Paystub exchange

[forthekids24]

Santa Clara County

Ex and I have a court ordered stipulation which states that each party shall exchange current pay stubs by the 5th of each month.

Ex has been employed since April, and is refusing to provide pay stubs.  She is claiming she has not received one, but then will reference a pay stub in a different conversation.  The children told me that she cashes her paycheks.

Questions:

1) In an effort to avoid incurring any additional legal fees for me, can I contact the employer and provide a copy of the court ordered stipulation and ask for the copies?

2) Would this possibly be considered harassment if I contact her employer?

Thanks!
FTK

[socrateaser]

>Questions:
>
>1) In an effort to avoid incurring any additional legal fees
>for me, can I contact the employer and provide a copy of the
>court ordered stipulation and ask for the copies?

There are two specific forms available in CA that you need to use: FL-396 must be served on the other party first, and then FL-397 may be served on the employer, 35 days later if no or incomplete response from the other party.

You may still need to file for contempt, even after all this, so personally, I'd just demand the paystub with in 5 days, or file for contempt.

>2) Would this possibly be considered harassment if I contact
>her employer?

No, it's legal, if you do it as I explain above.

[forthekids24]

Thanks!

One follow up question on the form FL-397.  

At the bottom of it the form it says:

"6. Under Family Code section 3664(f), your compliance with this request is voluntary expect upon order of the court or upon agreement of the parties, employers, and employee affected"

1) If and when I need to serve this form on her employer should I include a copy of the stipulation that she has agreed to provide copies of her pay stubs to me?

2) Would that filed stipulation take care of the "voluntary" part of the request?

You rock!
FTK

PS- Still have not seen anything on that big announcement of yours you hinted at years ago ;)

[socrateaser]

>Thanks!
>
>One follow up question on the form FL-397.  
>
>At the bottom of it the form it says:
>
>"6. Under Family Code section 3664(f), your compliance with
>this request is voluntary expect upon order of the court or
>upon agreement of the parties, employers, and employee
>affected"
>
>1) If and when I need to serve this form on her employer
>should I include a copy of the stipulation that she has agreed
>to provide copies of her pay stubs to me?

No.

>
>2) Would that filed stipulation take care of the "voluntary"
>part of the request?

No. This process was designed for a parent to obtain discovery without litigation expense. Typically, the law was created to make its enforcement require litigation, because to do otherwise is to cut lawyers out of the deal, and let's face it, lawyer's have a monopoly in the law making and enforcing biz.

So, the real usefulness of this process is limited to setting up sufficient evidence against other party for a contempt action.

Everything that is in the process can be achieved by a lawyer with a subpoena. In your situation, you already have a stipulated order to exchange information. So, if the other parent is not playing by the existing rules, why would any of these documents improve things? Answer: they probably won't.

My advice is to demand the documents per the existing order and if you are ignored, file a contempt motion.

[williaer]

May I ask why you have to exchange paystubs? That seem like a little bit of a violation of privacyon both sides. I certainly wouldn't want to have to give my ex my paystubs, nor would I want hers, that's practically like staying married. Just curious.

[socrateaser]

>May I ask why you have to exchange paystubs? That seem like a
>little bit of a violation of privacyon both sides. I certainly
>wouldn't want to have to give my ex my paystubs, nor would I
>want hers, that's practically like staying married. Just
>curious.

Please do not interrogate posters regarding their moral compass. It causes them to be less candid about their legal circumstances, which makes it more difficult for me to provide assistance.

Under CA law, parties to a child support order are legally entitled to a copy of each other's tax return, most recent two months pay stubs, and a filled-in CA Judicial Council Income and Expense Declaration, containing a large amount of financially related information, once every rolling 12 month period. Disclosure is mandatory on request.

So, while this is most certainly an invasion of the financial privacy of each party, it's completely legal.

If you want to complain about the morality of the situation, then you should contact your State legislative representatives, and let them know that if they don't change the law, you will vote against them. That is the only way to get attention for this issue, if you believe that it's a moral wrong.

[williaer]

I'm sorry- the tone of my e-mail came across wrong. I felt for the post-er. It just seemed like another of the unnecissary budens that the family court puts on CP's and NCP's....that's all I meant.

[socrateaser]

>I'm sorry- the tone of my e-mail came across wrong. I felt
>for the post-er. It just seemed like another of the
>unnecissary budens that the family court puts on CP's and
>NCP's....that's all I meant.

I understand. But, there are lots of parents out there who are barely scraping by raising their children, and they have no good means of determing if the other parent could legally contribute more to support.

There are also lots of custodial parents who are doing splendidly, but who will stop at nothing to extract every last ounce of pain from the other parent, just to show who's boss.

Regardless, I can't know who comes to this board for help, and so I need to keep the rhetoric about those things that we cannot control via the courts at a minimum, because I don't want to scare off anyone who, but for the rhetoric, would have asked for help and received it.

Anyways, enough on dis topic.