child support modification/jurisdiction

[hidonmesahj]

Hello. Quickly...I have a support order against me in Pa. It was filed in '09, when the plaintiff & myself were not living together. We moved back in together shortly after. We have now been living together in Nj for 2 years. We split half of all bills on record. I want to file for a dismissal of the support order, as we share financial responsibilities & I believe the issuing court no longer has jurisdiction over the matter..do I have a case for either moderation, reconsideration, or dismissal?

 

[Proserpina]

You can to try terminate the order (the original state still has jurisdiction, technically, though you will probably be able to modify in NJ).

The State does not have to approve your request though. Is there a specific reason you wish to terminate though? You pay the other parent - the other parent receives and simply uses the funds to help the family unit.

 

[army judge]

Is there a specific reason you wish to terminate though?

You pay the other parent - the other parent receives and simply uses the funds to help the family unit.

You posed a a very intriguing question.

The answer(s) should be quite enlightening.

That said, the other party could simply seek to have the support order dismissed, modified, or changed; couldn't she/he?

Or, both parties could join together, seeking the order's modification/adjustment.





I guess its my age, the generation I was by happenstance born into, and my parents' teachings; but never once in our soon to be 50 years of marriage, have we ever argued about (or even discussed) money.

My dad and mom taught me that money was simply another tool in life's toolbox.

They said, you got $100, you can get $200, just work harder, work longer, work more.

Or, educate yourself, seek more training, get better skills; you get better pay.

Sadly, we see that admonishment becoming harder, and harder to achieve.

They also said, don't breed yourself into poverty!

I thank my lucky stars for being a keen listener, but one that eagerly adopted the instruction given to me by mother and dad.

 

[hidonmesahj]

You're right..the argument is a philosophical one..the money always goes back the same place..for me, though, It's an issue of control..technically, she still has control over a piece of my life. I just find this to be intrinsically degrading, as we are equal partners in finance..why should the state continue to dictate that, though both parties are present & financially culpable, one party should maintain a percentage of control over the other? I just find it to be an unnecessary intrusion on my right to privacy. Am I not entitled to control my own finances without government oversight?

 

[army judge]

You're right..the argument is a philosophical one..the money always goes back the same place..for me, though, It's an issue of control..technically, she still has control over a piece of my life. I just find this to be intrinsically degrading, as we are equal partners in finance..why should the state continue to dictate that, though both parties are present & financially culpable, one party should maintain a percentage of control over the other? I just find it to be an unnecessary intrusion on my right to privacy. Am I not entitled to control my own finances without government oversight?

Yes, you could marry her, then divorce her 30, 60, 90 days later.

But, as long as you have minor kids with her, therein lies the crux of the problem.

You and her could cohabitate for 200 years, no kids, no child support, no state control.

See the problem here, the kids.

Well, at least that is what the state will assert.

That said, you and her could ask the court to modify the support order, not wise in my view, but you could.

You see, if the state didn't issue the order, she'd be telling you when you could see Junior.

The solution is marry her, divorce her, and let the divorce decree speak as to support.

Or, wait until Junior or Sissy is 18, and NEVER have another kid, married or not.

 

[hidonmesahj]

I already live with "junior"..and already had a nj court tell us that no custody order would be handed down to people residing together. So that's not a concern. I just want the the support order from a different state, issued under different circumstances, to be revoked..I've heard no sound, legal reasoning so far that would lead me to believe that it wouldn't be...anyone with actual experience or a case law to reference?

 

[Proserpina]

Google Scholar, Lexis, Worldlaw...

What you're not seeing though is the government isn't so much trying to interfere in your financial business, as it is trying to guarantee that the child is supported. You can tell them what you want, but what proof do they have?

Change how you look at things.

 

[army judge]

I already live with "junior"..and already had a nj court tell us that no custody order would be handed down to people residing together. So that's not a concern. I just want the the support order from a different state, issued under different circumstances, to be revoked..I've heard no sound, legal reasoning so far that would lead me to believe that it wouldn't be...anyone with actual experience or a case law to reference?

If you want it, and she wants it, walk into a court together and request and have the damn thing rescinded.

There is no legal precedent for this crap, because it is unimportant to our system of jurisprudence.

Society as a whole doesn't care, until mammy or pappy comes begging for medicare, food stamps, welfare, rent payments, heating assistance, etc... without the absent pappy or mammy paying their FAIR share of the litter's support.

If there is no established pappy, when mammy seeks GUBMINT HEPP, the taxpayers get stuck supporting the litter that some unidentified pappy sired.

There's your legal precedent, no one cares, except NOT to pay to support your litter!!!!!

 

[hidonmesahj]

I agree with most of that..but we both know that somewhere, at sometime, this situation has arisen, been litigated, and decided upon. Therefore, there probably does exist an opinion, and that would constitute a precedent. It's not for the courts to "care" in the sense that you've expressed it, nor am I looking for that. It does, however, fall into the realm of jurisprudence to consider whether or not a certain case has at It's heart a valid legal ideal or "spirit" which should be argued. It doesn't necessarily need a precedent. The law seeks to protect individuals from personal injury & property damage & to require reparations of such by the party or parties deemed liable. It also seems to extend itself to making decisions as a mediator in certain personal & social instances. The only funds being discussed here are between two private parties, & not society as a whole. My question may be outside your ability to call upon the sort of layered logic necessary to properly satisfy it...and you misspelled "government" & "help".