Wording in Court Order

[overit]

The original CO reads, "The non-custodial parent will pay 100% of the daycare expenses, directly to the daycare provider, not to exceed $400 per month.  In addition, the non-custodial parent shall provide support in the amount of $XXX to the custodial parent.  This is to be paid on or before the 1st of every month."

The Findings of Fact in the later contempt case read, "Respondent is found in willful contempt and shall pay Petitioner, in addition to the $XXX he is required to pay her for daycare costs and child support, an additional $XXX.XX per month for the next 12 months, for a total payment of $XXX.XX per month beginning April 1, 2006 through March 2007, and thereafter $XXX per month as child support and daycare unless modified by this court."

Does that mean I am now REQUIRED to pay all of the monthly amount to her directly, or do I still pay a portion of it to the daycare, as stated in the original agreement?  I thought I was found in contempt of the original CO and have to abide by THAT, with arrears, but maybe I was wrong.  I'm in FL.

[socrateaser]

>The original CO reads, "The non-custodial parent will pay
>100% of the daycare expenses, directly to the daycare
>provider, not to exceed $400 per month.  In addition, the
>non-custodial parent shall provide support in the amount of
>$XXX to the custodial parent.  This is to be paid on or before
>the 1st of every month."
>
>The Findings of Fact in the later contempt case read,
>"Respondent is found in willful contempt and shall pay
>Petitioner, in addition to the $XXX he is required to pay her
>for daycare costs and child support, an additional $XXX.XX per
>month for the next 12 months, for a total payment of $XXX.XX
>per month beginning April 1, 2006 through March 2007, and
>thereafter $XXX per month as child support and daycare unless
>modified by this court."
>
>Does that mean I am now REQUIRED to pay all of the monthly
>amount to her directly, or do I still pay a portion of it to
>the daycare, as stated in the original agreement?  I thought I
>was found in contempt of the original CO and have to abide by
>THAT, with arrears, but maybe I was wrong.  I'm in FL.

You are now ordered to pay $X in "addition" to the $Y amount that you were required to pay under the original court order. The new order mistates to whom you are to direct payment under the original order, in my opinion, because the original order states that you must pay an amount "not to exceed $400" directly to daycare, whereas the new payment suggests that you were originally to pay the entire amount to Petitioner -- which is not true.

The new order, really should be clarified, but it is reasonable to interpret your duty under the contempt order as additional, rather than superseding.

So, you pay the original order as stated (to the daycare, etc.), and then make the additional payment to the CP, also as stated.