All parties and order in MT
My husband and I are expecting our 1st child. He has one child who is 5 now. There is a child support order in place and we are going to court in 2 months for a child support review and for more parenting time.
The mother has requested a parenting eval. and has offered to pay for it. The professional she selected is unavailable for sevaral months. We have suggested less qualified individuals instead, she disagrees.
She has offered to waive child support from October until whenever the parenting eval is completed if we will agree to the evaluator she has suggested. We dont object to the evaluator, just the amount of time we'd have to wait before she can get to us.
The mother makes more in a year than my husband and I combined, the child wants for nothing and will not be harmed in any way by this. She says she doesnt even use the child support. Says it all goes in to a college account.
1) Is this legal?
2) Can the attorneys write an agreement to eliminate child support for a few months for the judge to sign off on?
3) If this is allowed, is there a specific term for it?
4) Does this seem strange in your opinion?
>1) Is this legal?
If the court decides that waiving support in order to obtain a later custody eval from a different professional is in the child's best interests, then yes, otherwise no.
>2) Can the attorneys write an agreement to eliminate child
>support for a few months for the judge to sign off on?
Yes, see above.
>3) If this is allowed, is there a specific term for it?
Uniform child support guideline deviation.
>4) Does this seem strange in your opinion?
Very. I would argue that the mother's desire for only this one professional suggests that there is some advantage to be gained from that person's expert opinion which will not be gained by any other expert.
Also, the longer you wait to enforce a custody issue, the less viable your case, because (1) courts generally maintain the status quo, which will be enhanced by your waiting, and (2) it makes you appear to not care about the child's welfare, but care a great deal about saving MONEY -- if you did, you would insist on the most immediate resolution to the case, and not care about saving the child support.
In short, I think your opponent is trying to trick you into beating yourself.
PS. Your post violates the mandatory forum guidelines section #10. Please observe the rules or I can't answer your posts.
Thank you.
The reason x is requesting one specific professional is because we live in a very rural area and this is the only clinical psychologist for aprox. 200 miles any direction. Both lawyers think she is very qualified and very fair, but because she's the only one she's not able to get to us for at least 3 months.
The alternative our attorney has suggested are some court volunteers. They are DFS employees who volunteer in cases like this. They are not counselors or lawyers. X says that if we are going to pay for this eval it needs to be done by the most competant individual possible.
Our problem w/ that is that our attorney thinks she's just stalling for time to collect as much child support as she can before the obligation goes down. Her offer is the opposite of that.
1) Knowing why x wants this professional does this stil sound quirky to you?
>1) Knowing why x wants this professional does this stil sound
>quirky to you?
Not quirky -- conTROOOLING!
Anyway, it doesn't matter whether her motives are genuine or not. What matters is whether the agreement will make you look bad -- and it will. So, my advise is to say, "Sorry, but I am only interested in our child's welfare. So, I will not agree to postpone this evaluation in exchange fore money!"
I see your point, it does seem controlling and will make us look poorly.
Thank you.
I can't afford another $2-3,000 on top of legal fees right now, and x already offered to pay for the evaluator she suggested.
1) If I insist we use another evaluator in the interest of time, even though they may not be as qualified, will x still have to pay for the entire eval?
>I can't afford another $2-3,000 on top of legal fees right
>now, and x already offered to pay for the evaluator she
>suggested.
>
>1) If I insist we use another evaluator in the interest of
>time, even though they may not be as qualified, will x still
>have to pay for the entire eval?
If she fights, then the court will probably split the cost in proportion to your respective incomes.