During the time you file for child custody modification you may find yourself presented with an Ex Parte, also know as an Order of Protection or Restraining Order. As hard as it may be, avoid them if you can. They can add more cost to an already expensive on going child custody dispute. Although sometimes when you need information that is enough to be the "straw that broke the camels back", so to speak, play it smart and video tape everything.
Read more about Ex Parte's or Order of Protections.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Deadbeats Allowed to Keep Lottery Winnings, Audit Says
ANNAPOLIS, Md. -- An audit of Maryland's child support enforcement agency shows that hundreds of lottery winners were allowed to keep their winning despite overdue child support payments.
The audit issued Thursday by the Department of Legislative Services showed the agency did not report more than 600 deadbeat parents to the Maryland Lottery, which would have diverted their winnings into payments. It also found that the agency stopped seizing funds from delinquent parents' bank accounts and issued support checks to dead people.
Maryland's chief auditor, Bruce Meyers, said a sampling of 11 parents owing $244,000 in child support showed they kept $29,100 in lottery winnings. He says it violates state law and shows the enforcement agency isn't doing enough to collect from deadbeat parents.
"They have to check it out," Meyers said. "Some of it was collected, but they could have just done a better job."
The audit found that more than $331,000 in child support payments were made to 576 people 30 days or more after their deaths. Agency officials said most checks were cashed by appropriate people, such as subsequent caregivers. But a sampling of 20 deceased people shows that $152,000 in checks payable to them were cashed by unknown people.
Administration officials said they've requested advice from the Maryland attorney general.
The agency was criticized in the audit for not suspending or revoking state-issued professional licenses from delinquent parents. Auditors found that more than 5,200 licensees owe $47 million in child support and more than half of 20 sampled had not made any recent payments.
Del. Charles Barkley, a Montgomery County Democrat who worked to pass legislation in 2007 to add lawyers to the list of 16 licenses subject to revocation for unpaid child support.
"It's absurd," Barkley said. "It's not easy to collect the money, but we give them a lot of tools and we expect them to use them. I think with that threat, people do come clean and pay overdue bills."
The study spans March 2004 through August 2007, when unpaid child support in Maryland totaled $1.57 billion.
Written responses in the report said the administration is setting up automated matches with licensing boards and the state lottery.
POSTED: 7:09 am EDT October 17, 2008
RESOURCE:; http://www.nbc4.com/news/17737920/detail.html
The audit issued Thursday by the Department of Legislative Services showed the agency did not report more than 600 deadbeat parents to the Maryland Lottery, which would have diverted their winnings into payments. It also found that the agency stopped seizing funds from delinquent parents' bank accounts and issued support checks to dead people.
Maryland's chief auditor, Bruce Meyers, said a sampling of 11 parents owing $244,000 in child support showed they kept $29,100 in lottery winnings. He says it violates state law and shows the enforcement agency isn't doing enough to collect from deadbeat parents.
"They have to check it out," Meyers said. "Some of it was collected, but they could have just done a better job."
The audit found that more than $331,000 in child support payments were made to 576 people 30 days or more after their deaths. Agency officials said most checks were cashed by appropriate people, such as subsequent caregivers. But a sampling of 20 deceased people shows that $152,000 in checks payable to them were cashed by unknown people.
Administration officials said they've requested advice from the Maryland attorney general.
The agency was criticized in the audit for not suspending or revoking state-issued professional licenses from delinquent parents. Auditors found that more than 5,200 licensees owe $47 million in child support and more than half of 20 sampled had not made any recent payments.
Del. Charles Barkley, a Montgomery County Democrat who worked to pass legislation in 2007 to add lawyers to the list of 16 licenses subject to revocation for unpaid child support.
"It's absurd," Barkley said. "It's not easy to collect the money, but we give them a lot of tools and we expect them to use them. I think with that threat, people do come clean and pay overdue bills."
The study spans March 2004 through August 2007, when unpaid child support in Maryland totaled $1.57 billion.
Written responses in the report said the administration is setting up automated matches with licensing boards and the state lottery.
POSTED: 7:09 am EDT October 17, 2008
RESOURCE:; http://www.nbc4.com/news/17737920/detail.html
Halloween Activities and Games for Kids
Imagine having all of the fun Kids Halloween Activities and Halloween Kids Games that you want - right at your fingertips.
You don't need to spend hours searching the internet, looking for what you want and you don't need to spend your precious time making your own activities.
Best of all these are educational Halloween activities and educational Halloween games so while kids have fun they are also learning.
Halloween Activities and Games for Kids
You don't need to spend hours searching the internet, looking for what you want and you don't need to spend your precious time making your own activities.
Best of all these are educational Halloween activities and educational Halloween games so while kids have fun they are also learning.
Halloween Activities and Games for Kids
Learn How To Win Your Divorce Without Losing Your Shorts or Your Kids!
If you are a man facing divorce, this is quite simply the most important letter you will read today – and possibly the most important letter you will read in your lifetime!
It’s true and here’s why:
In less than the 10 minutes it takes you to read this letter, I’m going to reveal how you can quickly and easily WIN your divorce and keep from losing everything that’s important to you – like your kids, your house, your car, your TV, your clothes and much, much more!
Go here to find out more on how to Win Your Divorce Without Losing Everything
It’s true and here’s why:
In less than the 10 minutes it takes you to read this letter, I’m going to reveal how you can quickly and easily WIN your divorce and keep from losing everything that’s important to you – like your kids, your house, your car, your TV, your clothes and much, much more!
Go here to find out more on how to Win Your Divorce Without Losing Everything
Monday, October 13, 2008
KS Court of Appeal rules divorce court can't keep jurisdiction over possible future pension...
I understand this article is old but thought it could be useful to anybody that has a pension or retirement that they may be concerned about when it comes to a divorce.
A court couldn't retain jurisdiction to divide pension benefits that a husband might be offered in the future, the Kansas Court of Appeals has ruled.
The plaintiff was the pastor of a small church that had no retirement plan for employees. However, on two prior occasions, the church had provided retiring pastors with lifetime retirement benefits or monetary gifts. Each time, the decision was made ad hoc at the time of the pastor's retirement, and the church's board of directors subsequently agreed that no similar benefit would be provided in the future.
When the plaintiff and his wife divorced, the state court decided to retain jurisdiction over any retirement benefits the plaintiff might receive in the future.
The plaintiff argued that the court didn't have jurisdiction over property that the parties might own in the future.
The Kansas Court of Appeals agreed.
"The court cannot reserve jurisdiction to divide at some future time a retirement plan that is not in being and never has been in being," the court said.
Here, "a district court [does not have] jurisdiction to delay the final division of property for an indeterminate number of years to see if a spouse will gain a retirement or pension plan not in existence at the time of the divorce. [A]lthough district courts have broad discretion to adjust the property rights of parties to a divorce action, such discretion extends only to actually dividing the property.... 'A court may not defer making a decision.' The district court in this case abused its discretion by refusing to enter a final order dividing the marital property as required by statute."
In the Matter of the Marriage of Crane (Lawyers USA No. 9934326) Kansas Court of Appeals No. 94,321. Sept. 29, 2006.
By USA, Lawyers
Publication: Lawyers USA
Date: Monday, October 23 2006
http://www.allbusiness.com/services/legal-services/4092739-1.html
A court couldn't retain jurisdiction to divide pension benefits that a husband might be offered in the future, the Kansas Court of Appeals has ruled.
The plaintiff was the pastor of a small church that had no retirement plan for employees. However, on two prior occasions, the church had provided retiring pastors with lifetime retirement benefits or monetary gifts. Each time, the decision was made ad hoc at the time of the pastor's retirement, and the church's board of directors subsequently agreed that no similar benefit would be provided in the future.
When the plaintiff and his wife divorced, the state court decided to retain jurisdiction over any retirement benefits the plaintiff might receive in the future.
The plaintiff argued that the court didn't have jurisdiction over property that the parties might own in the future.
The Kansas Court of Appeals agreed.
"The court cannot reserve jurisdiction to divide at some future time a retirement plan that is not in being and never has been in being," the court said.
Here, "a district court [does not have] jurisdiction to delay the final division of property for an indeterminate number of years to see if a spouse will gain a retirement or pension plan not in existence at the time of the divorce. [A]lthough district courts have broad discretion to adjust the property rights of parties to a divorce action, such discretion extends only to actually dividing the property.... 'A court may not defer making a decision.' The district court in this case abused its discretion by refusing to enter a final order dividing the marital property as required by statute."
In the Matter of the Marriage of Crane (Lawyers USA No. 9934326) Kansas Court of Appeals No. 94,321. Sept. 29, 2006.
By USA, Lawyers
Publication: Lawyers USA
Date: Monday, October 23 2006
http://www.allbusiness.com/services/legal-services/4092739-1.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
