Child Support and Visitation Linkage

[sdbleve]

Hi all,

I saw the following on Soc's board. I started typing a response there, but did not feel it was appropriate to do so, so I started a new thread here.

#12764, "Custody & Visitation"


           Final Decree entered in NC
NCP resides in NC
CP resides in AL

Seperation agreement drawn up by attorney & incorporated as final divorce decree.

I am the "wife". I moved with kids from NC to AL in Sept.

Custody

"The wife shall retain custody and control over the minor children. The parent retaining custody shall be referred to herein as the Custodial Parent. The parent referred to as the Non-Custodial Parent. The Custodial Parent agrees to consult with the Non-Custodial Parent on such matters as major medical treatments and the selection of schools for the children to promote the best interests of the children. The Custodial Parent shall exercise final determination of these matters."


Visitation

"The Non-Custodial Parent shall have the right to visit the children contingent upon him being current on the hereinafter required child support payments at all reasonable times and places. Proper advance arrangements shall be made by the Non-Custodial parent with the respect to the exercise of these visitation rights"

Ex-H has history of anger issues. DSS also investigated him for neglect since older daughter began self mutilating while visiting him. She was in counseling at the time & is still in couseling with major anxiety issues revolving around BD. Civilian DSS recommended anger management & parenting classes, however he's military & they protect their own, so they said the allegations were unfounded.


1. Do I have full sole & legal custody?

2. If I (along with counselor) feel that the visits are going to be detrimental to older daughter's well being, can I prevent visitation?

3. Can I also keep younger daughter (4) from going if older daughter (9) isn't going?

Thanks!

 
Ok, I copied the entire post as I dont want to be accused of leaving anything out. I am looking at the fist bit under Visitation.



So much for the idea that Child Support and Visitation are two seperate issues. According to this, the CP has the right to interfere with the NCP's time with his/her child if their support payments are not not current. I wonder if a judge would ever sign off on a statement that the NCP has a right to stop child support payments if the CP interferes with the NCP's time with his/her children.  HMMMMM!!!!

Maybe some such arrangement would help to reduce the games that some CP's play.

sdbleve

[leon]

legaly, no a judge cannot establish visitation dependant upon the NCP paying support, some have tried and gotten rightfully squashed by the higher courts. Such authority is deemed interference upon the familly unit by the state.

Under youre existing custodial order, being you have the children the majority of the time(even though it is lacking the precise wording) then you would have legal custody, since it goes hand in hand when one party has the children majority of the time over the other.

As far as you or youre docter interfering, no legaly you cannot withold the NCp's time with his/ or her child, this is where the courts come to play, anytime you step outside the ruleing of the court and try to be a judge(rightfully or not) you open youreself to possible suits, and can be held in contempt. For if a judge allows a custodial parent to do it, then they would by right and law have to allow a non-custodial parent do it as well, or you have discrimination and violation of equal protection.

All in all, youre order of visitation sounds like it is going to cause problems down the road.

[MixedBag]

If I remember correctly, she was a NC mother and her children lived in NC.

She was behind in support.

Dad would not send child across country.

Court would not force Dad to send child since Mom was behind in support.

I believe her name on this board is "olanna" -- and you can PM her.

[MixedBag]

>Maybe some such arrangement would help to reduce the games
>that some CP's play.
>

How?

The game CP's play is to with hold the children.

The game NCP's play is to not pay child support.

If the CP is allowed to with hold the child(ren) IF support is not paid in full, HOW would that reduce the games?

The courts have a "free service" for CPs to collect child support.

There are no free services for NCPs to have their time with the children enforced.

That would balance the scales.

If the CP enters the courtroom knowing custody could change after ONE denial of time for the child with the NCP, that would balance the scales.

[leon]

of course the courts offer free services to the Cp, the state makes money off all support orders, especialy the ones where the CP has turned enforcement collection services over to the state, either by being on state assistance, or by asking for services, either way the state makes money off of it, the other part to that is even when services are not be rendered by the state, the court still gets money from the feds under title IV-d of the Social Security Act, Cooperative agreements, section 3.1 agreements between the states and the courts(contract.)

[mistoffolees]

I would suggest going to the Socrateaser board to ask (or consult with an attorney). Several things here look unusual (at best). For example, I don't think they're allowed to link support with visitation, so it's possible that the entire agreement could be thrown out if they appeal.

Don't do this on your own - get legal advice.

[sdbleve]

This was posted more as a rhetorical thing than anything else.  I wanted to point out the linkage between the NCP getting visitation contingent upon his staying current in his child support.  (Note the original post, this was a mom that has custody and a dad that has visitation).

My whole premise was, "How many times have we heard that child support and visitation are two seperate matters!"  The fact that this verbage made it into a settlement surprised me.  If a judge let this slip by, then it shows the above statement is a crock!  The agreement seems to indicate that it is the money that is important (to the CP) not the continuing involvement of a father in his child's lives.  I don't think I have every heard a women say, "I would be willing to give up the child support, if only their father would spend more/quality time with them". Yet, I have known fathers to throw obscene amounts of money at an uncooperative mother to try to get just a little bit more time with their kids.

sdbleve

[mistoffolees]

Don't put too much into the fact that the statement made it into the settlement. That COULD mean that public policy condones tying support to visitation, but it's far more likely to be the case that this judge is a maverick  (or just plain missed it). Soc can undoubtedly give you countless examples of judges doing things that are contrary to public policy or even the law in their jurisdiction.

[leon]

ah but this is where the courts have no authority, that kind of legislative interpretation comes from congress, not the bench, the bench is where they way it against the constitution to see if it will stand, the courts are legislative, nor can they legislate from the bench, they are bound by law, written law, of course to many people cannot seem to grasp that, judges, Administrative or not cannot make law, and there all bound by the Administrative procedures act, where there has to be a statute of authority,and it has to be specific, the U,S Supreme court years ago had a case of simularity,involving movement for cohabitation of time and money, to be tied together, and said even with favoring public policy the likelyhood of it standing was slim, it infringes upon the fundamental rights of the parents, as it should be overturned, and as I have said in the past, if more parents would just go straight to the federal courts there would be even less of this State BS.

[mistoffolees]

The only problem is that the states have jurisdiction in custody and divorce matters.

Furthermore, judges have a huge amount of discretion in custody matters and can quite easily completely ignore the law and say that they're doing it in the best interest of the child.

Is it right? No.

Does it follow the intent of the Constitution? No.

Does it happen? Sure.