For Book: Child Support Trial in Family Court

[redduck]

Was there ever any doubt?

[Dash man]

Maybe the twin also had an affair with his brother’s wife? How can the wife prove that?

[SecondCor521]

Quote:

Originally Posted by redduck After asking the lawyer about the two methods of impregnation he is no longer talking to me. However, I would imagine that suing the donor would be the way to go. I think that in Calif. if the plaintiff in cases like this can't afford an attorney that the family court or some entity in the court system will assign an attorney to the plaintiff with no charge.

I think the only people who get attorneys assigned without charge are defendants. It's part of their Miranda rights. I don't think plaintiffs have Miranda rights.

That being said, in my state there is a court office which will help people with some basic family law cases by providing forms and answering questions on how to fill out the forms. Doing more than that would be practicing law without a license.

And yes, T-Al, in general terms the woman would be filing a civil suit. Civil suits are cases where two groups of people disagree and want a court to settle the matter. Examples would be suits for divorce, child support, breach of contract, etc. As opposed to criminal cases, where the government asserts that a person or group of persons broke some law. Examples would be murder, theft, assault, DUI, speeding, etc.

[redduck]

^^^
I was thinking of something like this, but maybe it doesn't actually address the topic at hand.

Child Support - support_famlaw_selfhelp - California Courts - State of ...

www.courts.ca.gov › Self-Help › Families & Children

"Every county also has a local child support agency to help you get, change, and collect child support at no charge. Learn more about the local child support …"

[TromboneAl]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bestwifeever I would of course have twin and widow fall in love during the trial and him adopt the kid anyway but that’s the chick lit writer in me.

LOL, I've been thinking the same thing. But I'm thinking that that happens well after things have been resolved (Garrett the attorney runs into them on the street).

I've made the donor an extreme LBYMer. He hates periodic payments, he had a spendthrift wife and had to dig himself out out debt. He's denied himself all of the things that his twin had gotten into debt for. That's one reason he is so opposed to helping the mom.

My current resolution (remember, I'm showing what a good guy Garrett is), is that Garrett and the Mom's lawyer come up with a settlement package, that includes things like debt counseling for the mom, etc.

The settlement will include a lump sum payment by the donor (he hates periodic payments) with assurances that he can't be asked for more money later.

Donor will say: "Hey, I had that in the original contract, and it didn't work. How can I be sure I'll be off the hook?"

Is there a good answer to that?

Can they have a judge state that he has more than fulfilled his obligations for child support?

[SecondCor521]

^ No, and they could but it is highly unlikely, respectively.

As for the first question, unless there is a breach of contract or the contract is invalid, most judges are going to say that the original contract needs to be respected. I doubt the contract you envision for the donor would have had clauses in it which would enable the woman to go after the donor in situations where the twin died. I'm also having a hard time imagining the donor signing a contract that would have clauses in it which he could breach (maybe if there was a gag clause requiring all parties to keep the arrangement private and he mentioned it to someone other than his attorney?) I think this would be even more true if the woman had an attorney on her side of the original contract, because the court will think that she should have thought of the potential that her husband might die and should have protected herself either through the contract with the donor and/or life insurance.

As far as the second question, you may not be aware but based on a Supreme Court ruling or requirement, each state must establish child support guidelines. In my state, one basically sticks in the Dad's income, the Mom's income, and the percentage of time each kid spends with each parent into a formula, and out pops a child support amount.

There is a legal presumption in my state that the amount that the formula spits out is the "correct" one and the amount that the judge will order unless there are very unusual circumstances (and the unusual circumstances you've described in this situation I don't think would affect that). In fact, the law requires that if the court deviates from the guidelines that they state what the guideline child support amount was and why they deviated from that amount (see 3(c) in the link below).

Lump sums for child support are usually not done. In part this is because the incomes and custody arrangements could change over the course of the child's time of being a dependent, and so it is common for the monthly child support amount to be recalculated from time to time.

You can read my state's child support guidelines here:

https://isc.idaho.gov/files/ICSG-July_1_2012.pdf

My understanding is that each state has their own version of these rules.

[Bestwifeever]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TromboneAl LOL, I've been thinking the same thing. But I'm thinking that that happens well after things have been resolved (Garrett the attorney runs into them on the street). I've made the donor an extreme LBYMer. He hates periodic payments, he had a spendthrift wife and had to dig himself out out debt. He's denied himself all of the things that his twin had gotten into debt for. That's one reason he is so opposed to helping the mom. My current resolution (remember, I'm showing what a good guy Garrett is), is that Garrett and the Mom's lawyer come up with a settlement package, that includes things like debt counseling for the mom, etc. The settlement will include a lump sum payment by the donor (he hates periodic payments) with assurances that he can't be asked for more money later. Donor will say: "Hey, I had that in the original contract, and it didn't work. How can I be sure I'll be off the hook?" Is there a good answer to that? Can they have a judge state that he has more than fulfilled his obligations for child support?

Unsolicited advice: since donor’s ex was a spendthrift, let that theme stand alone; make the debt owed by dead twin and widow the result of losing job and health insurance after diagnosis of fatal illness (not garden-variety spendthrifty overspending on credit cards, expensive hobbies, etc.). Donor could learn this during the trial after thinking dead twin was just a financial idiot (and then feel terrible he didn’t try to help); widow will be more sympathetic to the reader, if that’s what you want, if she has spent everything to pay for dead twin’s tragically ineffective health care.

[TromboneAl]

Hmm. I got the idea for this subplot from the book Keeping it Civil written by a family lawyer practicing in Pennsylvania. Her case concerned a gay couple who solicited a friend donor.

From that book:

Who would be responsible for the child?
This is the flip side of the deal. Ann and Paula would be assuming sole responsibility for the child’s care and financial support. They realized the importance of protecting Michael against a future change of heart on this point. I wrote: Ann and Paula agree to hold Michael harmless for any support for the child and to indemnify him against any support obligation which may in the future be imposed upon him, despite the existence of this Agreement. Meaning that if either woman reneged on this commitment and did look to Michael for child support—and if a court were to make him pay it—they’d have to reimburse him, dollar for dollar. At least, that was my intent in drafting that sentence; those were the strongest teeth I could put into the contract. My concern was that a court might not, actually, absolve Michael from the payment of child support despite the clear terms.

and

Would this contract hold up?
Maybe. And maybe not. Ann, Paula, and Michael had to treat this document as a statement of their mutual understanding. They had to trust one another enough to believe that each of them would feel morally bound to follow it, because neither I nor any other lawyer could promise them with certainty that a court would enforce these terms in the event of a future dispute.

THE TRUTH IS that it’s not clear to what extent courts will allow adults to contract away rights that essentially belong to a child. Children are not property, and courts have an affirmative obligation to act in their best interest. So, for example, assume a future where Ann dies, Paula becomes disabled, and there’s not enough money to put food on the table for the child. Isn’t there a good argument that under these extreme circumstances the court should look to the biological father to kick in some funds? Doesn’t the child need to eat? And shouldn’t that need trump all three adults’ agreement, entered into under completely different circumstances, that Ann and Paula would never seek child support from Michael?

[TromboneAl]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bestwifeever Donor could learn this during the trial after thinking dead twin was just a financial idiot (and then feel terrible he didn’t try to help); widow will be more sympathetic to the reader, if that’s what you want, if she has spent everything to pay for dead twin’s tragically ineffective health care.

More wonderful advice. Thanks.

[TromboneAl]

Quote:

Originally Posted by redduck However, if they were boffing their brains out to get the woman pregnant--even with strong contracts written up, the donor might be on the hook.

Actually, that might solve the problems that 2Cor has brought up. Maybe it was a The Big Chill situation, which is more interesting in any case. What's it like to make love to an identical twin?

The donor is so cheap. He's like, "What? You want to spend $600 when Molly and I can go upstairs right now and take care of business?"

Maybe a Devil's Triangle [a term many of us learned recently]!

[CaptTom]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SecondCor521 As for the first question, unless there is a breach of contract or the contract is invalid, most judges are going to say that the original contract needs to be respected.

Not in my part of the country.

I'm not an attorney, but I've spent enough time in family court that I've been mistaken for one, and had people ask me questions in the halls. Sad thing is, I often knew the answer.

The only thing the court claims to consider is what's in the current best interests of the child. If the kid needs money, they're gonna go after the deepest pockets.

All one party has to say is "circumstances have changed," and all previous litigation, agreements and orders are irrelevant. Trust me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TromboneAl THE TRUTH IS that it’s not clear to what extent courts will allow adults to contract away rights that essentially belong to a child. Children are not property, and courts have an affirmative obligation to act in their best interest.

Actually that probably says it better than I did.

[TromboneAl]

BTW, I will be thanking those who helped in the acknowledgments page (e.g. Special thanks to SecondCor521, BestWifeEver, calico1597, ...).

Please PM me if you'd like me to use your real name or if you don't want to appear there at all.

[TromboneAl]

I've written the scenes for this subplot, and since you guys helped so much, I thought I'd share them.

>I would of course have twin and widow fall in love during the trial and him adopt the kid anyway but that’s the chick lit writer in me

That will happen and be shown later in the book with a paragraph or two. It doesn't happen in the scenes I've posted.

Go here to get the scenes in PDF, MOBI, or ePub: https://bookhip.com/BRSXNG

You can ignore the first paragraph of the second scene. It won't make sense because I've extracted these scenes from the book.

Let me know if you have any other comments.

Thanks again,

Al

[TromboneAl]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bestwifeever I would of course have twin and widow fall in love during the trial and him adopt the kid anyway but that’s the chick lit writer in me.

Done. Here's an excerpt from the last scene (first draft):

I took Jen to the Sunset Restaurant, timing it perfectly with the sunset. We had a pleasant surprise while waiting for our table.

“Look who’s here.” I gestured with my head, smiling.

In a sunken part of the dining area, a young family had just been served their main course. Their cute, pig-tailed pixie sat in a high chair, fussing about something.

“Isn’t that …? Wow, what a surprise.”

I shrugged.

“Don’t tell me you foresaw that?”

“If you’d seen Hortense in her dad’s lap at the settlement meeting, you’d have foreseen it, too. Molly loved Horace’s twin, so why wouldn’t she fall in love with Horace?” I decided to leave the family alone, since they might have been embarrassed by the commotion their daughter was causing, but later, after Jen and I had ordered, Molly came to our table.

“No, don’t get up.” She squatted down next to me. “I just wanted to thank you for the way you handled our dispute.”

“I’m glad it turned out the way it did.”

“Yes, thanks to you. Horace and I are going to be married this June.” She glanced over at Jen. “We’d be honored if you and your lovely wife would come to the wedding.”

“Thank you. We’d enjoy that.”

When she’d left, Jen laughed. “Did you forget the part that goes ‘that’s not my wife, that’s my law partner’?”

I put my napkin in my lap. “I figured she was already embarrassed to be interrupting us. Why complicate things?”

Thanks!

[Bestwifeever]

Very nice!