Child Support

Georgia uses a formula system rather than percentage. see link below

A custodial parent has legal authority over a child. The custodial parent has the right to make any decision that affects the child such as school, medical treatment, daycare, religious training, sports, etc.

A non custodial parent does not have the legal authority to make any decisions, choices or sign any legal documents that affect the child although generally, a visitation schedule can be ordered by the court and the custodial parent must obey that order.

Joint Custody gives both parents equal authority to make decisions that affect the child and both must consent to any decisions regarding school, medical treatment, religious training, sports, etc. With joint custody one parent may be awarded physical custody and as such will be awarded child support.

No; however, the State can file a lien on the home which will have to be satisfied before ownership is transferred.

What schools seem to teach these days is that "state's rights" was a purely southern concept and important only in the latitude it allowed for slavery. The fact is that "states rights" was THE LAW OF THE LAND. After the Revolution the colonies had won their independence and what existed in America was not ONE nation, but thirteen little independent nations, which had loosely cooperated to beat the British. After a few years it became evident that a central government with a bit more power than that allowed by the Articles of Confederation would be a good thing. The thirteen little independent nations sent delegates to the Constitutional Convention where they agreed to give up ONLY PART of their sovereignty as independent states to the new Federal government. All governmental authority was in the states, and, again, they wished to cede ONLY PART of this to the new national government. Everyone understood this at the time but many states still would not ratify the new proposed Constitution until it was explicitly spelled out in the Constitution. So, the 10th Amendment to the Unites States Constitution was included in the original Bill of Rights. The amendment says:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The powers which WERE delegated to the United States (the Federal Government) were delegated BY the states. When the Constitution was drafted what the framers who wrote it had in mind was a central government of LIMITED POWERS. The states had all governmental power, and if they wished to surrender only a limited, specific amount of that power to the new central government, they were certainly entitled to do that, and that is in fact what they did. They were replacing the Articles of Confederation, which had allowed for a central government so weak as to be ineffective. They wished to strengthen the Federal Government some, but retain most governmental power at the state level.

The 10th Amendment is part of the original Bill of Rights. The proponents of the new Constitution had a hard job convincing people to support the new Constitution, and several states would not even consider ratifying the new Constitution until the Bill of Rights was attached to it. Thus this language was part of the Constitution from the start.

"State's rights" was, in fact, the law of the land from the beginning. The Federal Government had only limited, specific functions. All other governmental power remained with the states.

The sad thing is, its STILL the law of the land. The 10th Amendment has never been repealed - its still right there in the Bill of Rights of which we are so proud. It just means absolutely nothing today. It was effectively nullified by the Civil War, without the agreement of the people. This is one result of the Civil War - though the nation started with a central government of limited powers, and people had to be persuaded to even agree to those limited powers, the Civil War, among other things, was a massive power shift from the state capitals to Washington. Governments LIKE power, so don't expect Washington DC to ever give back the primacy it obtained at gunpoint in the Civil War. What you can expect to see instead is continued growth of the Federal Government, and continued encroachment into every facet of the lives of every citizen of every state. This has been the long term trend since the Civil War ended. Its some of the worst hypocrisy of American life that we continue to revere the Bill of Rights but nobody ever wants to mention little facts like these. You're supposed to believe the war was about nothing but slavery and evil southerners and you're not supposed to notice that somehow in there, we went from having a central government of limited powers to the monolithic colossus poking its nose into everything and everybody's business we have today, which is something that nobody agreed to, and which seldom serves the interests of the average person.

[if you're the obligor] 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.

18. However the child is always free to make their wishes known to the judge, either in court when custody/visitation is being decided or request a modification to the original visitation order by requesting a meeting with the judge, writing a letter to the judge expressing their wishes, or engaging an attorney or guardian ad litem to speak for them. The judge will take into consideration the wishes of the child, and generally, the older the child, the more weight is given to those wishes. Your family court may also offer mediation as an option.

Ultimately, however, the judge will rule depending on what he or she feels would be in the best interests of the child.

While there is no statue of limitation for collecting court ordered unpaid back child support, there is for unordered support...the age of 21 of the dependent child. The child at the age of 18 may sue the noncustodial parent for unpaid support that was not ordered by the courts. This has been done at least twice.

According to the Revised Code of Washington, any person who deserts a child in any manner with the intent to abandon is guilty of the crime of family abandonment. This is a class C felony and punishable by up to five years in prison or a $10,000 fine.

If he is the legal father of the child, then he has an obligation to support that child. You can contact child support enforcement in your state or you can retain an attorney and file in the local family court. This is the usual step since you will be asking the court to enter a child custody order at the same time.

yep, if your wife and chilren leave the state i am pretty sure you can be still married because when you get married you usually have to sign a form that says i am legally married no matter what

That depends on the child support order. In most places, child support continues until the child reaches the age of majority. Some may require continued payments through the college years if they attend.

If you mean as a witness, that usually depends on the attorneys. They will usually assess if the child knows the truth from fiction first. If it is determined that the child knows the truth, then yes the child can testify. If not, then no. If you mean as an audience member, while the trial is in progress, then no.

No. That is the whole point and one of the criteria required when you apply - you have to be able to support yourself like all emancipated adults. In some states the emancipation can be undone and you have to move back home if you can not care for yourself.

No. Any change in custody must be done pursuant to a court order by the court with jurisdiction over the case.

No. Any change in custody must be done pursuant to a court order by the court with jurisdiction over the case.

No. Any change in custody must be done pursuant to a court order by the court with jurisdiction over the case.

No. Any change in custody must be done pursuant to a court order by the court with jurisdiction over the case.

Child support would stop for that period of time the parent is incarcerated unless they have some other means of legitimate income that would continue during the time they are in jail and could be diverted for that purpose. Child support obligations would resume upon their release and they would be expected to pay the amount that accumulated while they were in jail.

The parent have to give up his parental rights voluntarily or the court can do it but child support can be taken out of his wages if he refuses to pay. There are many ways the court can see to that he pays. They don't end someones parental rights for not paying child support because even if the parental rights are gone they still have to pay child support. If you mean his custody or visitation rights, they are a separate issue and does not involve child support. One have to see to what is best for the child and try to let the child have both parents in their life. So go back to the court that issued the child support order and tell them that he is breaking the order by not paying.

The number one obligation of the father is to support his child financially, emotionally and in every other way he can to help the child grow into a capable, responsible adult who is able to support herself or himself in the world.

They can put a claim against the estate.

Yes. SSI (supplemental security insurance overseen by the SSA) is meant to provide a needy individual (child or adult) with enough funds to pay for his or her life necessities. The matter of a minor child receiving SSI for any reason will not relieve the biological father of his financial responsibilities. Once the child support amount has been established by court order, the SSI payment may cease or be reduced accordingly.

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.

no

In California, 20% of the income of a new spouse/SO can be used. In Ohio, the difference in "household" incomes can be use in a rebuttable presumption, but both are a two way street.

Actually, I became a better parent to my children that are not special needs due to the parenting techniques I practiced with my oldest autistic child. Each special needs is different, but I found I took the time to detail and explain expectations better. I think we make an assumption with children that they understand consequences or how tohandle certain social situations, when actually, they learn trial & error. We assume a special needs child needs support to understand their environment and lessons so we take more time to and offer more patience. There is a huge benefit to offering all kids this level of training & support....and confidence!

A DNA test can only prove that you are NOT the father. If you were married at the time or if were not married and the mother claims that you were the father, the courts will assume that you are responsible. It is your obligation at that point to prove otherwise. * Not if you contest the suit/act naming you as the father. DNA testing establishes parentage and rules out the possibility of parentage. It is the responsibiity of the mother who files for child support to prove that the person named as the father is the father. It is the responsibiiity of a father seeking custodial rights to prove he is the father or seeking to be relieved of parental obligation that he is not the father. Obviously either type of suit will determine parentage.