The hearing that wasn't...or was it?

[janM]

My son's exgf gave him temp custody in 01, and permanent in 02. At the time there was no child support ordered as per their agreement. Child will be 7 in December.

Since she never helped out as promised, my son filed for CS in Jan. 03. She was ordered to attend a work program in May.
They brought her back to court in March of 04 and was ordered to start paying within a month or spend a month in jail. Two weeks later they ordered her back to the work program. She showed up there on the last day of the deadline.

The first payment was garnished from her wages in early April of this year. Four small payments were made in April. She then quit working when she spent 2 weeks in a psych ward. This summer was one ailment after another (par for the course).

They finally called for a hearing late last month to see if she was able to work. My son was invited. He showed up with his gf, and me and a friend. In the hall the assistant prosecutor met with him and told him that mom had called in saying she had no vehicle to get there. We told her she could have had one.

She told my son that mom was now working (she started that week) and they were going to garnish her wages, and that if he stopped getting payments, to let them know and they'd file contempt.

She asked my son if he wanted to address the court, but he was so ticked that mom was not going to even get her wrist slapped, he said no.
And we all left.

Today he got the Findings and Decision of Magistrate (we're in Ohio). It reads:

Present before the Magistrate were (son); and XXX, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney for XX County CSEA. (Mom) was present by telephone.

It lists findings, which are that mom is employed at XXX, and she will pay CS through a wage withholding order.

Decision is that she is ordered to maintain employment and pay CS etc. and that court costs are waived. We are obviously happy with the decision (if she follows the orders).

They never even saw the magistrate. Son was not witness to the phone call. PA had not even verified mom's employment.

1. Is this standard procedure when the parties come to an agreement in the hall?

2. Is this anything worth objecting to, even if the orders are acceptable?

[socrateaser]

>1. Is this standard procedure when the parties come to an
>agreement in the hall?

Pretty much. Kind of an "If a tree falls in the forest," kind of deal.

>
>2. Is this anything worth objecting to, even if the orders are
>acceptable?

LOL! You want to object to getting what you wanted, just because of improper form? Don't be silly. The other party didn't appear and defend, and the DA did. You won by default. Game over.