Confusion between interstate CS & Alimony enforcement policies

[Pressingham]

After an appallingly punitive divorce verdict, I've been ordered to pay child support (OK, I'm fine with that) but an absolutely absurd permanent Spousal-Maintenance award (can't we just say 'Alimony'?).

When considering the "move away" option, I have absolutely zero intention of dodging support for my son, even in absentia.

But, in trying to find out which states either do or do NOT bother trying to collect for another state's alimony gripe it gets very, very fuzzy.
Most state websites are very clear on their dedication toward  tracking down "deadbeat dad's " for the sake of the children through the federal USFSA sytem.
But they seem to vaguely lump "Child/Spousal Support" into one package.
It's 2 different things!
That is,  unless the court in your state issued a "unitary support" award encompassing both child and spousal support. But even then......

The truth is, no state website posts anything about what they do NOT enforce ,which is understandable... "here's what we do not do" would be senseless.

So far, I've been able to deduce only NV and AR as states that care about the kids only, but not greedy exes. There's gotta be more than those two?
The sites all say... "some states have reciprocal agreements and some don't", but those seem to be a best-kept secret amongst state Attorneys General.
Has anybody else looked into this?

[socrateaser]

>So far, I've been able to deduce only NV and AR as states that
>care about the kids only, but not greedy exes. There's gotta
>be more than those two?

The Uniform Interstate Family Support Act permits the states to collect spousal support as long as there is a child support order in force. Once the child support order terminates, the authority to use the UIFSA to collect spousal support terminates and it's then up to the support obligee to use traditional collection methods (wage garnishment or property execution, via a collection suit in the state where the obligor is present.

Point being is that if you have no property in the state where you are subject to the spousal support order, then even if you are still subject to that court's jurisdiction on the original order, there's no practical way to collect against you, as long as you stay out of the jurisdiction and can't be arrested therein, because the state attorney general won't attempt to extradite a spousal support obligor for contempt of a support order, unless the supported spouse goes on welfare and assigns her right to support to the state -- then the gov will come lookin' for ya.

Whether any two specific states will separately cooperate to obtain spousal support is a very narrow question of those individual states' laws and not one I'm inclined to research, especially since your stated purpose is to violate a valid and enforceable court order, and my assistance would violate the Rules of Professional Conduct as well as potentially create criminal accomplice liability for me.

Your better move is to appeal the spousal support order as an abuse of discretion. Whether it actually is one, is unknown, but in the future, my suggestion is that you shouldn't get married or cohabit in a common law marriage jurisdiction. The law is bankrupt in the area of spousal support and the only way to absolutely avoid it is to not be married.

Good luck.

[Pressingham]

>Whether any two specific states will separately cooperate to
>obtain spousal support is a very narrow question of those
>individual states' laws and not one I'm inclined to research,
>especially since your stated purpose is to violate a valid and
>enforceable court order, and my assistance would violate the
>Rules of Professional Conduct as well as potentially create
>criminal accomplice liability for me.

Thanks for your advice and good wishes, S.
I'm disheartened that we should be afraid to even find out what the rules ARE without being accused of Orwellian "thought crimes".
What we're dealing with here is, as you point out, a matter of which state you're in, in my case Virginia which remains one of the 5 archaic holdout states in reconsidering awards for permanent vs rehabilitative-only spousal awards in the modern era.
Anybody willing to roll up their sleevees and get the skinny state-by-state
needs to take a look at one of the tools available from the horse's mouths:
http://ocse.acf.hhs.gov/ext/irg/sps/selectastate.cfm

"Knowledge over Fear"

-Press

[socrateaser]

>>Whether any two specific states will separately cooperate
>to
>>obtain spousal support is a very narrow question of those
>>individual states' laws and not one I'm inclined to
>research,
>>especially since your stated purpose is to violate a valid
>and
>>enforceable court order, and my assistance would violate the
>>Rules of Professional Conduct as well as potentially create
>>criminal accomplice liability for me.
>
>Thanks for your advice and good wishes, S.
>I'm disheartened that we should be afraid to even find out
>what the rules ARE without being accused of Orwellian "thought
>crimes".
>What we're dealing with here is, as you point out, a matter of
>which state you're in, in my case Virginia which remains one
>of the 5 archaic holdout states in reconsidering awards for
>permanent vs rehabilitative-only spousal awards in the modern
>era.
>Anybody willing to roll up their sleevees and get the skinny
>state-by-state
>needs to take a look at one of the tools available from the
>horse's mouths:
>http://ocse.acf.hhs.gov/ext/irg/sps/selectastate.cfm
>
>"Knowledge over Fear"
>
>-Press

You specifically stated your being unhappy with a permanent alimony award against you, and your desire to discover the law so as to consider whether it would be advisable to move to a different jurisdiction.

The obvious inference to be drawn is that you intend to try to avoid payment of a valid court order for alimony. In some jurisdictions, a spousal support order can be enforced by criminal contempt proceedings. So, if I assist you in avoiding payment, and you are later convicted of a criminal contempt, then I am an accomplice and probably a co-consiprator, because I assisted you in your avoidance, and I agreed to help you.

Furthermore, under the Attorney Rules of Professional Responsibility, aiding a client in the commission of a crime or fraud is punishable by suspension or disbarment, which is not something that I am particularly interested in being subject to. Thus, there is no "Orwellian thought crime" being proposed here -- rather it is a real potential crime or fraud, and one which I will not encourage, assist, aid or abet, or agree to be a party to.

I don't personally think that spousal support is valid any longer, because the original rationale, which is that the man has abandoned his "sacred" duty to support his wife, who, not being a legal person, but one subsumed into her husband, cannot reasonably support herself, is a non sequitur in the modern USA.

I think spousal support is a moral ancronism and should be abandoned. Furthermore, I believe that enforcement of spousal support orders by imprisonment or forced labor should be found violative of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution as an imposition of involuntary servitude, the definition of which the U.S. Supreme Court has stated is: "Causing a person to labor on behalf of another by means of physical force or threat or legal coercion." U.S. v. Kozminski.

But, NONE of what I think is likely to be resolved in a courtroom any time soon. It is simply an area of law that the courts are afraid to touch, for fear of being viewed as biased against women, and that state legislators are equally afraid of, for the same reason.

If anything, the conservative U.S. Congress would be more likely to make spousal support a constitutional mandate than a prohibition.

Thus, there is no political or legal momentum to make any change in this area of law, so the only reasonably available alternative, other than to run to some other nation, is to never get married, OR, if you are married, make certain that it's in the Lone Star State, because only Texas does not impose permanent spousal support as a matter of law (although they do impose temporary spousal support for up to three years, and there's no telling when they might change that law to the disadvantage of those who would seek to avoid spousal support).

Anyway, this is not a political forum, so if you want to argue about the value of spousal support in our society, you'll need to take the argument elsewhere.

Thanks in advance.

[Pressingham]

Since you appear famliar with the unfailingly ethical brotherhood of the viper pit, might you recommend a python of a divorce appeals attorney in the Central, VA area?
Forget politics. Leave that for the lawyers seeking election to office. That's not my fight. An appeal that has a chance is probably the best plan for all concerned. Guys tend to freak when deemed a "bad person" in a court fight over merely achieving a mutual parting of ways. The punishment of staying married beyond 10 years I consider as "time served".

BTW, your words "abuse of discretion" hit the nail on the head. Worth a shot.

:^)

[socrateaser]

>Since you appear famliar with the unfailingly ethical
>brotherhood of the viper pit, might you recommend a python of
>a divorce appeals attorney in the Central, VA area?
>Forget politics. Leave that for the lawyers seeking election
>to office. That's not my fight. An appeal that has a chance is
>probably the best plan for all concerned. Guys tend to freak
>when deemed a "bad person" in a court fight over merely
>achieving a mutual parting of ways. The punishment of staying
>married beyond 10 years I consider as "time served".
>
>BTW, your words "abuse of discretion" hit the nail on the
>head. Worth a shot.

I have no referrals for VA -- sorry.