OY vey--worth retaining attorney again?

[speciallady]

Summary-
CA controls order, BF in Nevada, BM and children in Oregon.
Children (twins) will be 18 in March, graduating, ending current support order in June.
Last court hearing was in December in Nevada and nothing was changed to order.
However, Nevada has sent BF's employer notice to enroll children in insurance.
This was already attempted previously and CA sent employer notice that THEY are not requesting this and to discontinue enrollment. It was.
(CA determined NV insurance is very costly and stopped enrollment--not before getting a couple of payments, though.)

Questions-
1) How can this be handled? Am I understanding this correctly that CA still controls the order (they do) so NV has no authority to order this?
2) Is this something an attorney should be handling (the current order is ending soon, realistically, by the time insurance goes into effect, there will be no legal bounds to provide this...) or can BF just make some calls (again) to let NV CSE know CA still controls the order and insurance has NOT been ordered by them?
3) Isnt the time factor here important? Like the fact they will be legal adults soon, graduating soon, therefore, enrollment will be pointless?

thanks

[socrateaser]

>Questions-
>1) How can this be handled? Am I understanding this correctly
>that CA still controls the order (they do) so NV has no
>authority to order this?

If no parent or child lives in CA, then CA has lost jurisdiction by operation of law for the purposes of ordering support (but not for the calculation), and Nevada now has jurisdiction over the payor parent. NV must calculate support according to CA guidelines and stop support when CA law would terminate, but the NV court has personal jurisdiction over the payor parent. If you were to get an order from CA, you could specially challenge it as lacking personal jurisdiction under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, UNLESS, CA DCSS is a party to the case because the custodial parent assigned her right to support in return for public assistance. Then CA could maintain jurisdiction, because the State of California would still be a party in the case.

But, otherwise, CA is out, and NV is in. ORegon will just help pay the money.

>2) Is this something an attorney should be handling (the
>current order is ending soon, realistically, by the time
>insurance goes into effect, there will be no legal bounds to
>provide this...) or can BF just make some calls (again) to let
>NV CSE know CA still controls the order and insurance has NOT
>been ordered by them?

Like I said, CA doesn't control, but CA law does, and under CA law, both parents must carry insurance if it is available at reasonable or no cost through the parent's employer. Otherwise, CA law would mandate that each parent pay any reasonable healthcare costs either 50/50 or in proportion to the total net disposable income of both parents.

>3) Isnt the time factor here important? Like the fact they
>will be legal adults soon, graduating soon, therefore,
>enrollment will be pointless?

Nope. It ain't over until it's over. Suppose one of the kids gets hit by a truck tomorrow and can't graduate high school. Support would continue until the child was 19 under CA law, and you would still be on the hook. And, if the child were still not able to support him/herself after that because of a physical disability, you could be on the hook for child support F O R E V E R !

Bet you didn't know that, huh?

One important factor. Under CA law, support ends by operation of law, i.e., if the child is healthy and 18 and graduated HS, then on that day, your obligation for support terminates.

A motion to terminate the wage assignment will still need to be filed and an order terminating support must issue, however at that instant, you're no longer subject to the support order, so if the kid got hit by the truck on graduation day + 1, and you didn't live in OR, then OR couldn't force you to pay adult child support for an adult child who was not in Oregon due to any affirmative act on your part.

[speciallady]

yep-I did know about if the child becomes disabled (have a disabled brother myself~)...and support going on....

CA is still a party to the case-welfare arrears.

question though (and this was asked of the attorney in December)--
1) terminating support? where? NV? CA?
(atty said contacting NV CSE at graduation via a phone call should do it?)

*I believe it was back in November, NV cse did this exact same thing--sent employer notice to enroll children in insurance program. CA stepped in and stopped the order since THEY did not order it. And are not now.*

[socrateaser]

>yep-I did know about if the child becomes disabled (have a
>disabled brother myself~)...and support going on....
>
>CA is still a party to the case-welfare arrears.
>
>question though (and this was asked of the attorney in
>December)--
>1) terminating support? where? NV? CA?
>(atty said contacting NV CSE at graduation via a phone call
>should do it?)
>
>*I believe it was back in November, NV cse did this exact same
>thing--sent employer notice to enroll children in insurance
>program. CA stepped in and stopped the order since THEY did
>not order it. And are not now.*

If CA still controls, then you must pay for insurance if reasonably available, assuming that this was provided for in your original orders. However, NV can enforce the CA order, even if CA won't. But, NV can't modify the CA order. So, the question is what is NV doing -- changing the original order or just enforcing its terms. If it's enforcing then it's legal, otherwise not.

[speciallady]

Have a wonderful day and thanks again :)

[speciallady]

CA let NV know THEY are not ordering insurance (again), so NV can't request it or order it. All done.