Custodial Parent'S Affidavit Only Valid For The - Lswhs: Fill & Download for Free

A noncustodial parent will not give the child back to the custodial parent. What shall the custodial parent do?We do not have an official custody order or case.This means, in most states, that as the natural parents you have presumed joint custody. In practice this is “child stays with whomever has her now”; the cops will not get involved. You will have to get a custody order from a court to sort this out if the adverse party and you cannot agree. You probably should go see a lawyer sooner rather than later.[If there were an order, maybe law enforcement would help you enforce it, but even so it might be considered a civil dispute and a private petition for a finding of contempt would be required. You know who might be able to help with that part? The lawyer.]We have never been married.This is by and large irrelevant in custody matters. Marriage is relevant to determination of paternity in many states, though, so if one of you wants to question paternity it might be easier if you are not married. (If this is an issue being it up with the lawyer I already told you to go see.)Non-custodial parent admits to purposefully alienating me due to him feeling upset.Not enough details here—alienating you or alienating the child from you? At any rate, upset exes in custody battles aren't anything too novel. We do encourage parties to talk to each other and there might be a court-sanctioned mediation program you and the AP would benefit from. In some or most states parents’ co-operativeness is a custody factor, so it doesn't behoove you to play tit for tat.I just need to know the best course of action for my daughter's sake.I don't know you, your ex, or your daughter, but assuming that this situation is volatile and you may lose de facto custody by inaction, you should start by seeing an attorney in the court where the child has been living the last six months that does this work. You might also seek family counselling if it's available.

Here’s how it’s supposed to work:In the initial divorce action, the judge is supposed to add the salaries of both parents together to come up with a total monthly household income. This number is compared against a table (or maybe run through a calculation) to determine the “standard of living” for any children in the home.The goal of child support is to maintain this standard of living.Each parent’s contribution percentage to the combined income is then considered to determine the amount of child support that the non-custodial parent will have to pay.Referring to the table in the screenshot above, let’s imagine a situation in which the adjusted gross income of both parents is $1,000 per month and they have two kids. The “basic child support obligation” in that situation is $156 per month.If the custodial parent is responsible for $700 of the combined income and there are no other expenses (such as work-related childcare or health insurance costs), the non-custodial parent’s child support obligation would be 30% of the support obligation, or $46.80 per month.But that’s just a guideline.The judge is not obligated to follow that guideline. If there are extenuating circumstances, the judge can raise or lower the required support amount at their discretion.For example:In a divorce situation with two adopted children (who received an adoption stipend from the state), it was agreed that the father would have custody. The combined adjusted gross income was about $11,800 per month. The father was responsible for about 57% of that amount. Following the same table used in the screenshot, the support calculation for two children was $1,680 per month, making the mother’s child support obligation $722.40 per month.How much did the mother actually have to pay?Nothing.She had a lawyer. He didn’t. Her lawyer argued that the money the children received from the state should count as her support obligation, despite the fact that the adoption stipend was already a part of the adjusted gross income! Shortly after the initial divorce action, the mother lost her high-paying job in academia and, despite an advanced degree, couldn’t seem to find gainful employment anywhere else, choosing instead to live just on top of the poverty line.By the time the father saved up for a lawyer, the adjusted gross income was about half of the former number, and the father was responsible for about 80% of that amount. The mother’s new support obligation based on the calculations was $283 per month, or about 40% of what she should have been paying all along.The mother’s final support obligation was ultimately adjusted downward by the judge to a mere $50 per month.The moral of the story is this:Child support is money designated to support a child.If you are the custodial parent and you make more money than the non-custodial parent, that doesn’t excuse them from their obligation to assist with the financial needs of the children involved. If you can afford to raise your children without the non-custodial parent’s financial contribution, set up a savings account for the kids and deposit the child support check directly into that account as a college fund or a down payment on a house or a car someday.Don’t let the non-custodial parent get away with not supporting their kids.

Know up front that I am not a father’s rights advocate. I am not a divorced father (I am a father and a divorce lawyer who represents both men and women without discriminating between the two). While father’s rights advocates have many valid arguments, they come across as so overwhelmingly strident, bitter, and misogynistic in far too many instances that they do their cause more harm than good. That stated:In principle: it should affect the child custody arrangements (award) by the court taking a dim view of the other parent’s infringement of your parental rights and the alienation of the child from his/her parent. It should result in the court finding that the other parent places his/her self-interest above the best interest of the child(ren). It should result in the court issuing orders that protect the child from the other parent’s deleterious actions. It should, if circumstances dictate, result in the court monitoring, supervising, and/or curtailing that parent’s contact with the child temporarily or permanently, depending upon the circumstances.In actual practice: unless 1) you can either lie so persuasively as to overwhelm the lies being told about you, to the point that you have the court eating out of your hand (and please don’t do that (Mark 8:36)); or 2) you have boatloads of politically correct, irrefutable, undeniable, unavoidable, and unmistakable evidence (and it helps if you are not the father—see the supposedly abrogated “tender years doctrine/presumption”), then the other parent’s interference will probably be acknowledged by the court with a facile (unsupported) conclusion that both parents are engaging in the same kind of behavior, followed by an admonition that the parents “get along for the sake of the child” (as if you can cause both parents to get along by sheer force of your individual will or martyrdom) and an award of primary physical custody to the parent who tells the best story (it helps if that parent is also the mother) and/or whose spirit is last/least likely to be broken by the legal process.