You are here

CS Based on where the CP and skid lives

thinkthrice's picture

Submitted by thinkthrice on Tue, 03/10/2020 - 10:12am

From my understanding,  CS withholding, rules and regs are always about where the CP (aka mostly BM) and skid lives.  So if a CP and skid move from let's say North Dakota to Arizona,  then Arizona CS laws would apply.  It is not based on where the paYOR lives.

Thoughts?

Comments

thinkthrice's picture

Submitted by thinkthrice on Tue, 03/10/2020 - 10:18am

They'd have to have a whole set of rules in place for each state.  I guess that is doable. But sounds like a nightmare.

In theory, wouldn't a CP have to get court's permission to move out of state anyway regardless of visitation being exercised or not?

thinkthrice's picture

Submitted by thinkthrice on Tue, 03/10/2020 - 10:19am

however,  doesn't the CP have to go to court to get permission first to move out of state before any CO for CS is enforced?

ProbablyAlreadyInsane's picture

Submitted by ProbablyAlready... on Tue, 03/10/2020 - 11:47am

THey don't have to go to court. From my understanding, in most sates they just have to send the NCP parent a 30 day notice with a new outlined CO and the benefit of the relocation for the kid.  Then the NCP has the option say no and go to court, but if they don't respond 30 days from the notification, then it defaults to the suggested one.

After the 30 days the NCP can still try and fight it, but once the move is done they're less likely to get it.

ICanMakeIt's picture

Submitted by ICanMakeIt on Tue, 03/10/2020 - 10:24am

the CO was in the state originally BM and DH were. She moved out of state. When DH had to go for modification after departing the service, he had to have BM's state take over jurisdiction of that part of CO. Neither BM or DH was any longer in the original state. I think had he stayed in same state we would have been fine. 

thinkthrice's picture

Submitted by thinkthrice on Tue, 03/10/2020 - 10:27am

I would PREFER that another state take over part of the CO since NYS is so BM-centric and full of ADULT support cases (goes to 21 and possibly beyond)

justmakingthebest's picture

Submitted by justmakingthebest on Tue, 03/10/2020 - 10:53am

We live in VA and pay in KS. We have to go by KS guidelines. They seem to be very similar though (I have done the calculator in our state for estimating purposes).

HowLongIsForever's picture

Submitted by HowLongIsForever on Tue, 03/10/2020 - 12:04pm

In MI at least, jurisdiction remains with the original court unless they grant an order to transfer.  That includes county to county and state to state.

For us, transferring county to county means it cannot be an adjacent county and the court with jurisdiction is not likely to grant the transfer anyway.

State to state would have to mean both parties agreed in writing or essentially were no longer located in the state and even then there is no provided guideline/guarantee for granting the transfer.  We could both be in the same different state and technically the original court could choose to keep jurisdiction.

I would think with, we'll call it interesting, as NY seems to be re: family law, its unlikely they would grant a change in jurisdiction shortly after relocation while one party is still a resident, especially when that one party is the payor.