different states

Your case involves a **custody change**
to a different state.

But we were not going to do anything about custody.
The kid is 19 years old. Dad is just looking for a break in CS. We wanted
to modify the CS order based on the fact that the kid was moving to live
with the dad. The kid could then move back to moms if he decides he doesn't
like it... he could move out with friends, not handle it financially... move
back in. All sorts of stuff. We just want to modify the CS order because
no matter who the kid lives with... he will be working and probably paying
the *parent* $$$, so there is no need to have him on the order any longer.
However, he is far from being emancipated, so instead we were just going to
ask for a reduction in the original award amount.

I was trying to figure out if the courts in my state would even consider
doing that since the kid would not be living in the same state any longer.
Apparently, the kid does *not* have to be in the same state as the courts
that have jurisdiction. Your last response however did make it seem as if
the *custodial parent* has to be in the same state as the court that has
jurisdiction. I understand exactly what you are saying... (believe it or
not) but does that mean that that is the ONLY way it can be handled?

I was just asking. That's what folks do when they don't know.
With contradictory information being given I figured I would have to ask an
attny anyway... but it doesn't hurt to discuss it here and get some feedback
and opinions, does it? Isn't that what this kind of place is for?

Thanks anyway.

~August

"August" wrote in message
...

Your case involves a **custody change**
to a different state.

But we were not going to do anything about custody.
The kid is 19 years old. Dad is just looking for a break in CS. We
wanted
to modify the CS order based on the fact that the kid was moving to live
with the dad. The kid could then move back to moms if he decides he
doesn't
like it... he could move out with friends, not handle it financially...
move
back in. All sorts of stuff. We just want to modify the CS order because
no matter who the kid lives with... he will be working and probably paying
the *parent* $$$, so there is no need to have him on the order any
longer.
However, he is far from being emancipated, so instead we were just going
to
ask for a reduction in the original award amount.

I was trying to figure out if the courts in my state would even consider
doing that since the kid would not be living in the same state any longer.
Apparently, the kid does *not* have to be in the same state as the courts
that have jurisdiction. Your last response however did make it seem as if
the *custodial parent* has to be in the same state as the court that has
jurisdiction. I understand exactly what you are saying... (believe it or
not) but does that mean that that is the ONLY way it can be handled?
==
Not necessarily--but, it is the neatest, safest (and proper) way. Often
cases that aren't handled with
a "clean break" between states get messy and end up in appeals courts. The
judge can refuse to accept
jurisdiction over a non-resident child because he/she knows the custodial
parent (your husband) can contest jurisdiction and win. The "home state" is
defined as the state a child has lived in for at least 6 months
and the "home state" has jurisdiction over the child (see below). In your
case, given his age, if you want to go to court (ie you decide not to simply
return his CS back to him), you might be OK. In your case, there isn't a lot
of time for things to get too messy.

From UIFSA: Home state is defined as

the state in which a child lived with a parent or a person acting as a
parentfor at least six consecutive months immediately preceding the time of
filingof a petition or comparable pleading for support and, if a child is
less thansix months old, the state in which the child lived from birth with
any of them.A period of temporary absence of any of them is counted as part
of thesix-month or other period.
Section 101(4). Thus, the home state will decide priority among competing
jurisdictions.When two or more states have continuing, exclusive
jurisdiction under UIFSA to modify anorder, priority goes to the child's
home state. This definition is consistent with the definitionof home state
in the Uniform Child Custody and Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA) and the
ParentalKidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA).
(More Below)
==
I was just asking. That's what folks do when they don't know.
With contradictory information being given I figured I would have to ask
an
attny anyway... but it doesn't hurt to discuss it here and get some
feedback
and opinions, does it? Isn't that what this kind of place is for?
==
Yes. It isn't your fault I have a headache (at least I don't I think it is
:-) but, I don't think you are going to feel comfortable until you get
before the judge and he/she tells you what he will/will not do. If both
states have the same age of majority, that should help. What you have going
for you is that there is apparent cooperation between parents and the son's
age.
==
==

Thanks anyway.

~August

ok here is a twist for you:
how about a child supports in wisconson, not real custody order involved, mother moves to california with out notification to dad or child support and california starts a new\another child support order for the same child who already has an order in wisconsin, both states have been in contact with eachother but are not going to terminate the old order.

how is this possible when they know about eachother?

thanks
marks dad

ok here is a twist for you:
how about a child supports in wisconson, not real custody order involved, mother moves to california with out notification to dad or child support and california starts a new\another child support order for the same child who already has an order in wisconsin, both states have been in contact with eachother but are not going to terminate the old order.

how is this possible when they know about eachother?

thanks
marks dad

"marksdad" wrote in message
lkaboutparenting.com...
ok here is a twist for you:
how about a child supports in wisconson, not real custody order involved,
mother moves to california with out notification to dad or child support and
california starts a new\another child support order for the same child who
already has an order in wisconsin, both states have been in contact with
eachother but are not going to terminate the old order.

how is this possible when they know about eachother?

thanks
marks dad
----------
Have you talked to a lawyer? You should be able to get an initial
consultation with one for free. Are both states demanding child support
payments or did CA just take over WI order?

~AZ~

"marksdad" wrote in message
lkaboutparenting.com...
ok here is a twist for you:
how about a child supports in wisconson, not real custody order involved,
mother moves to california with out notification to dad or child support and
california starts a new\another child support order for the same child who
already has an order in wisconsin, both states have been in contact with
eachother but are not going to terminate the old order.

how is this possible when they know about eachother?

thanks
marks dad
----------
Have you talked to a lawyer? You should be able to get an initial
consultation with one for free. Are both states demanding child support
payments or did CA just take over WI order?

~AZ~

lol yeah i have a layer in wi who is helping. because that is the "jurisdictional" state . what happened is under wi. 948.31 stat a person cannot withhold a child from anyone....ect short version. wi uses this in the child support orders as well as defaulting custody to the mom.(in cases where there is no custody ordes in place) howerver with the above stat you cannot leave,nove, or trasport a child more that 150 miles with out giving notice to several ppl. she did not. she prceeded to make a "secret" move and go on (tnaf) soo they have to go after me for child support lol! she forgot to tell them that she already had a child support order in another state.

lol yeah i have a layer in wi who is helping. because that is the "jurisdictional" state . what happened is under wi. 948.31 stat a person cannot withhold a child from anyone....ect short version. wi uses this in the child support orders as well as defaulting custody to the mom.(in cases where there is no custody ordes in place) howerver with the above stat you cannot leave,nove, or trasport a child more that 150 miles with out giving notice to several ppl. she did not. she prceeded to make a "secret" move and go on (tnaf) soo they have to go after me for child support lol! she forgot to tell them that she already had a child support order in another state.

lol yeah i have a layer in wi who is helping. because that is the "jurisdictional" state . what happened is under wi. 948.31 stat a person cannot withhold a child from anyone....ect short version. wi uses this in the child support orders as well as defaulting custody to the mom.(in cases where there is no custody ordes in place) howerver with the above stat you cannot leave,nove, or trasport a child more that 150 miles with out giving notice to several ppl. she did not. she prceeded to make a "secret" move and go on (tnaf) soo they have to go after me for child support lol! she forgot to tell them that she already had a child support order in another state.

lol yeah i have a layer in wi who is helping. because that is the "jurisdictional" state . what happened is under wi. 948.31 stat a person cannot withhold a child from anyone....ect short version. wi uses this in the child support orders as well as defaulting custody to the mom.(in cases where there is no custody ordes in place) howerver with the above stat you cannot leave,nove, or trasport a child more that 150 miles with out giving notice to several ppl. she did not. she prceeded to make a "secret" move and go on (tnaf) soo they have to go after me for child support lol! she forgot to tell them that she already had a child support order in another state.