Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

family law jurisdiction is a joke.

Posted by   + Show Post
Why is it always that the respondent is protected? Jurisdiction should be where the child is a resident, not the father clear across the country. So frustrated!
Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
by on Jan. 11, 2013 at 1:19 PM
Replies (31-37):
OneToughMami
by on Jan. 11, 2013 at 11:06 PM

I think I get what you are saying. If I do, I kind of understand. I filed for CS in my county when my daughter was first born. My address, full name, telephone number, date of birth, anything on the documents was unprotected and at his will. I was not given any information on the respondent that I did not have previous knowledge of and his address and number changed, he got my new phone number, but I could not have his. I was not entirely sure how it was fair that he could always have my updated information but I could not have his.

Jack_Squat
by Silver Member on Jan. 11, 2013 at 11:08 PM

Yes, through the Long Arm Statute, but finding a loophole there is the problem. He has never had contact with his child, never been to Utah, etc., etc.. We are hoping for a long shot miracle by claiming that he tortiously availed himself to the state by disrupting my ability to perform my (parental) obligations by non-support of his child for the past 8 years. Hs refusal to provide support thus made him indebted to the state of Utah. Eh....I have only found ONE case where that worked, and it was years ago in the Supreme Court of Washington. 

Quoting shannonnigans:

I didn't follow the whole thread but can he be brought in under any minimum contacts analysis? I suspect your atty has long since gone through this but can't hurt to bring it up again.


opal10161973
by on Jan. 11, 2013 at 11:11 PM

Please do me a favor and don't tell DD5's BD any of this shit.  I need him to be ignorant on this one.  TYVM

Quoting Jack_Squat:

I am talking about federal law that applies to every state in the U.S.. A 14th amendment right. It may seem that that is how it is in your state, but that's only because that's usually how it's done. However, personal jurisdiction trumps any other jurisdiction claims, and in cases of child support and custody, the respondent must meet BOTH kinds of jurisdiction. 

Quoting opal10161973:

That's how it is here in FL.

Quoting Peytonsmom6308:

As far As i knew you had to file anything related to the child in the place where the child has resided for the past 6 months.




shannonnigans
by Platinum Member on Jan. 11, 2013 at 11:17 PM
Your problem is a rather lousy Supreme Coirt decision, Kulko vs Superior Court of California. Are you familiar with it? Until it is overruled, and I don't believe it has been, you've got a tough road. Basically said the parent-child relationship isn't enough. So, does the tortious interference argument get you around Kulko, or is it encompassed by it? Win or lose, I like the argument.


Quoting Jack_Squat:

Yes, through the Long Arm Statute, but finding a loophole there is the problem. He has never had contact with his child, never been to Utah, etc., etc.. We are hoping for a long shot miracle by claiming that he tortiously availed himself to the state by disrupting my ability to perform my (parental) obligations by non-support of his child for the past 8 years. Hs refusal to provide support thus made him indebted to the state of Utah. Eh....I have only found ONE case where that worked, and it was years ago in the Supreme Court of Washington. 


Quoting shannonnigans:

I didn't follow the whole thread but can he be brought in under any minimum contacts analysis? I suspect your atty has long since gone through this but can't hurt to bring it up again.



Posted on CafeMom Mobile
Jack_Squat
by Silver Member on Jan. 11, 2013 at 11:26 PM

Yes, I'm familiar with it. It's stupid and creates a HUGE problem in child custody and child support cases. The tortious argument would get us around Kulko. We are also arguing that in 2010, he was willing to avail himself to Utah to terminate his rights. If he is willing to avail himself for one court proceeding concerning his child in Utah, then it should be assumed that he is willing to avail himself for any subsequent court proceeding concerning his child in Utah. And, the fact that he called her then, as well, and spoke to her on the phone as a condition of going ahead with the termination. That should be considered "casual" contact since it meets the requirements, and therefore be sufficient contact since it's related to the subject matter and also shows that he was willing to avail himself to Utah.  Under the Long Arm Statute, he only has to have had availed himself enough to "reasonably foresee being hauled into court", but it doesn't specify for that particular case matter, only subject matter. 



Quoting shannonnigans:


Your problem is a rather lousy Supreme Coirt decision, Kulko vs Superior Court of California. Are you familiar with it? Until it is overruled, and I don't believe it has been, you've got a tough road. Basically said the parent-child relationship isn't enough. So, does the tortious interference argument get you around Kulko, or is it encompassed by it? Win or lose, I like the argument.


Quoting Jack_Squat:

Yes, through the Long Arm Statute, but finding a loophole there is the problem. He has never had contact with his child, never been to Utah, etc., etc.. We are hoping for a long shot miracle by claiming that he tortiously availed himself to the state by disrupting my ability to perform my (parental) obligations by non-support of his child for the past 8 years. Hs refusal to provide support thus made him indebted to the state of Utah. Eh....I have only found ONE case where that worked, and it was years ago in the Supreme Court of Washington. 


Quoting shannonnigans:

I didn't follow the whole thread but can he be brought in under any minimum contacts analysis? I suspect your atty has long since gone through this but can't hurt to bring it up again.




Jack_Squat
by Silver Member on Jan. 11, 2013 at 11:27 PM
1 mom liked this

Haha! My lips are sealed ;)

Quoting opal10161973:

Please do me a favor and don't tell DD5's BD any of this shit.  I need him to be ignorant on this one.  TYVM

Quoting Jack_Squat:

I am talking about federal law that applies to every state in the U.S.. A 14th amendment right. It may seem that that is how it is in your state, but that's only because that's usually how it's done. However, personal jurisdiction trumps any other jurisdiction claims, and in cases of child support and custody, the respondent must meet BOTH kinds of jurisdiction. 

Quoting opal10161973:

That's how it is here in FL.

Quoting Peytonsmom6308:

As far As i knew you had to file anything related to the child in the place where the child has resided for the past 6 months.





shannonnigans
by Platinum Member on Jan. 11, 2013 at 11:30 PM
I like your argument. I wish you good luck!!!


Quoting Jack_Squat:

Yes, I'm familiar with it. It's stupid and creates a HUGE problem in child custody and child support cases. The tortious argument would get us around Kulko. We are also arguing that in 2010, he was willing to avail himself to Utah to terminate his rights. If he is willing to avail himself for one court proceeding concerning his child in Utah, then it should be assumed that he is willing to avail himself for any subsequent court proceeding concerning his child in Utah. And, the fact that he called her then, as well, and spoke to her on the phone as a condition of going ahead with the termination. That should be considered "casual" contact since it meets the requirements, and therefore be sufficient contact since it's related to the subject matter and also shows that he was willing to avail himself to Utah.  Under the Long Arm Statute, he only has to have had availed himself enough to "reasonably foresee being hauled into court", but it doesn't specify for that particular case matter, only subject matter. 



Quoting shannonnigans:


Your problem is a rather lousy Supreme Coirt decision, Kulko vs Superior Court of California. Are you familiar with it? Until it is overruled, and I don't believe it has been, you've got a tough road. Basically said the parent-child relationship isn't enough. So, does the tortious interference argument get you around Kulko, or is it encompassed by it? Win or lose, I like the argument.





Quoting Jack_Squat:

Yes, through the Long Arm Statute, but finding a loophole there is the problem. He has never had contact with his child, never been to Utah, etc., etc.. We are hoping for a long shot miracle by claiming that he tortiously availed himself to the state by disrupting my ability to perform my (parental) obligations by non-support of his child for the past 8 years. Hs refusal to provide support thus made him indebted to the state of Utah. Eh....I have only found ONE case where that worked, and it was years ago in the Supreme Court of Washington. 



Quoting shannonnigans:

I didn't follow the whole thread but can he be brought in under any minimum contacts analysis? I suspect your atty has long since gone through this but can't hurt to bring it up again.






Posted on CafeMom Mobile
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)