different states

"~August" wrote

==
==
.................................................. ........
It is my understanding that once the child leaves to the other parent,
that
new state would take over. I think the child has to be with the new parent
for 6 months first though??? But either way, how could that new state
take
over unless the old state releases the first order?
==
The new state cannot "take over" the order. The order must first be modified
with the
original jurisdiction to remove the child from the order. If there is a 6
month wait,
so be it. However, the hearing will not be scheduled immediately so the
process should begin before
the six months is up. The original state will simply modifiy the order
removing the one child no
longer in the custody of the first parent. After that, the parents can agree
to simply have each other's
child support obligation evened out with each having one child or the judge
will establish CS for the remaining
child per the gudelines leaving the parent with the other child to establish
a case in the child's new state of jurisdiction.
==
So i thought maybe, with
the states working together, that an order put into effect in the new
state
would nullify the order in the old state.
==
No. The old order must first be modified in its original jurisdiction. There
cannot be two orders
for the same child in two different states (it does happen in screwed up
cases which is why I have *repeatedly* emphasized that the original order
*must* be modified by the original jurisdiction *prior* to the establishment
of a new order in the new resident state).
==
I didnt know if that could be
done but i have also read on this board MANY times about how things can
get
totally hosed when transferring cases. So, i figured it is best to
actually
remove the child from the first state and then request a new order in the
new state.
==
EXACTLY! You have learned well :-). This is the neat, clean and proper way
to proceed.
==
The thing is... the parent in the new state believes differently. He
thinks
the child can move out of state but the original order stays in place and
we
just modify the CS order in the original state and guidelines for the new
order are still used from the original state.
===
No. The judge will not do this. If the child moves, the jurisdiction for
THAT child changes to the new state.
===
He is also afraid that if we
remove the child from the original order, then when he goes to get a new
order in the new state, he may not be able to get it because the child is
19, working and not attending school. He would however be living with the
parent and getting a lot of financial support from the parent. The new
state (MA) does allow for support after age 18 if the child is living with
the parent and dependent on the parent for most of their support (as would
be the case) but it also does not allow for an order to be set after a
lapse... it cannot be "resumed". The other parent is afraid that by
releasing the child from the first state... the child is in no ones
order...
trying to create a new order in the new state would constitute a 'lapse"
in
support and not be granted.
==
Could be. You are now talking MA law and I am not familiar with that.
==
Personally, this is all very irritating to me. I was prepared to take the
kid off of support period since he is paying me rent but now that he
decides
to move in with his dad, his dad wants the order to stay in place. If we
take the kid off CS, dad gets a reduction... if we keep the kid on and
give
the dad credit for him, dad gets a reduction... i am trying to look at
this
from all angles from both our sides but more importantly, when we go into
court i don't want to be dismissed because we are not following proper
procedure.
==
I cannot tell you the specifics of either state's age of majority law. *You
can get around the matter
by having your ex pay the support to the original state and you refund it
back to him.*
What is your intention in going to court? You must file a petition. Will it
be a petition to modify?
If you are talking about filing for a custody change (which I must say
sounds strange with a 19
year old working man), that is a different matter than support.
==
We want to do the modification on our own, so have to make sure
we understand how it SHOULD be being done.
==
It should be done:
1. Modify original order to exclude moving child.
2. Establish new order in new state for CS *if* the new state orders support
given the age, residency of the 19 year old.
(You didn't tell us about the age thing before ;-)
==

I may have to call the attorney who handled our case originally.... i
didn't
really like him though ;-/.
==
That will answer your question on your state (the order will be modified to
remove the child not in your custody)
but he will likely tell you that he is not familiar with MA family
law (unless he has a license to practice in both states--possible, but not
likely).
==
Any sites folks know of that could clarify this jurisdiction question?
==
Well, I don't know how much clearer you're going to hear it than what I just
told you.
==
==
Thanks!
~August

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
ink.net...

"~August" wrote
........................................

Sounds like you need an attorney with expertise in interstate cases
involving UIFSA situations.
==
Bob, This really is not a difficult question--
UIFSA would prohibit the new
state from modifying the original order (which is what I told her cannot be
done). It does not prohibit the old state from modifying the original order
nor does it prohibit the new state from establishing an order *after* the
child is removed from the original order ( assuming the child's age, school
status squares with MA law). Absent that, the new state can only enforce the
original order which means, if the original order is not modified by the
original state, the father is still responsible to pay according to those
terms.
It is a modification in the first state and an establishment of an order in
a new state for the moving child. It is simple--cut and dried--Not much
different than it would be if it were an intrastate custody
change/modification/establishment. Y'all got this sounding waaaaay more
complicated than it is ;-).
==
==
This source is pretty good because it not only
outlines the act but also provides comments about the meaning of each
section.

http://www.law.upenn.edu/bll/ulc/fna...0s/uifsa96.pdf

"Gini" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
ink.net...

"~August" wrote
.......................................

Sounds like you need an attorney with expertise in interstate cases
involving UIFSA situations.
==
Bob, This really is not a difficult question--
UIFSA would prohibit the new
state from modifying the original order (which is what I told her cannot
be
done). It does not prohibit the old state from modifying the original
order
nor does it prohibit the new state from establishing an order *after* the
child is removed from the original order ( assuming the child's age,
school
status squares with MA law). Absent that, the new state can only enforce
the
original order which means, if the original order is not modified by the
original state, the father is still responsible to pay according to those
terms.
It is a modification in the first state and an establishment of an order
in
a new state for the moving child. It is simple--cut and dried--Not much
different than it would be if it were an intrastate custody
change/modification/establishment. Y'all got this sounding waaaaay more
complicated than it is ;-).
==
==

I have very little knowledge in this area, and you sound like you know this
stuff pretty well. My limited understanding is there are lots of variables
and potential scenarios, and just about anything can happen if there is
agreement. As I understand it, the variables adjust based on the parent's
consenting to how the situation will be handled based on where the obligor,
obligee, and children reside, and who is willing to budge to facilitate the
process. I may be wrong, but I thought the issues of jurisdiction had to be
pre-established prior to a child being removed from the original order and
any legal action occurring outside of a modification of the original order.

"Gini" wrote in message
...

I cannot tell you the specifics of either state's age of majority law.
*You
can get around the matter
by having your ex pay the support to the original state and you refund it
back to him.*
What is your intention in going to court? You must file a petition. Will
it
be a petition to modify?
If you are talking about filing for a custody change (which I must say
sounds strange with a 19
year old working man), that is a different matter than support.

The original idea was to file for CS modification, yes. We just didn't
know if we modify to take the child off ... or to modify for dad to pay a
lesser amount based on the fact that one child is living with dad now and
pay no regard to what state they are living in.
We don't need to change custody, since he is (or at the time of the move
will be) 19.
Dad just wants a break in CS.
Rather then ham and haw and wonder if we are doing it right, I can just cut
dad back a check each month. The boy is going out at Christmas and at this
point the plan is for him not to come back. He will live with his dad for
who knows how long. I could cut dad back a check until the boy goes out on
his own at which time we just go in and take him off the original order all
together. But come on now... do you really think dad would like that
idea??? Let me answer that for you. NO! LOL.

"August" wrote in message
...

"Gini" wrote in message
...

I cannot tell you the specifics of either state's age of majority law.
*You
can get around the matter
by having your ex pay the support to the original state and you refund
it
back to him.*
What is your intention in going to court? You must file a petition. Will
it
be a petition to modify?
If you are talking about filing for a custody change (which I must say
sounds strange with a 19
year old working man), that is a different matter than support.

The original idea was to file for CS modification, yes. We just didn't
know if we modify to take the child off ... or to modify for dad to pay a
lesser amount based on the fact that one child is living with dad now and
pay no regard to what state they are living in.
We don't need to change custody, since he is (or at the time of the move
will be) 19.
Dad just wants a break in CS.
Rather then ham and haw and wonder if we are doing it right, I can just
cut
dad back a check each month. The boy is going out at Christmas and at
this
point the plan is for him not to come back. He will live with his dad
for
who knows how long. I could cut dad back a check until the boy goes out
on
his own at which time we just go in and take him off the original order
all
together.
==
That is the way I would do it if I were you given the age of the son and the
uncertainty
of the stay.
==
But come on now... do you really think dad would like that
idea??? Let me answer that for you. NO! LOL.
==
That's beyond the scope of my knowledge so I can neither confirm nor deny
;-).
(Whew! I'm sure glad to get this one straightened out--It gave me a headache
today!)
==
==

"Gini" wrote in message
...

"~August" wrote
The thing is... the parent in the new state believes differently. He
thinks
the child can move out of state but the original order stays in place
and
we
just modify the CS order in the original state and guidelines for the
new
order are still used from the original state.
===
No. The judge will not do this. If the child moves, the jurisdiction for
THAT child changes to the new state.

I dunno Gini.... i found this and it sounds like what my ex is saying....

The first state to impose a support order retains "continuing exclusive
jurisdiction" as long as one of the parties continues to reside in that
state or if both parties agree to transfer jurisdiction to another
state.

I found that on a site discussing a dad who lived in Illinois... the mom &
kid lived in MO... and a MO CSE Officer was trying to tell the dad that he
was in arrears because he was not paying CS through MO. The dad was arguing
that payments stay through Illinois and he had confirmed that the only way
MO can take over is if the parents agree or if mom can get an MO judge to
send notice to IL showing why it should be changed. And even then Illinois
gets to decide whether or not to allow jurisdiction to change . The dad
said that based on the incompetancy of the MO CSE Officer, he would fight
any such request.

It also seems to agree with what "Fighting for Kids" said....
Why would anyone go through such lengths of jumping all over the place,
when the first state can modify the first case to include out of state
payments
and to the proper parent?

So, i think me and the ex could agree to take the oldest off my state and
transfer jurisdiction to the new state based on the fact that the kid would
be living in the new state... OR we can let my state continue to preside
over the case since i still live here.

~August

"~August" wrote in message
...
"Gini" wrote in message
...

"~August" wrote
The thing is... the parent in the new state believes differently. He
thinks
the child can move out of state but the original order stays in place
and
we
just modify the CS order in the original state and guidelines for the
new
order are still used from the original state.
===
No. The judge will not do this. If the child moves, the jurisdiction for
THAT child changes to the new state.

I dunno Gini.... i found this and it sounds like what my ex is saying....

The first state to impose a support order retains "continuing exclusive
jurisdiction" as long as one of the parties continues to reside in that
state or if both parties agree to transfer jurisdiction to another
state.

I found that on a site discussing a dad who lived in Illinois... the mom &
kid lived in MO... and a MO CSE Officer was trying to tell the dad that he
was in arrears because he was not paying CS through MO. The dad was
arguing
that payments stay through Illinois and he had confirmed that the only way
MO can take over is if the parents agree or if mom can get an MO judge to
send notice to IL showing why it should be changed. And even then
Illinois
gets to decide whether or not to allow jurisdiction to change . The dad
said that based on the incompetancy of the MO CSE Officer, he would fight
any such request.
==
This case confirms what I have already told you. It does not conflict. One
state *cannot* "take over" jurisdiction
of another state's order (as was found above. The order above stays with IL
until a judge authorizes a change in jurisdiction at which time, the case
can be registered in MO and MO enforces--but cannot change-- the order. But,
this *isn't the same as your case.* Your case involves a **custody change**
to a different state. I told you that MA *cannot* "take over" your case.
That was one of the first things I told you and I repeated it over and over.
It *must* first be modified by a judge in your (controlling state), removing
your son from the original order and hence the controlling state. At that
point, your ex will have to establish an order (completely different from
the original and not conflicting with the original order as your son has
been removed from the original order--your state then no longer has
jurisdiction over him (and *only* him, not your remaining child). That is
what makes your case different. I don't know how much better I can explain
it to you so I'm just going to drop out of this thread. You don't need to
pay attention to anything I've told you. Just file your petition and see
what happens. If you can convince a judge to do it, fine.
==
It also seems to agree with what "Fighting for Kids" said....
Why would anyone go through such lengths of jumping all over the
place,
when the first state can modify the first case to include out of state
payments
and to the proper parent?

So, i think me and the ex could agree to take the oldest off my state and
transfer jurisdiction to the new state based on the fact that the kid
would
be living in the new state... OR we can let my state continue to preside
over the case since i still live here.
==
Go for it.
==
==

~August

Touchy.

"~August" wrote in message
...
Touchy.

Touchy .. only if you say my name or dont agree with what the "group"
thinks..

"~August" wrote in message
...
Touchy.
==
Not really--I've had a headache for two days. I think it's because I ran out
of my blood pressure medicine but
thinking makes it worse so I try to avoid that whenever possible :-). I just
got home with the meds so hopefully
I'll be in better shape soon.
==