money as motive in family court?

[antonin]

In criminal court money is used as a motive for crime consistently. The most recent example that comes to mind is the woman who stabbed her husband 193 times. The prosecutors argued successfully that her motive was her husband's 200,000.00 insurance policy.

In my case, my ex is a woman who is 37 years old and has made less than 20,000.00 in her life. She does not even have enough social security quarters to qualify for benefits. When this thing is over, I will have paid her close to 500,000.
That's not counting the 10 years I supported her without her working.

I am not excessively wealthy. I make about 90,000.00 a year and she gets about half at present. When I was with the FOC evaluator, I mentioned the fact about her lifetime income to him. I wanted him to consider the possibility that her motive was money.

 He did not take it that way: in his report he interpreted it to mean I was indicating she did not have the resources to take care of our daughter. I was  not direct with him.

I have no doubt that in my case her false allegations of domestic violence were motivated by the desire for money and advice from her feminist attorney. Since she has got her bucks, there has not been a peep out of her about DV or any adverse actions on my part towards our daughter. I have never been arrested or accused of any crime and have been a college teacher for 30 years, with an impeccable record
of achievement and no student complaints.

I fully expect her to make false allegations again in Jan. 06 when her alimony ends and the 3-year CS lock-in expires. At that time I will apply for a reduction of CS as per guidelines based on 50-50 custody as per decree. She will be destitute without my money.

1. Have you every heard of a family law attorney successfully DIRECTLY arguing that a mother's motivation for false abuse claims is motivated by money?

2. Since I believe that she will make false allegations in 06, how can I successfully document my fears and use them as a defense?

[joni]

Great theory.  Never thought of it that way.  Something to add as a secondary charge...when was perjury every prosecuted in family court?  I would say probably NEVER.

You live in the same "state" of paranoia that I do with my husband.  I wait every day for his Ex to pull some new trick out of her a$$.  Nothing is beyond this woman.

This might be your guy as far as a new attorney.  Your post made me think of him:

Child Support Collection Leads Divorced Fathers to Sue the State of Michigan
Dateline: 01/26/2000
about.law.com

DISCUSS THIS ISSUE
An attorney and his law firm in Michigan report filing a class action suit on behalf of himself and more than 2,000,000 Michigan divorced fathers, against the State of Michigan, it's seven largest counties, and their Friend of the Court agencies over alleged illegal collection practices relating to child support.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One interesting aspect of this suit is the claim that the state should be using its resources to enforce "parenting-time" orders, as well as child support.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
The Complaint claims violations of fathers' constitutional rights when attempting to collect child support. It states that these agencies have illegally seized and sold property, illegally suspended licenses, illegally appointed receivers and refused to enforce father's parenting time and visitation rights, keeping Fathers from seeing their children.

This case, filed in Michigan's Ingham County Circuit Court, claims that these practices and procedures, under the authority of the State of Michigan, are allegedly designed and approved by the Michigan Friend of the Court Bureau. The case claims these abuses extend throughout Michigan's largest counties, including Oakland, Macomb, Monroe, Livingston, Washtenaw, and Genesee.

The suit seeks a Judgment declaring these practices unconstitutional, ordering all illegally seized property and fees returned, dissolving all illegal receiverships, and enforcing fathers' parenting-time rights.

"These courts have literally ignored fathers' legal rights by denying them notice, hearings, and, simply refusing to enforce their own orders and the very laws they are sworn to uphold," said Michael E. Tindall of TROMBLY TINDALL P.C., attorneys for the plaintiff fathers. "These illegal acts by our largest state Circuit Courts are the direct result of fiscal pressure from the federal government to artificially inflate collection statistics, thus preventing loss of federal funding and federal revenue sharing."

Tindall, himself a divorced father and a plaintiff in the case, successfully sued Wayne County Circuit Court, Wayne County Friend of Court, and the Wayne County Sheriff in federal court last year for issuing illegal Show Cause Orders and Bench Warrants that violated federal constitutional due process rights.

"This case will change the way support and parenting time orders are enforced in Michigan courts. The civil rights of all Michigan parents must been forced fairly and equally for the sake of our children and our families," said Murray Davis, Executive Director of DADS of Michigan.

Also named as defendants are a collection attorney known as the "Garbage Man" and his law firm, who is alleged to have received the largest number of receiver appointments and was paid the largest amount of fees from these courts for seizing property.

One interesting aspect of this suit is the claim that the state should be using its resources to enforce "parenting-time" orders, as well as child support.

Under federal mandates, states typically provide child support collection services for free to the primary residential parent, even if the state has no direct financial interest such as recoupment for assistance payments. State agencies have collection powers independent of courts, and states attorneys will pursue collection cases at public expense when necessary. Yet, a parent who needs to enforce a visitation order or parenting plan must pursue his own case in court, often at considerable expense that cannot be recovered.

In fact, in my experience, state agencies encourage a culture of treating support payors as second-class citizens, referring to them in their daily lingo as "absent parents," as if every non-custodial parent had abandoned their children on purpose.

The question of why the government has such an interest in child support collection, yet no significant interest in supporting the other half of the parenting equation, deserves to be widely addressed.

[antonin]

Yes...I came across this a couple years ago. I do not know what became of it. I think the guy who filed the suit was a member of DADS of Michigan.