he has every right to receipts”.
If a child support payor (known in some jurisdictions as the child support obligor) has reasonable articulable bases for suspecting that the child support payee (known in some jurisdictions as the child support obligee) is not responsibly spending the child support funds for the support of the child, then the payor has every right to raise the concern and to ask for proof to the contrary.
But if a child is hungry, mal-nourished, wearing clothes too small for him/her or wearing worn out clothing or wearing flip flops in the snow, has no blankets or even a bed to sleep in, etc. and yet the child support recipient parent is receiving hundreds (sometimes thousands) of dollars per month intended to meet those needs of the child, the child support payor has every right to raise concern with the court and every right to request that the court audit the payee and require the payee to prove that he/she is being a good steward of the child support funds.
In Utah, we have a statute on this very subject:
Utah Code § 78B-12-218. Accountability of support provided to benefit child — Accounting.
(1) The court or administrative agency which issues the initial or modified order for child support may, upon the petition of the obligor, order prospectively the obligee to furnish an accounting of amounts provided for the child’s benefit to the obligor, including an accounting or receipts.
(2) The court or administrative agency may prescribe the frequency and the form of the accounting which shall include receipts and an accounting.
(3) The obligor may petition for the accounting only if current on all child support that has been ordered.
If this statute has ever been implemented in a child support case, I have yet to see it. Whenever I’ve asked a court to implement it, the courts’ are offended that my client would have the audacity to be concerned over child support payee malfeasance.
Unless a court were to order that a parent was barred from traveling out of state or out of the country with the children on vacation, a joint legal and custodial parent has an unfettered right to travel with the children out of state or out of the country on vacation, even if the other parent objects. Of course, if a parent wanted to travel somewhere that is clearly dangerous for anyone or clearly dangerous or deleterious to the children given their age or other relevant factors, a parent could object to traveling there with the children on that basis, but you’ll notice that the basis of the objection wouldn’t be “I don’t want the children traveling there with you” but an objection based upon placing the children in harm’s way. Otherwise stated, if the other parent simply doesn’t like the idea of you traveling out of state or out of the country with the children, that alone would not be a sufficient basis to prevent the children from traveling there.
Now at the beginning of this post I stated that unless a court were to order that a parent was barred from traveling out of state or out of the country with the children, a joint legal and custodial parent has an unfettered right to travel with the children out of state or out of the country, even if the other parent objects. Such an order would be very hard to come by.
Parents have a constitutional right to travel freely, and thus a constitutional right to travel freely with their children if they have sole or joint custody of those children. For a court’s order barring or restricting travel to survive and appeal and be legally enforceable, the court would have to have very good reasons for restricting a parent’s right to travel with the children, such as a parent having abducted or attempted to abduct the children in the past, that parent’s effort to abscond with and conceal the children from the other parent, whether the parent is a flight risk, the parent’s history of interfering with parent-time or visitation, and failure to provide required notices in advance of travel with the children.
Is there any question whether the court would benefit from hearing testimony from these kids? Even if, arguendo, the court were to discover these kids are liars?
I cannot answer this question as it applies in all jurisdictions, but I can answer the question as it applies in the jurisdiction where I practice divorce and family law (Utah):
The court shall order what, if any, notice shall be given of the hearing, and after the giving of such notice, if any, may order the change of name as requested, upon proof in open court of the allegations of the petition and that there exists proper cause for granting the same.
Such proceedings shall in no manner affect any legal action or proceeding then pending, or any right, title or interest whatsoever.
That seems fairly easy, right? I agree, it does seem easy (it deceptively seems easy), and if all you needed to do was go by what the Utah Code says is required of you to get a name change, you’d be right. But for reasons I do not understand, there are many “unwritten rules” governing a name change in Utah, whether for an adult or a minor child. Otherwise stated, if all you did was:
file a petition in the court stating:
the cause for which the change of name is sought;
the name proposed;
that you or your minor child have/has been a bona fide resident of the county for the year immediately prior to the filing of the petition.
schedule the hearing on the petition;
prove three allegations that you were required to make in the petition;
prove that there exists “proper cause” (whatever that means) for granting the petition for change of name;
that should be all you need to do, according to the Utah Code. But if that is all you did, there is a good chance your petition would be denied. So what are the “unwritten rules” you need to abide by to get a name change for yourself or your minor child? A good place to find out is here:
Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277
What should I say to my lawyer who told me that a motion to dismiss isn’t really a thing so we cannot file one?
It may be that a motion to dismiss is in fact not possible (not permitted by the rules under the circumstances of your case) or not wise under the circumstances (possible, but a bad idea), even though you believe otherwise. a lot of people are familiar with certain legal jargon without knowing what it means, and they often throw it around ignorantly and inaccurately.
I can’t tell you how many times clients have come to me believing they have rights to do this or rights not to do that, only to find out that their understanding was erroneous.
A few examples: thinking you have a right to certain documents (or every document known to man) under the “Freedom of Information Act”, believing you don’t have to answer provide requested documents or answer certain questions in a deposition or at trial if they claim that the information sought from them is “private” or “confidential,” believing that because they know the truth/right thing to do, the court must agree with them.
If you have an idea and your lawyer shoots it down without you understanding why, don’t be afraid to ask your lawyer to explain it to you. If your lawyer can’t do that, your idea may not be so bad (but instead your lawyer may not be up to the task).
Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277
What happens if you’re a restraining order respondent and you miss the hearing?
There are a few possibilities, and I will address them in the order of what I think would be most likely to occur if A) the restraining order can legally and lawfully be extended; B) the request to extend the restraining order was properly made in compliance with the applicable laws and rules; C) you received proper notice of the hearing; D) you did not appear at your hearing; and E) you are unable to prove that your absence was due to circumstances utterly beyond your control:
the request to extend the restraining order would be granted; or
the court may (but likely won’t) continue the hearing to a later date to give you a second chance to appear;
if you are ordered to appear at the hearing and don’t appear, that could constitute contempt of court, which would Authorize the court to issue a warrant for your arrest to compel you to appear at the hearing (After it is rescheduled to a later date). I’ve never seen a court issue a warrant to compel someone to appear at a hearing for a restraining order or to renew or extend a restraining order because it’s easier for the court simply to renew and extend the protective order than to go to the trouble of having a warrant issued to track you down and compel you to appear in court. And the court can easily justify the decision to extend the protective order due to your failure to appear: 1) you didn’t appear to challenge the request, so one can infer that you have no objection the request; and 2) if you don’t appear in court to defend yourself and/or make objections to the request, then you’ve forfeited that opportunity, and you can’t be surprised if and when the court grants the request.
I am amazed at the number of people who believe missing hearings is no big deal. If I were ordered or directed to appear in court for a hearing that could have as profound an effect upon me as a restraining order, wild horses couldn’t drag me away from appearing in court, and not just on time, but appearing a few minutes early, to ensure that nothing happened or happened to me in my absence. For two reasons:
A restraining order can have dire effects on your rights to free association and travel and other rights. You want to ensure that you defend those rights to the extent that the state has no valid basis to infringe and interfere with them.
If the restraining order is not only extended but also modified or amended in ways you’re not aware of (because you weren’t there to hear about it), you could innocently find yourself violating the modified/amended order but still being sanctioned or even criminally prosecuted for doing so. You wouldn’t be able to use ignorance of the law (or in this case ignorance of the court’s orders provisions) as a defense.
Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277
It’s easy if you know what you’re doing. And if you don’t know what you’re doing, it’s easy to find someone who does know what to do.
In many jurisdictions, it’s difficult to find to look up online the telephone numbers and addresses for the courthouse where your divorce action was filed and/or where your divorce records are stored. People who are lawyers aren’t aware of the fact that there are many different kinds of courts. There isn’t just one courthouse where everything, including your divorce case, gets handled. There are different kinds of courts for different kinds of legal matters. Finding the court where your information can be found is difficult to find online.
But you might as well take a stab and do an online search for a few minutes to see if you can find the telephone number and/or address you need. If you do, then the search is over.
If, however, despite your online search efforts, you cannot find the courthouse you need to contact or go to, there is another way. Call a local divorce attorney and explain what you need. That attorney or that attorney’s office staff can help you get this information. They may charge you a small fee for this service, but that’s to be expected.
Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277
In Utah, the answer to your question would be: Yes, in the form of the restraining order itself. The restraining order itself states that “[t]he order shall expire by its terms within such time after entry, not to exceed 14 days, as the court fixes, unless within the time so fixed the order, for good cause shown, is extended for a like period or unless the party against whom the order is directed consents that it may be extended for a longer period. (Utah Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 65A(b)(2)).
In Utah, the answer is: it’s likely that Mom will pay child support to Dad. Generally, unless the primary joint custodial parents makes orders of magnitude more than the other parent, the parent awarded less custody is going to pay the parent awarded more custody.
But it is possible, in certain scenarios, for a dad who has custody of the children more overnights annually than does a mom. For example, in preparing the answer to this question I calculated child support based upon this scenario:
Mom’s gross monthly income is $2,000. Dad’s gross monthly income is $25,000. Dad has the children in his custody 220 overnights annually and Mom has the children in her custody 145 overnights annually. Even though the children are with Dad more than with Mom, given the huge disparity in the parents’ respective incomes, Dad would end up paying Mom $238 per month, where if Dad had sole custody (meaning that Mom has the children in her custody 110 overnights or fewer annually), Mom would pay Dad $166 per month.
Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277
I am the noncustodial parent. Our child came to my house for parent-time and now refuses to leave because he wants to live with me. What happens now?
I will answer this question in the context of my experience as a lawyer in the jurisdiction where I practice divorce and family law, which is Utah.
This is a weird area of Utah law because you’ll hear the legislature and the courts tell you that children don’t get to choose where they live, and then when children do that very thing (i.e., refuse to live where the court orders them to live), the courts find themselves essentially powerless to change anything. At least that’s my experience over the 24 years I’ve been in practice.
Now before some of you start licking your lips and scheming, thinking, “I’m the noncustodial parent, but I can change that by simply telling our child to choose to refuse to return to the custodial parent’s house,” you need to be aware of the realities.
If you’re the noncustodial parent and your child or children are under the age of 14 or so, and they claim that they don’t want to live with the custodial parent, there’s a very good chance that the court is going to believe that you are a puppet master who coached the children or otherwise induced or coerced them into claiming they want to live with you. That may not be true, but you’re going to be met with that kind of skeptical presumption. So if you are the noncustodial parent with young children who you assert claim they don’t want to live with the custodial parent, you have an uphill battle ahead of you. If you are the noncustodial parent and a father, you have an almost impossibly uphill battle ahead of you.
If, however, your children are 14 years or older, and you are the noncustodial parent with whom your children say they want to live, it will be harder for your ex and/or the court to presume that the children are lying and/or don’t have good reasons for wanting to live with you. Again, if you are the father making this claim, your claim will be met with more skepticism than if you were the noncustodial mother making such a claim. Why is this? Because there is a pernicious belief in the legal system that fathers are generally worse parents than our mothers, that fathers don’t want custody of their children, and that the only reason fathers would seek custody of their children is to avoid paying child support. As a result of these beliefs, fathers who seek custody of their children are met with not just skepticism, but often derisive skepticism. Forewarned is forearmed.
So, if you are a noncustodial parent who is good and decent, and your child honestly and sincerely comes to you saying, “mom/dad, I can’t stand living with the custodial parent anymore, and I want to live with you,” how do you proceed?
First, if the child refusing to live with the custodial parent because the child just wants to spend more time with you and/or less time with the custodial parent, and the custodial parent is not neglecting or abusing the child in any way, then you as the noncustodial parent have both a legal and moral obligation to talk the child into going back to the custodial parent’s home, or if persuasion doesn’t work, imposing limitations and restrictions and punishments upon the child so that the child won’t get the impression that he or she is in charge. At the same time, the custodial parent needs to acknowledge the child’s desires to spend more time with the noncustodial parent as being a legitimate concern that needs to be addressed and resolved, and that usually means the custodial parent agreeing to give the child and the noncustodial parent more time together. If the custodial parent refuses to do the right thing, you may ask whether it’s wise to petition the court for a modification of the child custody award, so that you and the child get more time together. Unfortunately, odds are that if you file a petition to modify child custody and the only basis for your petition is the child’s desire to spend more time with you, you will probably lose. While it is technically and conceivably possible to win such a petition, usually the courts in Utah require more than just the child’s desire as the basis for a modification. And what form does this “more” take? Typically, you would have to show that the custodial parent is neglecting and/or abusing the child to get a modification of the child custody award.
Second, if the child is refusing to reside with the custodial parent because the custodial parent is truly neglectful and/or abusive, and if you have independently verifiable proof of this, you have the option of petitioning the court to modify the child custody award, changing the custodial parent from your ex to you. While that petition is pending, your child may refuse to return to the custodial parent’s home, and for reasons at least you and the child know to be valid. Whether the court allows your child to stay with you depends upon how your court views the situation and what is best for the child.
If you find yourself in this kind of situation, whether you are the custodial parent or the noncustodial parent, this is one of those situations where you need to seek good legal advice immediately, to help ensure that neither you nor the child is victimized.
Utah Family Law, LC | divorceutah.com | 801-466-9277
I was divorced and lied to during my divorce and I am disabled can I take my ex back to court for spousal support?
Can you try? Yes. Will you succeed? Probably not. Unless you can prove (not persuade, but demonstrate by objectively, independently verifiable proof) that your ex-husband defrauded the court, you’re likely stuck with the decree and court orders you’ve got. This is extremely difficult in its own right. This is also extremely expensive and most people don’t have that kind of money.
I was divorced and lied to during my divorce and I am disabled can I take my ex back to court for spousal support?
Can you try? Yes.
Will you succeed? Probably not.
Unless you can prove (not persuade, but demonstrate by objectively, independently verifiable proof) that your ex-husband defrauded the court, you’re likely stuck with the decree and court orders you’ve got. This is extremely difficult in its own right. This is also extremely expensive and most people don’t have that kind of money.