Child Support

No. A person without legal custody cannot sue the parent for child support. On the other hand, if the caregiver has an agreement with the custodial parent to pay for childcare and the custodial parent has breached that agreement, the caregiver can sue for the amount owed. If there was no agreement to pay then the caregiver has the option to stop providing free childcare but they cannot create a financial obligation where there was none agreed upon in the first place.

Be a resident of a state that allows emancipation.

Follow the state statute for the exact process, but it typically requires notification of the parents, proof that they can handle their own affairs, including financial and living arrangements, reasons why their parents should no longer be responsible for their actions.

one week they will tell you to call your local domestics and the will go throgh enforcement .

Commonly, they are simply called childless.

No, child support obligations are defined by the terms of the court order. The obligated parent can file suit to have the order amended or rescinded if he or she believes the circumstances warrant. An obligated parent should never arbitrarily cease adhering to an active support order.

You can get a general idea at the related link. There are other factors besides income.

You can get a general idea at the related link. There are other factors besides income.

You can get a general idea at the related link. There are other factors besides income.

You can get a general idea at the related link. There are other factors besides income.

If there is no court order saying otherwise it's always the mother.

Generally, if the parents are unmarried the mother has sole custody and control in most states until the father can establish his paternity. Remember, a child's mother can always be identified by medical records. Since the father didn't give birth and he was not legally married at the time of the birth he must establish his paternity by signing the birth certificate at the time of birth (waiving DNA testing rights) which must be done with mother's consent.

If he doesn't sign the birth certificate then he must seek another way to establish his paternity and that is done through a DNA test. A paternity test can be arranged through the court. Once paternity is established in court, the father can request visitations or custody through the court. If the mother retains physical custody she can request that the court issue a child support order. If the father gets physical custody he can request a child support order.

support for earth, Generally consists of shuttering boards or drag boxes made out of metal which get gragged along the trench as and when they finish with them. It also depends on the depth of the trench.

Any action taken would be decided by the presiding judge. Generally the judge will issue an order of garnishment or bank levy or seizure and sale or liens against personal and/or real property belonging to the defendant. The defendant may also may be ordered to forfeit his or her driving license. A judge can and in some rare cases have the person jailed for contempt of a court order.

Who has the power to over turn a court ordered child support payment?

Yes , beyond child support it would be best if you could help with clothing , doctor bills , a school lunch or any other means that may present itself to help your children .

He would be paying roughly around twenty percent of his total income. You may also qualify for help from the government including things such as food stamps. This depends on how high his income is however.

Yes, but the State will likely garnishee your unemployment.

You need to file a motion to modify. see links below

If the father gives up his rights they will have no rights either. They can see the child if the mother say so. Even before that only a few states have rights for grandparents so they can seek visitation through the court. It is always up to the parents to decide.

Under $2500 owed. Why are you behind? see links

You continue to pay support until otherwise ordered by the court. If the parent moved out of state without court permission or in violation of a custody order interfering with the non-custodial parent's visitation rights, the non-custodial parent may file an action against the custodial parent for the same, or file for a modification in visitation, forcing the custodial parent to return the child for visitation as outlined in the original order.

If there is a court order for child support they will take it directly out of his wages if he has one and he will be prosecuted for contempt of court. Prison will be waiting unless he start paying.

Once the matter is brought to the attention of the state child support enforcement agency it has many tools to make the obligor pay. It can suspend a driver's license, take a tax refund, record a child support lien against real property and personal property such as bank accounts. The delinquent can eventually be incarcerated for continued non-payment.

Yes, most of the time, but sometimes there isn't as much money in the child support to cover it

Actually, the intent of the law is such:

If both parents made the same amount of money neither would not pay child support. In that case each would be responsible for all support costs when they are with them: food, housing, medical, clothing, everything. There would be no sharing of any costs.

Since there is a disparity in the incomes the child support gives the receiver, money to provide for the children to the same extent as the payer during their time of care. What this does is maintain the level of living for the children when with both parents. If child support was meant to pay for all of one parent's financial obligations for that child, then the person receiving the child support would have to pay all of the medical cost, all of the clothing, all of the food, all of the housing expenses for both homes for the child. The person paying would pay for nothing even when the child was with them. It is a means of evening out the disparity and maintaining an even level of care for the minor children.

NOT to absolve either of paying for care during their time with the children.

Though the practice of retroactive child support awards was opposed by Judge David Grey Ross, Commissioner of the Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement, it is allowed to some extent in all states. But, a Judge can rule against any such motion.

Up until the point of the child turning age 18, the mother can file for 2-18 years (depending on state limits) of retroactive child support, even if the child was raised by another man who believed he was the child's father. It is based solely on the two-year average income of the father, at the time of the filing, and not what he earned each of the previous years.

An example of this would be a male who, unknown to him, had a child at age 18 while working as a new burger flipper at McDonald's Restaurants, but is not ordered to pay until 18 years later when he's a franchise owner. The retroactive order can be as much as $200,000, which when averaged out over the 18 years, means that his monthly child support obligation, for when he first began working, would have been 120% of his gross income.

Of interest, in the news today, a 19-year-old Texas boy was hit with $14,000 in retroactive child support on a child he did not know existed. Keep this in mind men.

These awards account for over half child support arrears owed by fathers and claimed in the media to be examples of Deadbeat Dads.

The child has up to the specific state limitation for filing a retroactive order on a father. These limitations run from age 18-22, with Michigan having the highest allowance.

In a related issue, there are no matching programs for the establishment or enforcement of the parental rights of single fathers. They have no rights until awarded them by a court, and cannot be granted any rights if the child is over age 18 at the time the father learns of the existence of the child. This includes the enforcement and recovery of already established access rights. A recovery claim for missed parental time is 24 hours after the time of the denial of access by the other parent.

see links below

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.

Visit the court that issued the order and explain why you want the order terminated.

In general, to terminate child support, you need to show the court that: you have custody of the child; the child is deceased; the child has been adopted; the child is emancipated; the child has attained majority; and/or you have no income other than public assistance; AND, you do not owe any past-due support.

Depends:

Has he been charged and found guilty of parental alienation?

Yes. No rights.

No. See next question,

Did the man (or non-custodial parent, since this could apply to women as well) intentionally neglect to see his child?

Yes. No rights.

No. See next question,

Did the custodial parent intend for the non-custodial parent not to have contact with the child for 5 years?

No. See question above, your answer should have been "yes"

Yes. See next question,

If you, as the man, can prove that you did not intentionally try to alienate your child (which after 5 years, will NOT be an easy burden to prove); then, if you're lucky enough to get a judge to allow you visitation -- you should hire an attorney IMMEDIATELY and try to establish a custody order ASAP. It is only after this order is declared legal by a judge's signature can you have any rights to your child.

Truly hoping you made it to the last question...

It depends on the content of the letter, the judge, the OTHER attorney and how fortunate you are on that particular day. Many times the judge wants to give the attorneys to "discover" anything that might have been accidentally left out of the letter. If by "stand up in court" you mean can it be used as evidence to prove the truth of what the letter says, then No. A written statement, even if made under oath, may not be used in evidence in place of having the person making the statement appear and give live testimony. Allowing that kind of evidence in that way deprives the other side of the opportunity to cross-examine that person and is inherently unfair even if the statement is signed and notarized.