Child Support

[up2itnow]

I just won custody of my kids and modification of child support in March. The payments were supposed to begin in June. Now my Ex is saying she is going to appeal the decision and that once the appeal is filed she doesn't have to pay until the appeal has been heard. Is this true?

Second question is about court rules. In my case the judge issued a sequestor order at the begining of the hearing. After the lunch break my attorney pulled one of the witnesses aside and spoke to her prior her getting on the stand. The Ex is is talking about using this and a few other small isses to get the decision overturned. Does this claim have any legs?

When I asked my attorney about this, she said that she is allowed to speak to witnesses at anytime; she just can't discuss the prior testimony given. Correct?

Thanks

 

[up2itnow]

Here is what I found in the Colorado Revised Statutes
COLORADO RULES OF EVIDENCE
CHAPTER 33 COLORADO RULES OF EVIDENCE
ARTICLE VI WITNESSES

C.R.E. 615 (2012)

Rule 615. Exclusion of Witnesses.

At the request of a party the court shall order witnesses excluded so that they cannot hear the testimony of other witnesses, and it may make the order of its own motion. This rule does not authorize exclusion of (1) a party who is a natural person, or (2) an officer or employee of a party which is not a natural person designated as its representative by its attorney, or (3) a person whose presence is shown by a party to be essential to the presentation of his cause.

(Federal Rule Identical.)

RECENT ANNOTATIONS:

Purpose of rule is accomplished under rule's terms by ordering witnesses to withdraw from courtroom until called; however, to make rule effective, court may also direct witnesses not to discuss case with each other. People v. Brinson, 739 P.2d 897 (Colo. App. 1987).

This rule applies only to witnesses, not attorneys. Thus, an attorney's discussion of one witness's testimony with a prospective witness does not violate the rule. People v. Villalobos, 159 P.3d 624 (Colo. App. 2006).

Unless I am missing something it seems like attorneys speaking to witnesses prior to the testimony is allowed by the current court rules...right?

This case just doesn't want to die. UGH! An appeal is the last thing I wanted. I don't even have physical custody of the kids yet even though I won the case back in March and I won't until right before school starts again in the fall. 5 months with no visitation stinks!

 

[army judge]

It is called "due process".

Had you been in the other person's position, you'd have been able to appeal.

Nothing illegal here.

Again, I admonish each of my clients to negotiate, settle, avoid the court system.

Justice is not swift, nor is it fair, and sometimes the verdict isn't even just.

I suggest you discuss your concerns with your attorney.

No one, except your attorney, is in a position to properly explain what occurred.

 

[Latigo]

Why in blazes did you hire an attorney and then ask complete strangers to second guess her advice and interpretation of statutory law?

I've had a number of officious clients like you, but only for a very short period of time.

 

[up2itnow]

@ Latigo, I do believe my attorney and I am pretty darn confident the she is right but the Ex has thrown some things out there that make a person have a second thought and she's so confident that she is filing a formal complaint with the review council. She also has an attorney and I can only assume that he is advising her on what actions to take, which has me scratching my head. If we're (my attorney and myself) vulnerable to this kind of attack, I want to shore up with a defense pretty quickly. I am a firm believer in hoping for the best but preparing for the worst. I have already told my attorney about the Ex's intent to file the formal complaint so she isn't surprised when they contact her as well as her intent to file an appeal (which she has every right to do).
I just thought it might be worth seeing what other attorneys thought since there's obviously one out there who believes this was a violation worthy enough to overturn the recent ruling. I'm having a hard time believing it's much more than a case of sour grapes

@Army Judge I get that I need to speak to my attorney, I just thought I could get a simple yes or no answer here as to whether the current CS ruling remains in place and due while the appeal is pending? or does it revert to the prior payment before the ruling that is being appealed? ( current ruling is she pays me vs old order is I pay her)

Kind Regards,
Bill

 

[army judge]

I can't say what the answer is your case.
I can say that it wouldn't be unusual to hold the ruling in abeyance until the appeal is heard.
That happens if the appellant has requested a stay.
Your attorney is bets equipped to inform you. Ask her.

 

[army judge]

Why in blazes did you hire an attorney and then ask complete strangers to second guess her advice and interpretation of statutory law?

I've had a number of officious clients like you, but only for a very short period of time.

I like you more and more with each answer you dispense.