They would file for termination of child support at the agency in charge of collection and disbursement of support payments in the area where they live.
The court has to agree
Most often this occurs because they've been pressured by the non-custodial parent. A common tactic is for the non-custodial parent to threaten to take away custody if he or she has to pay child support. The custodial parent will then consent to not get child support to avoid a costly custody battle. This is why most states have made child support mandatory. A custodial parent can't decline or give up child support voluntarily in those states.
In general, parental rights are terminated either preparatory to an adoption, or after a trial in which it is determined that the parent is unfit. In any case, termination of parental rights does not, in itself, terminate child support. If you want to see your child, bring the custodial parent into court.
Not an underage child.
The older child should not suffer a drop in support because of the arrival of another child.ANSWERThe standard argument against a modification when an obligor parent has more children is that the older child(ren) should not suffer a drop in support because of the arrival of another child. The problem with this argument if that it cannot be equally applied against the obligee parent, thus the issue it creates is equal protection under the laws.In the development of the Child Support Guidelines, the states were required by the Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement to base their formulas on each parent, both the non-residential and residential , spending a specific percentage of their income on the children. But, as any couple has learned when that second, third, and forth child comes along is that each new child does not get an equal portion of the family resources as the first child. Further, nor does the first child maintain the percentage of the family resources they enjoyed as their siblings came alone. Using an average child support formula as an example, the first child gets 20% of the family resources, but when the second child arrives, that drops to 12.5%. With the third child, it drops to 10%, than 8.75% with the forth, 8% with the fifth, and who knows beyond that.To treat the parties equally, assuming one child is involved in the case, than the residential parent must also maintain dedicating 20% of his/her income to that child, even when more children are produced. Consider if you will a non-custodial mother having multiple children, each by a separate father, with them having custody. At 20% of her income going to each, does child support enforcement order her to be sterilized after two or three children, so that she can maintain her obligations, or order her to get a second or third job? Imagine the backlash from the commissions on women's rights.The best option in addressing this issue is to require both parties involved in a child support case to undergo procedures to prevent any further children being conceived until the full obligation has been met as regards the child(ren) addressed in the order. This can take from 18-23 years, per child, on an overlapping schedule, but it will mean the child(ren) will receive their rightful portion of the resources of both their parents, and will not receive any less so trough a decision by either parent, the residential or non-residential to have more children.The would create true equality as regards the support of the children of divorced and single parents
The standard argument against a modification when an obligor parent has more children is that the older child(ren) should not suffer a drop in support because of the arrival of another child. The problem with this argument if that it cannot be equally applied against the obligee parent, thus the issue it creates is equal protection under the laws.In the development of the Child Support Guidelines, the states were required by the Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement to base their formulas on each parent, both the non-residential and residential , spending a specific percentage of their income on the children. But, as any couple has learned when that second, third, and forth child comes along is that each new child does not get an equal portion of the family resources as the first child. Further, nor does the first child maintain the percentage of the family resources they enjoyed as their siblings came alone. Using an average child support formula as an example, the first child gets 20% of the family resources, but when the second child arrives, that drops to 12.5%. With the third child, it drops to 10%, than 8.75% with the forth, 8% with the fifth, and who knows beyond that.To treat the parties equally, assuming one child is involved in the case, than the residential parent must also maintain dedicating 20% of his/her income to that child, even when more children are produced. Consider if you will a non-custodial mother having multiple children, each by a separate father, with them having custody. At 20% of her income going to each, does child support enforcement order her to be sterilized after two or three children, so that she can maintain her obligations, or order her to get a second or third job? Imagine the backlash from the commissions on women's rights.The best option in addressing this issue is to require both parties involved in a child support case to undergo procedures to prevent any further children being conceived until the full obligation has been met as regards the child(ren) addressed in the order. This can take from 18-23 years, per child, on an overlapping schedule, but it will mean the child(ren) will receive their rightful portion of the resources of both their parents, and will not receive any less so trough a decision by either parent, the residential or non-residential to have more children.The would create true equality as regards the support of the children of divorced and single parentsSee Links Below
yes
no a parent or guardian cannot get in trouble if a child decides to drop out. if he or she decides to drop out the state cant do anything about it.
No, but they might deny YOU Medicaid.
Yes. Child support is not something you pay so the child will stay in school, it's for their living expenses until they are emancipated and can support themselves.
My understanding is this: Child support will continue until the child or children have either reached age 18 or in the event they are attending college when they graduate. The non custodial parent at anytime can petition the court to reevaluate the custody agreement and child support order. The non custodial partent will then be finantialy evaluated and THt time may have an increase in the support order. The child support agreement is one that is to ensure that the child or children have no change in their lives ie: housing due to a drop in support of the custodial parent and so on. So with all that said your answer may lie within.
You can't 'drop' child support, unless the custodial parent asks you to relinquish parental rights, or files to terminate your rights. Living in another state does not matter, in fact moving to another country might not help either, as many nations have a reciprocal agreement with the US concerning child support payments.