Certified Mail?

[rltfox]

Dear Soc,

CP has a history of refusing to sign for certified letters. We have a dozen letters saved that have been returned by USPS.

Currently we send letters certified with return receipt requested & another copy via 1st class mail. This way even if CP doesn't sign for the certified letter she will receive one via regular mail.


Q 1. Does sending letters this way show adequate evidence of providing notice in court?

Q 2. Would sending letter via priority mail with delivery confirmation better prove that notice was given?

Q 3. Are all the letters that CP hasn't accepted admissible in court?

Q 4. Can CP claim she doesn't have to sign since for certified since she also gets a copy via 1st class mail?

Thank you.

[socrateaser]

>Q 1. Does sending letters this way show adequate evidence of
>providing notice in court?

The other party has a duty to keep you and the court informed as to his/her contact information as long as there is an ongoing support order. So, the habitual refusal of certified mail would be evidence of "inquiry notice," i.e., information or belief upon which a reasonable person would inquire/investigate into the circumstances affecting his/her rights.

>Q 2. Would sending letter via priority mail with delivery
>confirmation better prove that notice was given?

Probably not.

>Q 3. Are all the letters that CP hasn't accepted admissible in
>court?

Yes -- keep them sealed -- otherwise your opponent can argue that you changed them after they were returned to you.

>
>Q 4. Can CP claim she doesn't have to sign since for certified
>since she also gets a copy via 1st class mail?

If she were to so claim, she would be admitting to having received notice, so this would only work to your advantage.

[Sunshine1]

NCP refuses all contact with me and hasn't seen the children in a year.  He refuses all restricted certified mail from me.  The last one I sent him was an inquiry of medical insurance coverage and cards from both providers.  It stated if he didn't get back to me that I would be forced to bring a show cause motion to produce these cards.

1. What will the refusal of these letters do if I bring a show cause motion?

2.  Is it a contempt motion if he doesn't comply or would I draw a show cause still becasue he has no notice because her refused the letters?

3. does this make sense?  If not I will explain a little further, if you need me to.

[socrateaser]

>NCP refuses all contact with me and hasn't seen the children
>in a year.  He refuses all restricted certified mail from me.
>The last one I sent him was an inquiry of medical insurance
>coverage and cards from both providers.  It stated if he
>didn't get back to me that I would be forced to bring a show
>cause motion to produce these cards.
>
>1. What will the refusal of these letters do if I bring a show
>cause motion?

It's proof of constructive notice. If the other parent has failed to do act in accordance with the court orders by willfully ignoring your letters, that would be sufficient to impute knowledge of the letters' contents. A person cannot shield his/her eyes from facts that would be obvious to an ordinary person of reasonable intelligence.

There is a Supreme Court case on point, although the name escapes me. Basically, someone drove a car across the MX-US border in exchange for $10K. They were stopped and the car was searched revealing a large stash of drugs. The defendant claimed he didn't know the car had drugs hidden. The court said that when someone pays you an unreasonably large sum of money to do a trivial thing, you can't simply say that you don't know that what you're doing isn't highly risky or even illegal, because otherwise you wouldn't be getting paid for taking the risk.

So, with your letters, the other parent cannot say that by his rejecting a pile of certified letters from you, that he didn't know that you had some important knowledge to convey, because otherwise why would you have gone to the extra expense to mail certified. Thus, he will be imputed with the knowledge of the contents of the letters, just as if he actually received and read them.

>
>2.  Is it a contempt motion if he doesn't comply or would I
>draw a show cause still becasue he has no notice because her
>refused the letters?

Let's clear this issue up. There are two types of motions: 1) a regular motion, which is served on the other party or attorney first, and then filed with the court. This motion is used after a person has already had notice of a pending legal action and they have appeared in the case, because the threshold of notice required is lower as the party knows that legal process is likely and that person has notified the court of his/her contact info or attorney;

2) an motion for an order to appear and show cause (alternatively called a "show cause," or an OSC, depending on jurisdiction. This motion is used when either the instant matter before the court has a serious implication on the other party's due process rights, like an immediately deprivation of property or liberty, or when the case has been made final by a final judgment or order, and it becomes necessary to revive the case for some significant new proceeding.

So, a show cause for contempt is merely the use of a show cause to give the other party personal knowledge that they may be subjected to a criminal sentence if they don't come to court and explain why they're messin' with the judge's orders.

Generally a show cause or a petition is used for a contempt action, because it needs to be personally served on the other party and the court wants the party to know that they are ordered to appear -- because if they don't, then they will be brought in by force in handcuffs.

Regular motions are most often used to argue points of law, and declaratory relief, like the validity of a particular statute as applied to a party, or a temporary modification where the parties are already awaiting trial.

Which form of legal process you use, is completely based on your state's code of civil procedure and court rules. Ex: in CA, an OSC for contempt is used; in OR, a petition for contempt is used. It's all the same thing in different clothes.

>3. does this make sense?  If not I will explain a little
>further, if you need me to.

No, but now that I've explained it, it should make sense to you.