I was divorced in 86 in massachusetts. The father of my now 31 yr. old daughter was told to pay 50 dollars a week in support. At the time of this post, he owes me over 14,000 dollars. The state of Massachusetts has failed to make him be financially responsible. My question is: what in the heck does he have to do to get his picture on a wanted poster for being a dead beat? I've since moved to Vermont and he is in Pennsylvania and I've now been told it is out of jurisdiction for Massachusetts to do anything because it would cost the state too much money. I found a site online Support Kids who say they will get me my money and they take part of it for doing the work- is it a reputable agency? I want justice. I want my money. I want the last laugh from this jerk who thinks he can get away without paying the price. Any helpful info is more than appreciated. Thank you
-
Welcome to our legal community! Click here or the create new topic button to ask a question and receive answers and comments from our friendly and helpful legal community.
Articles that answer frequent legal questions are in our Law Guide. Important legal news is reported in The Law JournalYou can find a lawyer near you in the Lawyer Directory. If you know that you need to hire an attorney, you can submit a case review from a lawyer.
the child is 31 for crying out loud
- Thread Starter lisa24n7
- Start date
- Status
army judge
Super Moderator
I don't think any reputable person on this site will attest to the reputation of an entity outside this site.
That said, you may never get your money.
Why?
Many reasons, the statute of limitations for one.
That said, what have you got to lose by engaging Company XYZ on your behalf?
That said, you may never get your money.
Why?
Many reasons, the statute of limitations for one.
That said, what have you got to lose by engaging Company XYZ on your behalf?
Proserpina
Moderator
There's no guarantee he's going to pay. He would also perhaps be able to argue a Laches defense (I'm not sure whether Mass allows for that in child support cases - some States do, some don't).
Proserpina
Moderator
Right...but that doesn't mean Dad can't argue that you took too long to pursue it (thus the "doctrine of laches" defense).
law4life61
New Member
First off it's not your money it's your daughter money! since she is now 31 there is nothing that the courts are going to do. If you were so concerned about this money you should have filed back before she turned 18. It will cost the courts to much money for u to even try and even than he owes your daughter 14,000 in back support and hasn't paid a dime of that to her what makes u think even if u did win your case he would pay...
Proserpina
Moderator
What?!
Dad owes the daughter NOTHING.
Not one dime.
PERIOD.
Please feel free to provide case law and/or statute that would correct my statement.
law4life61
New Member
Unfortunately not she will not ever see that money. Like I previousley stated if you went after him before she turned 18 than u would have had a chance but not now sorry. If u hired a lawyer u would just loose your case and tons of money that goes along with it! Good luck
Proserpina
Moderator
army judge
Super Moderator
Proserpina, you know I admire you, madam.
But, is the money (paid or not) owed to child or custodial parent?
I know you know the answer.
I think you might clarify for those that fail to grasp your teachings.
But, is the money (paid or not) owed to child or custodial parent?
I know you know the answer.
I think you might clarify for those that fail to grasp your teachings.
Last edited:
Proserpina
Moderator
The money is owed to the parent. Not the child.
It's to reimburse the custodial parent for costs incurred raising the child. And (this is the part that people really hate), if the CP then chooses to spend the money on Coach purses and mani/pedis, they're entitled to do that.
There are one or two extreme instances in which child support can be redirected to the child who is living away from home, but these are few and far between.
If I may elaborate on why law4life's second post was also inaccurate...
Mom did not have to pursue the back support before the child reached 18; now actually getting an order put in place? THAT needed to have been done by 18 but since that obviously already happened the point is moot.
Also, there is no SOL on collecting arrears in the OP's state - so yes, she can try to collect. Although the doctrine of laches is not specifically barred by MA when it comes to child support (it is barred in many States), recent case law (Galvin v. Galvin, Suffolk County Probate Court) tells us that a decades-old support order can indeed be enforced and laches is not necessarily going to wash.
Does this clarify?
It's to reimburse the custodial parent for costs incurred raising the child. And (this is the part that people really hate), if the CP then chooses to spend the money on Coach purses and mani/pedis, they're entitled to do that.
There are one or two extreme instances in which child support can be redirected to the child who is living away from home, but these are few and far between.
If I may elaborate on why law4life's second post was also inaccurate...
Mom did not have to pursue the back support before the child reached 18; now actually getting an order put in place? THAT needed to have been done by 18 but since that obviously already happened the point is moot.
Also, there is no SOL on collecting arrears in the OP's state - so yes, she can try to collect. Although the doctrine of laches is not specifically barred by MA when it comes to child support (it is barred in many States), recent case law (Galvin v. Galvin, Suffolk County Probate Court) tells us that a decades-old support order can indeed be enforced and laches is not necessarily going to wash.
Does this clarify?
army judge
Super Moderator
Madam, well said.
If I could add, the CP could blow the loot in a casino, or give it to their new live in lover!!!
Heck, they might even wanna make it "rain, at some darn awful strip joint"!!! Gasp!!!
Not that I encourage such behavior, mind you, I'm jes sayin'!!!!!
Your information, as usual, is 100% factual.
Teach the uninformed, madam, they thirst for your knowledge!
If I could add, the CP could blow the loot in a casino, or give it to their new live in lover!!!
Heck, they might even wanna make it "rain, at some darn awful strip joint"!!! Gasp!!!
Not that I encourage such behavior, mind you, I'm jes sayin'!!!!!
Your information, as usual, is 100% factual.
Teach the uninformed, madam, they thirst for your knowledge!
The money is owed to the parent. Not the child.
It's to reimburse the custodial parent for costs incurred raising the child. And (this is the part that people really hate), if the CP then chooses to spend the money on Coach purses and mani/pedis, they're entitled to do that.
There are one or two extreme instances in which child support can be redirected to the child who is living away from home, but these are few and far between.
If I may elaborate on why law4life's second post was also inaccurate...
Mom did not have to pursue the back support before the child reached 18; now actually getting an order put in place? THAT needed to have been done by 18 but since that obviously already happened the point is moot.
Also, there is no SOL on collecting arrears in the OP's state - so yes, she can try to collect. Although the doctrine of laches is not specifically barred by MA when it comes to child support (it is barred in many States), recent case law (Galvin v. Galvin, Suffolk County Probate Court) tells us that a decades-old support order can indeed be enforced and laches is not necessarily going to wash.
Does this clarify?
Last edited:
Proserpina
Moderator
I should have really said all of that in my first post.
And thank you - much appreciated
I'm also really here to learn
And thank you - much appreciated
I'm also really here to learn
Last edited:
law4life61
New Member
How can u sit here and say that the the cp could spend the money on Mani/pedicures even though that is mostly the case. That money is supposed to be used for the child and the support of the child needs. Yes the mother Could try to collect on this but when she first tired and they didn't put him away for being a dead beat dad at that Time could u imagine how long it would take to collect... Exactly! If you are not an attorney you and everyone else have no business giving out legal information you should know the law!
Proserpina
Moderator
Could you please do a couple of things for us? That would really help!
1. Translate that into English
2. Tell us where we are wrong - LEGALLY.
law4life61
New Member
It's there in plain site for u!
Legally you are NOT an attorney there for u can not give any legal advise out!
Law students aren't supposed to give out legal advice!
Legally you are NOT an attorney there for u can not give any legal advise out!
Law students aren't supposed to give out legal advice!
Proserpina
Moderator
Please stop posting.
You have not contributed anything either legally accurate, or even helpful.
Thanks.
law4life61
New Member
Stop giving legal advise or I will report u!!!
Proserpina
Moderator
Go right ahead.
In fact, I'll have admin take a look at this thread for you.
In fact, I'll have admin take a look at this thread for you.
cbg
Super Moderator
Moderator here:
Lawforlife61; Pro is exactly correct. The money is to REIMBURSE the custodial parent for money that has ALREADY been spent on the child. Nowhere does the law say that every cent of child support must be spent directly on the child. The custodial parent used their own funds to pay the rent, the light bill, keep food in the refrigerator and clothes on the child's back. The support money reimburses the parent for this. Since the bills have already been paid, the custodial parent does not need to pay them again.
If you disagree, please provide backup in the form of case law or statutes that support your position. And please take note of the fact that I am also in Massachusetts.
Lawforlife61; Pro is exactly correct. The money is to REIMBURSE the custodial parent for money that has ALREADY been spent on the child. Nowhere does the law say that every cent of child support must be spent directly on the child. The custodial parent used their own funds to pay the rent, the light bill, keep food in the refrigerator and clothes on the child's back. The support money reimburses the parent for this. Since the bills have already been paid, the custodial parent does not need to pay them again.
If you disagree, please provide backup in the form of case law or statutes that support your position. And please take note of the fact that I am also in Massachusetts.
- Status
Share this page
