Tag: child support and divorce

Exclusivity and International Child Support Orders

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

In the Unites States, once a court of a state has entered a child custody or child support order, the state keeps control of the custody and child support matter unless specific things happen. This exclusivity is true in international child support orders and recently came into play in a case starting in Australia.

Foreign Child Support

A Blunder Down Under?

In 2010, an Australian court awarded two parents equal timesharing of their daughter and incorporated their binding child support agreement. But then in 2018, the Australian court entered another consent order. The parents agreed that the Mother and their daughter could relocate permanently to the United States.

As part of their agreement, the court ordered a long-distance timesharing schedule and added their previous 2018 Child Support Order which provided:

The parents agree to terminate their child support agreement requiring the Father to pay support while the daughter remained in the U.S.

The Father stayed in Australia and the Mother and daughter moved to North Carolina. Soon after, Mother and daughter moved to Florida. This time, they relocated without providing Father with their new address, preventing him from exercising his timesharing rights and contact with their daughter. The Father filed an action in Florida seeking to register and enforce their Australian timesharing order under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act.

The Mother filed her own petition asking the Florida court to modify timesharing and child support because the Father had not exercised his timesharing rights, resulting in increased timesharing on her part. The Father moved to dismiss her modification petition, arguing that the Australian court had continuing, exclusive jurisdiction under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act. The trial court allowed Mother to file an amended petition and denied Father’s motion to dismiss. The Father then petitioned for a writ of prohibition to prevent the trial court from exercising jurisdiction over Mother’s petition to modify the Australian support order.

Florida and Exclusive Jurisdiction

I have written on international custody and support issues before. The Uniform Interstate Family Support Act is one of the uniform acts drafted by the Uniform Law Commission. First developed in 1992, UIFSA resolves interstate jurisdictional disputes about which states can properly establish and modify child support and spousal support orders.

The UIFSA also controls the issue of enforcement of family support obligations within the United States. In 1996, Congress passed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act, which required all U.S. states adopt UIFSA, or face loss of federal funding for child support enforcement. Every U.S. state has adopted some version of UIFSA to resolve interstate disputes about support.

One of the more important purposes of UIFSA is to determine the “controlling” order in the event of multiple orders being entered in multiple states and countries. What distinguishes UIFSA is that all states will be enforcing the same amount because there is only one controlling order. Another important feature is that UIFSA adopted a concept that there should be only one court with the exclusive jurisdiction to modify a current support order. The UIFSA uses the term continuing, exclusive jurisdiction.

Back to the Billabong

On appeal, the district court ruled that under UIFSA, Florida courts may modify foreign orders only when a foreign country lacks or refuses jurisdiction to modify its child support order pursuant to its laws or lacked or refused jurisdiction.

In this case, the Mother never alleged that Australia lacked jurisdiction or refused to modify nor did she seek modification in Australia. Because Australia did not lack jurisdiction or refuse to exercise jurisdiction to modify support, the Florida court could not exercise jurisdiction under UIFSA to modify the Australian child support order.

Additionally, the court noted that the Father never waived his objection to the Florida court’s jurisdiction to modify the Australian child support order. Because the Australian court has continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify its support order, the Florida court lacked jurisdiction over Mother’s petition to modify child support. The appellate court granted prohibition, and the case was remanded with directions to grant Father’s motion to dismiss Mother’s petition to modify the foreign child support order.

The decision is available here.

Interstate Alimony Awards

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

Are interstate alimony awards enforceable and modifiable in Florida after an interstate divorce? An Alabama ex-spouse who moved to Florida discovers the answer is more complex than many family lawyers might think. This recent case shows how a court should treat interstate alimony awards.

Interstate Alimony 2

Sweet Home Alabama

The parties divorced in 2004 and a Final Judgment of Divorce was entered in Alabama. That judgment adopted the parties’ marital settlement agreement. Under their agreement, the husband agreed to pay the wife $1,000 per month in alimony. But over time, the wife was receiving her ex-husband’s Social Security benefits, and that raises an issue about whether social security benefits reduce a spouse’s obligation to pay alimony and child support.

Later, the husband relocated to Florida. In 2013, the wife filed a Verified Petition to Establish Foreign Decree as Florida Order and for Enforcement of their agreement in Florida. In 2014, that family judge signed an order declaring it would apply Alabama law to resolve the legal issues raised in the wife’s petition in interpreting the agreement. The court also concluded that Social Security benefits may be used to satisfy an alimony obligation, or stated another way, were a credit against alimony due.

Over the years, while her petition remained pending in the family court, the wife challenged whether her former spouse was entitled to a credit against the required alimony payments for the payments she was receiving through his Social Security benefits.

In 2022, a Florida court denied her motions, finding that because she was receiving, through her ex-husband’s Social Security benefits, payments in excess of the alimony obligation, the alimony obligation was “terminated as a matter of law.”

Florida Social Security Benefits and Alimony

Under Alabama law, Social Security is the same as an insurance policy with a private carrier, similar to a parent insuring against death or loss of physical ability to fulfill moral and legal obligations to dependent children. Just as insurance payments may fulfill and discharge alimony, Alabama law reasons, why shouldn’t Social Security benefits apply to child support as well as alimony obligations?.

Florida is different. Court do not allow a spouse to unilaterally use social security disability payments, for example, as a set-off against past due alimony unless there is some compelling equitable criteria and considerations or a settlement agreement provides for it.

Alabama Getaway

The wife appealed. On appeal, the court held that while the agreement adopted under Alabama final judgment requires the husband to pay alimony, the trial court correctly determined that the wife did not establish that her ex-husband failed to meet his alimony obligation.

The trial court applied Alabama law and concluded that the payment of his Social Security benefits satisfied his alimony obligation in full.

However, the Florida family court had also concluded that his alimony and life insurance obligations were “terminated as a matter of law.”

The family court erred in declaring alimony was terminated in two ways. First, a Florida court lacks jurisdiction to terminate an alimony final order of another state under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act.

Second, under Alabama law, an alimony obligation is not terminated through the payment of Social Security benefits. Rather, the party required to pay alimony receives a credit against an alimony obligation for Social Security payments or benefits received by the other party.

The opinion is here.

Reducing Divorce Waiting Periods

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

With many countries and U.S. states, having divorce waiting periods, the District of Columbia’s recent legislation, which is reducing its waiting period, is big news. The D.C. Council gave unanimous approval to legislation that eliminated long waiting periods to file for divorce. The waiting period was considered especially harmful to survivors of domestic violence filing for divorce.

divorce waiting period

Waiting in Vain

D.C. law previously allowed a couple to divorce after six months of living separately, only if both parties mutually and voluntarily agreed to it. If a spouse contested the divorce, D.C. law required the couple to remain legally married for a year. Now if one spouse wants a divorce, they can file for one at any time — without any waiting period.

“It made no sense at all that someone might be chained to their abuser or their partner when they didn’t want to be. This was a common sense reform that allows people to move on with their lives and also provide some extra supports for survivors of domestic violence.”

The D.C. Council unanimously approved the bill in November 2023, and the new law took effect last week. The new D.C. law also requires judges to consider domestic violence history, including physical, emotional and financial abuse, when determining alimony or property distribution and it explicitly allows judges to award exclusive use of a family home to either spouse while awaiting litigation.

Florida Divorce Waiting Period

I’ve written about divorce waiting periods, and your rights in divorce before. Like the District of Columbia and other U.S. states, Florida also has a divorce waiting period of sorts. In Florida, no final judgment of dissolution of marriage may be entered until at least 20 days have elapsed from the date of filing the original petition for dissolution of marriage.

 The thinking behind waiting periods in Florida reflects the protective regard Florida holds toward the preservation of marriage and a public policy that marriage is the foundation of home and family.

In some cases the waiting period is longer. For instance, no dissolutions in Florida are allowed in cases of an incapacitated spouse unless the party alleged to be incapacitated has been adjudged incapacitated for a preceding period of at least 3 years. However, the court, on a showing that injustice would result from this delay, may enter a final judgment of dissolution of marriage at an earlier date.

Tired of Waiting

This change to the D.C. law will eliminate one of the many barriers people face when leaving abusive partners. The up-to-one year waiting period, which was established in the 1970s, was considered by many to be outdated and paternalistic.

Half of all states have a waiting period between the filing of divorce papers and when the marriage is legally dissolved, which can range from six months to even longer in some states. But why?

It has long been a recognized public policy by many states that encouraging and preserving the institution of marriage was a societal benefit. These days that notion may seem like an anachronistic legal concept. But the public policy underlying the presumption that marriage is a good institution still exists in many state statutes. Delaying a divorce then, comes from the theory that a couple, if they had more time, could preserve their marriage.

The Washington Post article is here.

Child Support and the 8,000 Year Travel Ban

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

Family laws are ancient and modern. Over the years, wise judges have learned to maintain the status quo by preventing parents from leaving the country during a case. But one Australian father, who allegedly owes millions in child support, just received an 8,000-year travel ban. This travel ban prevents him from leaving the holy land until the year 9999 in his ongoing international divorce.

Israel Travel Ban 2

Thou Shall Not Leave the Jurisdiction

Noam Huppert, a 44-year-old citizen of Australia was married to an Israeli woman and they have two young children together. The family court in Israel issued a “stay-of-exit” order against Noam, sometimes referred to in Israel as a “Tsav.” He apparently cannot lift the travel ban order – and leave the country – until he pays his outstanding child support payments.

“The total in the year 2013 was roughly 7.5 million shekels (roughly $3.34 million)”

Israel’s laws regarding child support may be ancient, but why 8,000 years? It has been reported that placing the travel ban’s expiration date of 9999  in the court order was probably because it was the highest possible date that fit in the field and he owed a lot of child support.

The US State Department regularly includes a warning about travel. The civil and religious courts in Israel actively exercise their authority to bar certain individuals, including non-residents, from leaving the country until they pay their debts or other legal claims against them are resolved.

The US State Department also warns travelers that the US Embassy is unable to cancel the debt of a US citizen or guarantee their departure from Israel when they face a travel ban from leaving the country until debts are resolved.

Mr. Huppert, who works as an analytical chemist for a pharmaceutical company, told the Australian news service NewsAU that Israeli courts had ruled he owed 5,000 shekels per month for each child until they turned 18.

Florida International Divorce

I’ve written about international divorce issues before. International divorce frequently involves understanding various issues in foreign laws, and especially, jurisdiction. Jurisdiction involves questions about who sues whom, where do you sue, how do you sue for international divorce, and what country’s laws apply.

Which country’s laws apply can be tricky, and even well represented clients can end up owing big. Recently a British court ordered the ruler of Dubai, Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum, to pay his ex-wife Princess Haya bint al-Hussein more than $728 million in one of the largest divorce settlements ever handed down by a British court.

Rules against wrongfully abducting or retaining children in a foreign country, or leaving the jurisdiction, is a problem in every divorce – especially in international cases. One of the ways courts in Florida prevent child abductions and secure the payment of child support is travel bans.

So, in any proceeding in which there is a parenting plan involved, if there is a risk that a parent may remove a child from the state or country, or simply conceal the whereabouts of a child, courts have a lot of options at their disposal.

The powers of Florida courts to prevent the wrongful removal of a child can be as simple as ordering parents not to remove the child without the notarized written permission of both parents and a court order, limiting travel to Hague Convention countries.

In addition, Florida courts can require parents to surrender the child’s passport, place the child’s name in the Children’s Passport Issuance Alert Program of the United States Department of State and/or post a bond or other security as a financial deterrent to abduction.

But parents can also lose their travel privileges in the United States for owing unpaid child support. For instance, the U.S. Department of State issues passports to U.S. citizens for foreign travel. If a parent owes more than $2,500 in past-due support, the Department of State automatically denies any application for a U.S. passport until the past-due child support is paid. This includes requests to renew, replace or add pages to an existing passport.

Woe to the shepherd who abandons the flock

In Israel, the family court in a divorce case can issue a ban on the children or a parent leaving the country when one of the parents requests it. The reason a ban can be issued by a court in Israel is because of the fear that one of the parents will take the children abroad and never return. This is especially true in a country such as Israel, with many immigrants.

Israeli courts can also issue the travel ban when a husband refuses to give his wife the “Get”, or as in the case of the Australian father, when a father refuses to pay, or is late on, the monthly children’s support.
It is possible to leave by legal means if a travel ban is in place. Similar to other jurisdictions, a father would have to provide guaranties and guarantors in order to leave the country.

Israel’s government allows you to check if you have a travel ban on their website to avoid a court ordered travel ban from interfering with your travel.

The Australia News Corp article is here.

Child Support and Losing Your Guns

Posted by Ron Kauffman on

Few people know that failing to pay child support can mean losing your guns. One father went before the Wisconsin Supreme Court to argue that his lifetime ban on owning a firearm was unconstitutional because his conviction for failure to pay child support didn’t justify such a ban.

Child support and guns

Brewing a Constitutional Challenge

In 2003, a child’s Father, Leevan Roundtree, failed to pay his child support for 120 days almost 13-years ago. As a result, he was convicted of multiple felony counts for failure to support a child. He wasn’t sent to prison, he made full restitution by paying what he owed and never reoffended. He’s never been convicted of a violent crime and there was no evidence he posed a danger to society.

One day, Milwaukee police executing a search warrant at Roundtree’s home found a revolver and ammunition under his mattress. A record check of the recovered gun revealed that it had been stolen in Texas.

Roundtree claimed that “he purchased the firearm from a kid on the street about a year ago, but that he did not know it was stolen.” The State charged Roundtree with a single count of possession of a firearm by a felon. He pleaded guilty and was subsequently sentenced to 18 months of initial confinement and 18 months of extended supervision.

As a consequence of his felony convictions, Roundtree was, and continues to be, permanently prohibited from possessing a firearm. Roundtree moved for relief, arguing that the felon-in-possession statute, which prohibits felons from owning a firearm, was unconstitutional as applied to him.

Florida Child Support

I’ve written about child support issues in Florida before. Calculating child support in Florida used to be entirely at the judge’s discretion, based on a parent’s ability to pay, and the child’s needs.

Florida established child support guidelines which follows the income shares model. The guidelines provide the amount you pay can be adjusted upward or downward after considering relevant factors.

Additionally, the statute authorizes deviations by more than 5 percent, pursuant to a list of 10 enumerated factors, and one equitable factor. Finally, the statue mandates use of a gross-up calculation of support for substantial time-sharing.

In Florida, parents are allowed a gross-up calculation because when exercising substantial time-sharing, they incur their own child care expenses, and may duplicate payment for items already included in their child support.

High income parents have special problems in determining child support. Courts are reluctant to award child support that is deemed “excessive,” but the courts are bound by child support guidelines which set a presumptive amount of support.

Like Wisconsin, Florida makes it unlawful for any person to own or to have in his or her care, custody, possession, or control any firearm, ammunition, or electric weapon or device, or to carry a concealed weapon, including a tear gas gun or chemical weapon or device, if that person has been convicted of a felony in the courts of this state

Badgering the Wisconsin Supreme Court

In determining the constitutionality of the felony possession statute, the Wisconsin Supreme Court applied an intermediate scrutiny test, reasoning:

“felon dispossession statutes are ‘presumptively lawful,’ and upholds the flat ban on gun possession by all felons on the grounds that someone with a felony conviction on his record is more likely than a non-felon to engage in illegal and violent gun use.”

So, even if Roundtree didn’t exhibit signs of violence, the Wisconsin Supreme Court felt it was reasonable to keep guns out of the hands of people who have shown a willingness to commit a felony. Also, other courts have observed that nonviolent offenders have a higher recidivism rate and a large percentage of the crimes nonviolent recidivists later commit are violent.

But there were also dissenting opinions. One justice reasoned that the ban on firearm possession by non-dangerous felons were categorically invalid as applied to persons entitled to Second Amendment protection.

Another justice complained that the “correlation-centric reasoning” — that there is a correlation between past non-violent crime of any sort and future violent crime — does not meet the mark.

One dissenter asked:

What about the correlation between people who previously declared bankruptcy? Are they more likely to commit violent crime in the future? How about people who don’t have a bachelor’s degree by the time they are 25? How about those who were born out of wedlock, or who fall below the poverty line?

The Reason article is here.