Legal Question

[Archer 007]

I have returned from a vacation with a question for the legal whizzes of CFC. Can a child, suing for child support at the age of 16, also sue for back chil support for 16 years?

 

[Immortal]

technically yes, whether they'd win is a different matter.

 

[Archer 007]

I was wondering on a techinal level, not the other level.

 

[Stapel]

What is back chil suppport anyway?

 

[Grisu]

what the hell did you do on your vacation?

 

[FredLC]

What is back chil suppport anyway?

I am wondering that too...

 

[El Justo]

What is back chil suppport anyway?

It's 'child support' and is a sort of stipend that family courts award to a spouse who is divorced, usually the mother, who retains custody of the child/children.

it's so that fathers who fly the nest have to financially support the kids.

Back child support is monies sought for child support $ that was not paid.

as for the original question of recapturing 16 yrs worth of back monies...yes, you can. but it must go in front of a judge and there are all sorts of ways to collect it once the judge issues the order of judgment (ie wage garnishments, chattel seizures, etc).

 

[FredLC]

Hmmm... it depends on the legislation.

Here in Brazil, these sort of money is what we call, in an not exact translation, as we have a term for it, but one that better express the idea, "support for basic needs". As a person has went through long periods without it, than what is showed is that the basic needs were seen through in other ways. Hence, "back" child support is only achievable on a specialized process for the past 3 months.

Anything other than that can be achieved, but have to be through an ordinary process, that is far more onerous and slower in achieving the payment of the debts.

Nevertheless, I really can't help when it comes to a US of A case, for I don't know it's processual law.

Regards .

 

[allhailIndia]

I think this comes under maintenance laws in the Common Law system, and if I am not mistaken, maintenance can only be claimed within a certain limitation period, and I have my doubts if 16 years will be covered under that limitation period. Also, it would have to be shown that the child was not maintained by parent/guardian, within the means available to the parent or guardian, in order to claim maintenance. However, in Indian law at least, maintenance is the right of every child, and not maintaining one's child, despite having the means to do so, would attract heavy penalties, under the Criminal Procedure Code.

 

[Archer 007]

Thanks for the help so far, and keep it coming.

 

[El Justo]

Thanks for the help so far, and keep it coming.

the first thing would be whether or not there was an original order setting out the terms of child support. That is, was there a court order setting the terms and conditions of child support when the divorce proceeding took place?

if there wasn't, then it'd be nearly impossible to recoup 16 yrs worth of pmts.

if there was an order in place, it'd be much cleaner and easier to litigate. if this is the case (specific court-ordered pmts to be made), then you can simply execute (collect in non-legal terms) on the court order by menas of wage garnishments, seizures, etc.

i work at a law frim where we collect debt so i'm familiar with the recovery aspects though it varies from state to state in the US.

 

[Archer 007]

Is it possible to have a clause in the suit that would require the deadbeat parent to pay the court costs?

 

[El Justo]

Is it possible to have a clause in the suit that would require the deadbeat parent to pay the court costs?

i'm not sure about that. family court procedures differ from the venue i deal with (special civil part of the state superior court [NJ]).

though my first guess is no.

many attorneys offer free initial consultations. look in the phone book for family law attorneys. they can give you much better advice than me

good luck though

 

[FredLC]

I always find it rather funny to see lawyers advertising in USA movies... here in Brazil, a lawyer can't advertise - it's strictly forbidden by the Lawyer's Order, and punisheable with suspension.

I guess the idea is that a lawyer is part of the justice system - and hence, he can't encourage litigation, but just solve what is there already.

BTW, I too give free advice in initial consultations. And in fact, I have already given right advice to people who were suing against the company I work for - because this company have a social duty here in Brasil, and not all the lawyers that go against us really are competent.

Not all my coleagues would do that - but this is the kind of nice guy that I am.

Regards .

 

[Birdjaguar]

As El justo said: if you had a court order at the time of custody assignment you should sue and you could very well win. Without that original legal arrangement, you (or whoever) is probably out of luck. Is the mom available to launch the suit?

 

[allhailIndia]

As regards court costs, in India, the courts have the power to grant an interim order under the various laws governing maintenance, for the payment of maintenance pendente lite, i.e., for the period of litigation, and the court can also pass an order making the guilty party pay up costs. I am not very sure about the US, since most of India's modern family laws come from English, and few American sources.

 

[allhailIndia]

As regards court costs, in India, the courts have the power to grant an interim order under the various laws governing maintenance, for the payment of maintenance pendente lite, i.e., for the period of litigation, and the court can also pass an order making the guilty party pay up costs. I am not very sure about the US, but a lot of the changes made to Indian family law in the fifties have a British origin