Have Legal Questions? Ask a Lawyer Now.
This case falls under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act; the father of the infant residing in the state of Texas whiles the infant in another. The home state of mother & child was notified in December 2012 that paternity had been established and a court date pending to determine child support. It wasn't until February 17, 2013 in which the mother was notified that a child support judgment had been signed. The case status is listed as closed and wages will be garnished. However, the court ordered child support & garnishment is based on a letter prepared & signed by the Chief Financial Officer of respondent’s employer. Said letter having been prepared by the employer & approved by the Chief Executive Officer stated that the employee’s income was $8.35 per hour. Unaware of the letter prepared by the employer, there was no prior knowledge of the intent to commit fraud, deceit & misrepresentation to the court by the respondent until after the fact. The conduct of the three parties involved in preparing the document for the Court was done with full knowledge that the respondent/ employee was currently 2012-2013 employed at an annual salary of $50,000. Additionally, I find it very unlikely that counsel for the respondent was unaware of the actual income, but this is merely speculation. Finally, the respondent having left his previous home in a hurry failed to take with him his copy of his annual employment contract that shows both his signature & that of the Chief Executive Officer. Furthermore, the respondent failed to remove monthly bank statements showing bi-weekly deposits that correspond with 50K income from his employer. Therefore, what legal recourse can be taken since the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act requires that the respondent must have had an increase in income by 25% or greater to reopen the case, and not merely the care & wellbeing of the infant having been deceived by the father & his employer.
An investigation was requested today by the child’s home state and sent to Texas, the resident of the father. Since the mother is not required to appear, nor subjected to the court’s jurisdiction in Texas, I personally do not feel that any explanation would be necessary regarding discovery of documents. Although, I’m not an attorney my suggestion to the mother would be to not appear before the court in Texas out of concern that she may subject herself & that of her child to the jurisdiction of that court. It would seem that the child best interest is better served by the state of residency. Additionally, a subsequent subpoena of the employment records by the investigator should prove conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit and misrepresentation by the employer and respondent. Hopefully, it will also cause the respondent’s counsel to be the subject of questioning by the judge as to any knowledge, involvement, and /or conflict of interest in this case. Please accept my “Thanks” for your response in this matter which was most assuring in a pursuit of justice
I have no reason to disagree with your analysis of the situation. Best wishes. This information request requires no Reply,.