Child Support - offbeat question

[jilly]

This is kind of a mobid question and most likely a stupid one.  Amazing the things that cross your mind when you're bored!

State: NC

Two separate CS orders in different counties for two children.  DD is child from previous marriage and son is child from brief relationship with another woman after divorce.  There has never been any contact with son.  Will hear something from BM of son once in a blue moon.  

Have been told that son has a mild form of cerebal palsy and has a shunt in his head for fluid.  Have also been told that he has been to speech therapy and has had other forms of therapy due to developmental delays from cerebal palsy.

I carry medical insurance on son per court order.  Due to pre-existing condition there is a 1 year waiting period before coverage will pay.

Questions:

1.  Have you ever heard of a situation where a child died and CP doesn't notify NCP so they can keep collecting CS?

2. If this should happen with my son, what are the chances of getting the money back from CSE?

3.  Would there also be an action against the BM for fraud?

Thanks for taking the time to answer (hopefully)!!!

[socrateaser]

>Questions:
>
>1.  Have you ever heard of a situation where a child died and
>CP doesn't notify NCP so they can keep collecting CS?

Nope, but I wouldn't discount it as impossible.

>
>2. If this should happen with my son, what are the chances of
>getting the money back from CSE?

It's possible that you could win on grounds of administrative negligence. If you believe that this is a real possibility, then I recommend that you write to CSE and inform them of your concerns (certified mail), so that they cannot later say that if they had some notice of the possibility, they could have investigated.

>3.  Would there also be an action against the BM for fraud?

This is the primary action, because it would be a very clear fraud, and probably a criminal fraud. CSE is a far less likely, though possible, defendant. It could be argued that if you maintained a relationship with the child, then you would have known of his death, and therefore that you were contributorily negligent, which would permit CSE to avoid liability.

The BM could not use that argument, because she would know directly of the child's death and her continuing to take the money with that knowledge is the "scienter" (state of mind) required for a criminal fraud.

[jilly]

Thanks for the response and for not horse laughing me (to my face!) lol