If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Looking for accountability? ...
http://www.childsupportguidelines.co...art200004.html
....there's a SLIM chance you could get it if you live in the right state. Oregon and Kansas sound pretty good. -------------- "Nonetheless, eleven states have statutes that allow the court to demand an accounting from the custodial parent of how child support is spent. COLO. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 14-10-115(3)(b)(III) (1999); DEL. Code Ann. tit. 13, § 518 (1994); FLA. Stat. Ann. §61.13(a)(1) (Supp. 2000); IND. Code Ann. § 31-16-9-6 (1997); KAN. Stat. Ann. § 60-1616(f) (1995); LA. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 9:312 (Supp. 1999); MO. Rev. Stat. § 452.342 (1997); NEB. Rev. Stat. § 42-364(6) (1999); OKLA. Stat. tit. 43, § 118(B)(21) (Supp. 1999); OR. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(1)(c) (Supp. 1998); WASH. Rev. Code Ann. § 26.23.050(2)(a)(ii) (Supp. 1999). Alabama also authorized an accounting under the specific facts of the case, McDuffie v. Holland, 690 So. 2d 386 (Ala. Civ. App. 1996), and New York has hinted that such an action may lie, although current practice indicates otherwise." ----------------- "The Oregon statute, Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(1)(c) (Supp. 1998), also provides that the court may, at any time, require an accounting from the custodial parent with reference to the use of the money received as child support. There is no required showing of necessity or good cause." ---------------- "The Kansas statute, Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-1616(f) (1995), is an accounting statute with a difference. Instead of making the custodial parent account for child support, the court can change custody if it finds that child support is not being spent for the benefit of the child: 'Repeated child support misuse may be considered a material change of circumstances which justifies modification of a prior order of child custody.' Thus, although this statute on its face states grounds for modification of custody, it is, in fact, an accounting statute: the custodial parent may lose custody for failing to adequately account for child support." ------------------- AS for the states that outright reject the concept, here's the main reasons: ------------------------------------- "Those states that have refused the noncustodial parent the right to an accounting did so for three reasons: (1) only the child, as beneficiary of the fiduciary duty of the custodial parent, may request an accounting; (2) requests for an accounting would place an undue burden on the courts; (3) requests for an accounting would place an undue burden on the custodial parent, effectively interfering with his or her right to make day-to-day decisions concerning the child. The last reason is wise public policy and should be adopted by all courts. Custodial parents must be given the latitude to decide how child support will be spent: what clothes to buy, what camps to attend, what entertainment is appropriate and enriching. Allowing a noncustodial parent to demand an accounting effectively gives the noncustodial parent veto power over those decisions. It also imposes on the custodial parent tremendous record-keeping obligations that no one could meet. For example, part of the child support obligation is for transportation. Does the custodial parent have to keep track of gas and car maintenance? Part of the child support obligation is for housing. Does the custodial parent have to break down what part of the mortgage is for the child? Does that also apply to utilities?" --------------- I'll buy #1. It's insane to think a child would actually ask for that to be done or to think he should be involved like that all, but in strictly legal terms, it seems to pass muster. #2 is ridiculous and a real slap in the face. The court is not worried about undue burden when it comes to hounding the ncps and hauling them in front of a judge for every minor infraction. #3 just plain ticks me off. They can make the ncp account for his earnings and expenses and even make him prove earnings he DOESN'T have in order to prevent unfair imputation. What really gets me is that if it is so difficult to figure out what portion of rent, etc, should be attributed as being spent on the child, then how in the heck do they arrive at the figures set in the state guidelines? As far as interfering with the custodial parents decision making authority - God forbid they throw a little bone to the ncp that might give him a little say in things! |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Looking for accountability? ...
"Her Bank" wrote in message m... http://www.childsupportguidelines.co...art200004.html ...there's a SLIM chance you could get it if you live in the right state. Oregon and Kansas sound pretty good. -------------- "Nonetheless, eleven states have statutes that allow the court to demand an accounting from the custodial parent of how child support is spent. COLO. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 14-10-115(3)(b)(III) (1999); DEL. Code Ann. tit. 13, § 518 (1994); FLA. Stat. Ann. §61.13(a)(1) (Supp. 2000); IND. Code Ann. § 31-16-9-6 (1997); KAN. Stat. Ann. § 60-1616(f) (1995); LA. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 9:312 (Supp. 1999); MO. Rev. Stat. § 452.342 (1997); NEB. Rev. Stat. § 42-364(6) (1999); OKLA. Stat. tit. 43, § 118(B)(21) (Supp. 1999); OR. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(1)(c) (Supp. 1998); WASH. Rev. Code Ann. § 26.23.050(2)(a)(ii) (Supp. 1999). Alabama also authorized an accounting under the specific facts of the case, McDuffie v. Holland, 690 So. 2d 386 (Ala. Civ. App. 1996), and New York has hinted that such an action may lie, although current practice indicates otherwise." ----------------- "The Oregon statute, Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(1)(c) (Supp. 1998), also provides that the court may, at any time, require an accounting from the custodial parent with reference to the use of the money received as child support. There is no required showing of necessity or good cause." ---------------- "The Kansas statute, Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-1616(f) (1995), is an accounting statute with a difference. Instead of making the custodial parent account for child support, the court can change custody if it finds that child support is not being spent for the benefit of the child: 'Repeated child support misuse may be considered a material change of circumstances which justifies modification of a prior order of child custody.' Thus, although this statute on its face states grounds for modification of custody, it is, in fact, an accounting statute: the custodial parent may lose custody for failing to adequately account for child support." ------------------- AS for the states that outright reject the concept, here's the main reasons: ------------------------------------- "Those states that have refused the noncustodial parent the right to an accounting did so for three reasons: (1) only the child, as beneficiary of the fiduciary duty of the custodial parent, may request an accounting; (2) requests for an accounting would place an undue burden on the courts; (3) requests for an accounting would place an undue burden on the custodial parent, effectively interfering with his or her right to make day-to-day decisions concerning the child. The last reason is wise public policy and should be adopted by all courts. Custodial parents must be given the latitude to decide how child support will be spent: what clothes to buy, what camps to attend, what entertainment is appropriate and enriching. Allowing a noncustodial parent to demand an accounting effectively gives the noncustodial parent veto power over those decisions. It also imposes on the custodial parent tremendous record-keeping obligations that no one could meet. For example, part of the child support obligation is for transportation. Does the custodial parent have to keep track of gas and car maintenance? Part of the child support obligation is for housing. Does the custodial parent have to break down what part of the mortgage is for the child? Does that also apply to utilities?" --------------- I'll buy #1. It's insane to think a child would actually ask for that to be done or to think he should be involved like that all, but in strictly legal terms, it seems to pass muster. #2 is ridiculous and a real slap in the face. The court is not worried about undue burden when it comes to hounding the ncps and hauling them in front of a judge for every minor infraction. #3 just plain ticks me off. They can make the ncp account for his earnings and expenses and even make him prove earnings he DOESN'T have in order to prevent unfair imputation. What really gets me is that if it is so difficult to figure out what portion of rent, etc, should be attributed as being spent on the child, then how in the heck do they arrive at the figures set in the state guidelines? As far as interfering with the custodial parents decision making authority - God forbid they throw a little bone to the ncp that might give him a little say in things! == Virtually all the statutes are worded in a way that gives discretion to the judge. I have yet to find a case where the judge has demanded an accounting (except in very high income cases) let alone where a custody change has occurred due to "misuse" of child support. I encourage anyone to cite one here. Note that Florida has such a statute, but in our case, when the support was clearly misused as evidenced by the CP's own financial affidavit, the judge didn't give it a glancing thought. He simply didn't care. These statutes are what is known as "feel good" policy, or "pretend remedy." Legislatures know it--judges know it--CSE knows it and, unfortunately, NCPs know it. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Looking for accountability? ...
"Her Bank" wrote in message m... http://www.childsupportguidelines.co...art200004.html ...there's a SLIM chance you could get it if you live in the right state. Oregon and Kansas sound pretty good. -------------- "Nonetheless, eleven states have statutes that allow the court to demand an accounting from the custodial parent of how child support is spent. COLO. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 14-10-115(3)(b)(III) (1999); DEL. Code Ann. tit. 13, § 518 (1994); FLA. Stat. Ann. §61.13(a)(1) (Supp. 2000); IND. Code Ann. § 31-16-9-6 (1997); KAN. Stat. Ann. § 60-1616(f) (1995); LA. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 9:312 (Supp. 1999); MO. Rev. Stat. § 452.342 (1997); NEB. Rev. Stat. § 42-364(6) (1999); OKLA. Stat. tit. 43, § 118(B)(21) (Supp. 1999); OR. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(1)(c) (Supp. 1998); WASH. Rev. Code Ann. § 26.23.050(2)(a)(ii) (Supp. 1999). Alabama also authorized an accounting under the specific facts of the case, McDuffie v. Holland, 690 So. 2d 386 (Ala. Civ. App. 1996), and New York has hinted that such an action may lie, although current practice indicates otherwise." ----------------- "The Oregon statute, Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(1)(c) (Supp. 1998), also provides that the court may, at any time, require an accounting from the custodial parent with reference to the use of the money received as child support. There is no required showing of necessity or good cause." ---------------- I have some experience trying to use this Oregon law. My first experience had the CP stating she did not realize she had to account for CS received and she had no receipts or records. The result was she was told by her attorney the law required her to keep CS expenditure records to comply with this provision. Even after her attorney told her about this law in my presence, she told me what she spent was none of my business. In my second experience I went so far as get her checkbook records through discovery and do an analysis of what she actually spent over a two year period versus what she claimed she spent on her Uniform Support Affidavit. Believe me, there were major discrepancies between the claimed expenses and the actual expenditures. The upshot was the judge asked me if I was a CPA who could testify as an expert witness about her finances. When I responded I was not a CPA, the judge ruled she would not consider my input. There is a flaw in the law as it is written. It only requires an accounting of "money received." The CP's allocation of the total CS ordered under income shares model calculations is ignored. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|