WA State Child Support Termination---Socrateaser

[Bubbles]

Hi....here are the facts as best I can get them out:

3/2/1988 Order states that my husband pays child support $317 per month until child reaches 18, finishes high school, whiever comes later; should child pursue post-secondary education or vocational training, each parent contributes as appropriate at that time.

Child turned 18 in 8/2001.  Father informed mother that support was ending.  For two years, mother (sole custodial parent) allowed daughter to not attend school between the ages of 15 and 17.  Mother finally got daughter into an alternative program sometimes in 2000 on a regular basis.  We don't know where or anything else about this program.  We are then informed by the daughter that she's going to take a year of vocational training in addition to the high school curriculum because it is free, making high school take even longer.

We are NEVER told anything about "when" high school will be completed.

Last month, my husband is served with state child support agency papers that ex is having them enforce the order and they are going to garnish wages $500 per month.  Take home is $3000 and our house payment is $1445.  We have three minor children.  There is no one in that house other than my husband's daughter.  

We are having a tough time getting a stay of collections and we were told that we need to get a superior court order for clarification of termination of child support.  I'm filling out those motion/order/declaration today and tomorrow.  

Questions:

1.  Any suggested wording and WA law that you might know, that would help us plead our case?  We are looking to terminate support as of 8/2001 because of all the extenuating circumstances.

2.  Can overpayments of child support all the years from 1988 until 2001 be considered toward relief?

3.  Any case law that you are aware of in our state of WA that I could use as precedent/references to in court?

4.  And is there anything else that I'm missing here?


Thanks,
Bubbles

[Bubbles]

Hi....here are the facts as best I can get them out:

3/2/1988 Order states that my husband pays child support $317 per month until child reaches 18, finishes high school, whiever comes later; should child pursue post-secondary education or vocational training, each parent contributes as appropriate at that time.

Child turned 18 in 8/2001.  Father informed mother that support was ending.  For two years, mother (sole custodial parent) allowed daughter to not attend school between the ages of 15 and 17.  Mother finally got daughter into an alternative program sometimes in 2000 on a regular basis.  We don't know where or anything else about this program.  We are then informed by the daughter that she's going to take a year of vocational training in addition to the high school curriculum because it is free, making high school take even longer.

We are NEVER told anything about "when" high school will be completed.

Last month, my husband is served with state child support agency papers that ex is having them enforce the order and they are going to garnish wages $500 per month.  Take home is $3000 and our house payment is $1445.  We have three minor children.  There is no one in that house other than my husband's daughter.  

We are having a tough time getting a stay of collections and we were told that we need to get a superior court order for clarification of termination of child support.  I'm filling out those motion/order/declaration today and tomorrow.  

Questions:

1.  Any suggested wording and WA law that you might know, that would help us plead our case?  We are looking to terminate support as of 8/2001 because of all the extenuating circumstances.

2.  Can overpayments of child support all the years from 1988 until 2001 be considered toward relief?

3.  Any case law that you are aware of in our state of WA that I could use as precedent/references to in court?

4.  And is there anything else that I'm missing here?


Thanks,
Bubbles

[kiddosmom]

Sorry Soc, I spoke to this lady and she needs this answered.

[socrateaser]

You appear to be paraphrasing your court order. I need you to post the EXACT text of the order concerning when support ends.

[Bubbles]

Well, it's darn close.  Here's the paragraph:

The Respondent/husband shall pay for the support and maintenance of the parties' minor child the sum of $317.00 per month until such time as that child reaches the age of eighteen or completes high school, whichever is later, or at such time as the child is sooner emancipated.  In the event that Stacy should pursue post high school education or vocational training, each parent will contribute as appropriate at that time.

[Bubbles]

Thanks, Kiddosmom......I appreciate all good thoughts.  I think that they're helping.  Husband's employer took $500 instead of the bi-weekly amount of $230 yesterday.  The support officer made a one-time arrangement to reimburse us most of the $500 and then assured me that in June (if the daughter REALLY graduates) they would lower the monthly garnishment to like $200.  Looks like they've really been looking at the information on this case.  Now we just need clarification of the termination date.........

[Bubbles]

Actually, i'ts not a clarification of termination of child support but a motion for the clarification of termination date (the ambiguity of 18 with respect to age of majority, emancipation, etc. versus finishing high school).  We are contending that Stacy is emancipated except for "boarding" with her mother because she's hardly ever there, that her mother failed to educate her and it isn't the states contention that a custodial parent force a NCP to pay for a CP's irresponsibility.  He overpaid for years (to well above $10,000) and there just doesn't seem to be "fair" operating here.

The mother drives a very new Camaro and her husband drives an even newer Corvette.  I have a 1988 Honda (clearly on it's deathbed) and my husband drives a 1992 F150.  If support is based on both parent's income, it's clear to me that the mother is making more money than my husband.  We have three minor children, they have none.  We have one income, they have three.  

This woman never even told my husband that their daughter had an abortion and the order specifically says that no medical expenses that are non-emergent should be incurred by her.  I would think that something as serious as abortion should have been discussed and him be given an opportunity to do whatever.

But I digress.


Margaret

[socrateaser]

>1.  Any suggested wording and WA law that you might know, that
>would help us plead our case?  We are looking to terminate
>support as of 8/2001 because of all the extenuating
>circumstances.

There's lots of important facts missing that could impact your circumstances. According to your 2nd post, your original order states:

>The Respondent/husband shall pay for the support and
>maintenance of the parties' minor child the sum of $317.00 per
>month until such time as that child reaches the age of
>eighteen or completes high school, whichever is later, or at
>such time as the child is sooner emancipated.  In the event
>that Stacy should pursue post high school education or
>vocational training, each parent will contribute as
>appropriate at that time.

It is nearly 3 years since the child turned 18, but I can't tell from your post if she has been out of school all that time or whether she ever completed high school or what? However, the order states that support shall terminate "at such time as the child is sooner emancipated," and it may be arguable that a child who has not attended school for several years after his/her 18th birthday, is emancipated. I don't have enough facts. If the child has been employed full time, even at minimum wage, during this time, that might constitute an emancipation, or if she pays her mother rent, or has lived out of the home during the intervening years.

There is probably some WA case law in addition to statutes on when emancipation occurs, but I don't have time to do the research at the moment. If you want to snoop yourself, buy a one month subscription to //www.versuslaw.com and search the WA state appellate court database.

The statement in the order re vocational training is extremely open ended, and if your original order was ordered by the court rather than stipulated (agreed) to by the parents, then the order may be unlawful. Once again, this is a VERY complex situation, and all kinds of facts and law enter into it, not the least of which is that I personally believe that I can make a very credible argument that ALL post secondary "adult" child support violates the 5th Amendment's "public takings clause" of the U.S. Constitution.

There have been a number of constitutional challenges to post-secondary child support in the past -- all but one has failed, however, NONE of them has used a "public takings" argument -- rather they have all been based on "equal protection" arguments, which almost always fail (and frankly, based on the stupid arguments of the attorneys who have previously advanced these arguments, we are now further away from getting rid of this particular communist (yes, communist) baloney, than we ever have been in the past).

If you want to REALLY send the State into a tizzy, and if I ever had time, I could  write a brief on this issue and you could try to challenge the whole system, but, without an attorney, you'll probably be dismissed as trying to practice brain surgery without a license.
>
>2.  Can overpayments of child support all the years from 1988
>until 2001 be considered toward relief?

Nope. The court has no authority to credit overpayments or retroactively modify a support award, prior to the filing date of the motion to modify, which from what I can glean from your facts, you are only now getting around to filing.

>
>3.  Any case law that you are aware of in our state of WA that
>I could use as precedent/references to in court?

//www.versuslaw.com $11.95 per month.

>
>4.  And is there anything else that I'm missing here?

Besides a winning Powerball ticket? Not that I'm aware of...

[socrateaser]

...you're venting. If you do this in court, the judge will get annoyed and you'll lose your ass.

I wrote a lot of comments in my 2nd response to your original post. Your case is extremely complex, both in law and fact. If you want to start over, then give me the exact dates and times to your knowledge of the child's educational/living/work status at various points -- or just post your proposed motion, which better have all of those facts -- I'll review it.

MOST of the facts that you are stating, like the vehicle issue, and how the mom has spent the money, and the differences in your relative lifestyles, is irrelevant, and will annoy the court, because it's the kind of thing that self representing litigants always do, and it wastes the court's time, because none of it states a claim for which relief may be granted -- wish it did, but it don't -- write your state legislative reps and complain that the system sucks. Anyway, try to stay with the singular issue of emancipation and the facts to support it.

I don't really think you have a very good case, regardless. If you had actually filed a motion to terminate support back in 2001, and the court had allowed it, then you would have better chance of fighting this thing now. Of course, maybe you did all this, but I don't see it in your facts.

[Bubbles]

>It is nearly 3 years since the child turned 18, but I can't
>tell from your post if she has been out of school all that
>time or whether she ever completed high school or what?
>However, the order states that support shall terminate "at
>such time as the child is sooner emancipated," and it may be
>arguable that a child who has not attended school for several
>years after his/her 18th birthday, is emancipated. I don't
>have enough facts. If the child has been employed full time,
>even at minimum wage, during this time, that might constitute
>an emancipation, or if she pays her mother rent, or has lived
>out of the home during the intervening years.
>
          She has been in school but she "restarted high school" after she turned 18 (I'm pretty sure).  She's been in it ever since but no word since April 2000 from the mother regarding any of this.  When dad would ask the daughter about when she would finish, it was always screaming and yelling, "I don't know" "stop pressuring me", etc.  Then we're told about the insertion of the beauty school which took time away from finishing high school.  I just don't believe that WA provides for this manipulation of court orders for the financial benefit of the custodial parent.


>The statement in the order re vocational training is extremely
>open ended, and if your original order was ordered by the
>court rather than stipulated (agreed) to by the parents, then
>the order may be unlawful. Once again, this is a VERY complex
>situation, and all kinds of facts and law enter into it, not
>the least of which is that I personally believe that I can
>make a very credible argument that ALL post secondary "adult"
>child support violates the 5th Amendment's "public takings
>clause" of the U.S. Constitution.
>

          Interesting to say the least.  Frankly, while the wording of this support order is "black and white" it's very vague.  I've never heard of public takings and I will look at this, as I'm researching the rest.  I did find a "free" website with appellate/supreme court findings in WA State.  I'll post that URL at another time.  It just shows too much old stuff.....nothing really recent as I find at this moment.  


>There have been a number of constitutional challenges to
>post-secondary child support in the past -- all but one has
>failed, however, NONE of them has used a "public takings"
>argument -- rather they have all been based on "equal
>protection" arguments, which almost always fail (and frankly,
>based on the stupid arguments of the attorneys who have
>previously advanced these arguments, we are now further away
>from getting rid of this particular communist (yes, communist)
>baloney, than we ever have been in the past).
>
>If you want to REALLY send the State into a tizzy, and if I
>ever had time, I could  write a brief on this issue and you
>could try to challenge the whole system, but, without an
>attorney, you'll probably be dismissed as trying to practice
>brain surgery without a license.
         
          I fully intend to pursue working for new legislation with regard to this open-ended wording in support orders.  This just isn't right or fair.  I'd be interested to see what you would write.  I've already contact several organizations and a legislator to find out how to go about this.  


>Besides a winning Powerball ticket? Not that I'm aware of...

          From your lips to the ears of the higher power.........

We're just concerned that while Stacy is under the assumption that she graduates in June, that it won't really happen and we'll still be paying current support until after she's 21.

Thanks,
Bubbles