Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act and PKPA

Learn more about Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act and PKPA.

The UCCJA sets out four grounds for finding original jurisdiction The Parenting Kidnaping Prevention Act addresses the continuing interstate custody jurisdiction problems

They say that a dog is "Man’s Best Friend." But what happens when "Fluffy" was obtained during the course of a marriage that has ultimately (ahem) "gone to the dogs." As family law attorneys, we have all been faced with clients willing to give up their entire nest egg to keep "Fluffy" from their evil soon to be ex-spouse. Where the definition is overnight visitation, determining whether the non-custodial parent has taken "custody" is not difficult. E.g., /n re Marriage of Southwe/I, 119 Or. App. 366,851 P.2d 599 (1993) (time with father to apply shared custody means overnights, not hours, where Colorado guideline defines shared custody as more than 92 overnights). Option C provides coverage so that payments begin immediately after the retiree dies, regardless of age. Benefits are actuarially reduced from the sum provided in Option A. One of the paramount purposes of the Hague Convention is to "restore the status quo and deter parents from crossing international borders in search of a more sympathetic court."8 The Convention sought to eliminate this motivation by allowing for the prompt return of abducted children.9 Mosley is an appeal from an order modifying a joint custody arrangement to sole custody.Although much of the case is dicta espousing shared custody as an ideal, it does not define the term, nor does it distinguish between legal custody and physical custody. The partiesf son was an infant when their joint custody agreement was first approved by the trial court, and he was only five yearsof age at the time the fourth motion relating to custody, which led to the appeal, was filed by his mother. The original custody order provided that "the parents should have joint custody, with appropriate residential arrangements that would accommodate the childfs age," and that "it was the intention of the parties to reach, when the child is of an appropriate age, a true 50/50 time share." a) Where a party has custody or visitation of a child or children for more than 90 days of the year, as such days are defined in subdivision G 3 (c), a shared custody child support amount based on the ratio in which the parents share the custody and visitation of any child or children shall be calculated in accordance with this subdivision. The presumptive support to be paid shall be the shared custody support amount, unless a party affirmatively shows that the sole custody support amount calculated as provided in subdivision G 1 is less than the shared custody support amount. If so, the lesser amount shall be the support to be paid. For the purposes of this subsection, the following shall apply: The Supreme Court affirmed. The Court cited to Lombardi v. Lombardi, 44 Nev.314, 195 P. 93 (1921), wherein the husband expended his separate funds to improve his wife’s separate real property and it held there that, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, the title to the improvement followed the land. The Court affirmed the district court’s conclusion that it saw no reason to consider the monies paid by the wife as a loan. In a military case, an order dividing retired pay as the property of the member and the former spouse will only be honored by the military if the issuing court exercised personal jurisdiction over the member by reason of: (1) residence in the territorial jurisdiction of the court (other than by military assignment); (2) domicile in the territorial jurisdiction of the court; or (3) consent to the jurisdiction of the court.15 If the matter proceeds to litigation, the forum State will have to rule on where the military member is actually a "resident" and "domiciled." This can be far harder than it appears, especially since States diverge radically on the meaning of those terms. In some places "residence" is a physical question of location at the time of filing, while "domicile" is that permanent home "to which one returns." In other places, the meanings are reversed." In some States, residence and domicile have the same meaning. A service member who has close connections to more than one state will still only have one domicile. If the service member has significantly more connections to one state than another, then the state to which he has closer ties is his domicile. 1) "Shared physical custody" means that each parent keeps the child or children overnight for more than 35% of the year and that both parents contribute to the expenses of the child or children in addition to the payment of child support. One portion of the case law is apparently unanimous. A comprehensive review of the cases throughout the United States reveals that there is no legitimate authority for the proposition that where the divorce decree preceded Mansell, there can ever be a waiver of retired pay by the retiree in favor of VA disability benefits without compensation being required to be paid to the former spouse, dollar for dollar, as to all sums the retiree’s actions caused to be diverted from her back to him. If the problem is internal rules that encourage or permit this level of inefficiency and nonperformance, the appropriate paid members of the Bar staff, at the direction of the Board of Governors, should be tasked with re-writing the rules, now. That can, and should, be accomplished in less than two weeks. It is possible that a spouse may not even know how to find a member stationed elsewhere. With a full name and Social Security Number, however, some footwork may be able to track a reassigned member from the last known duty station to a current posting. The Legal Assistance Attorney at the military installation nearest the spouse (or the member’s last posting) may be able to provide the necessary information.2 There is also a Worldwide Military Locator Service3 for each branch of service, which may help locate a member or forward written documents to a member (some States permit written service in this matter of certain pre- or post-divorce pleadings, notices, or other documents). PAN style="FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman; FONT-SIZE: 14pt"> In post-Mansell divorces, the same result has sometimes resulted from different logic. "Safeguard" clauses and "indemnification for reduction" clauses are permissible, and have the result of protecting spouses from the members’ unilateral recharacterization of benefits. The theory is essentially that of constructive trust; once the divorce goes through, the retirement money is considered no longer the member’s property to convert. See Johnson v. Johnson, 37 S.W.3d 892 (Tenn. 2001); In Re Marriage of Harris, 991 P.2d 262 (Ariz. 1999); In re Strassner, 895 S.W.2d 614 (Mo. Ct. App.1995); see also Owen v. Owen, 419 S.E.2d 267 (Va. Ct. App. 1992); Dexter v. Dexter, 661 A.2d 171 (Md. App. 1995); McHugh v. McHugh, 861 P.2d 113 (Idaho Ct. App. 1993). I told the judge that I would be very surprised to hear it, as such a holding would appear to overrule many decades of consistent holdings on the point. He invited me to research the matter and, if I disagreed, to draft a memo on the point for the family court bench and Bar. This Legal Note is excerpted from that memo. Most reviewing courts have either found or simply assumed that Mansell is applicable in litigation concerning post-divorce recharacterizations by retirees, and attempted to apply it to resolve the cases before them. Nevertheless, those appellate courts have almost uniformly reached the same ultimate destination as the court in Krempin, by means of a longer analysis. The court may deviate from the standard calculation if the child spends a significant amount of time with the parent who is obligated to make a support transfer payment. The court may not deviate on that basis if the deviation will result in insufficient funds in the household receiving support to meet the basic needs of the child or if the child is receiving aid to families with dependent children. When determining the amount of the deviation, the court shall consider evidence concerning the increased expenses to a parent making support transfer payments resulting from the significant amount of time spent with that parent and shall consider the decreased expenses, if any, to the party receiving the support resulting from the significant amount of time the child spends with the parent making the support transfer payment. d) If a prima facie case is made for deviation in either direction, determine whether the benefit that would be enjoyed by the deviation-seeking party and the child is greater. lesser. or the sarne as the detriment that would be suffered by the other party and the child. Only where the benefit is greater than the detriment usually measured by comparison of household income - would the deviation be granted. Arkansas X bsp; (c) whether the custodial parent is willing to comply with any substitute visitation orders issued by the court in the event that permission to move is granted; The district court held that the social security benefits received could be applied to pay child support arrears and that the mother had already received more than the obligation owed by the father, and that to allow collection of the arrears under these circumstances would constitute an inequitable "double enrichment." The district court terminated the father’s obligation for so long as the mother continued to receive social security disability benefits for the child in excess of what the father owed. They say that a dog is "Man’s Best Friend." But what happens when "Fluffy" was obtained during the course of a marriage that has ultimately (ahem) "gone to the dogs." As family law attorneys, we have all been faced with clients willing to give up their entire nest egg to keep "Fluffy" from their evil soon to be ex-spouse. B> In a nutshell, when a military retiree receives a post-divorce disability award, the "disposable" pay already divided between the member and former spouse is decreased, and money that was supposed to be paid to the former spouse is instead redirected to the retiree, no matter what the divorce court ordered. This can happen long after the divorce. SPAN> to allow crediting the military service under CSRS or FERS. The paragraph should only be used if the former spouse is awarded a portion of the military retired pay. "If [Employee] waives military retired pay to credit military service under the Civil Service Retirement System, [insert language for computing the former spouse’s share from 200 series of this appendix.]. The United States Office of Personnel Management is directed to pay [former spouse]’s share directly to [former spouse]. Courts have gone to considerable lengths to protect former spouses from the effects of members’ post-divorce waivers of retired pay for disability pay, when such waivers partially or completely divested the spouses of sums that had already been awarded to them. The theory applied was phrased differently from one court to another, but was essentially that of constructive trust. Once a divorce was decreed dividing the "gross" or "total" or "all" military retirement benefits, the money awarded to the former spouse was no longer considered the member’s property to convert. If the member subsequently applied for and received disability benefits, or took any other action to redirect money already ordered paid to the former spouse back to himself, he violated the divorce decree. nbsp;The district court ordered the father to pay child support of $1 ,000 per month per child. The district court found that the amount awarded was "fair and equitable" in light of "the vastly different incomes and financial resources of the plaintiff and defendant, and the amount of time the children will spend with each parent as a result of this decree." The father contended that before a district court could award support above the above the statutory formula, the obligee was required to prove that the additional amount was necessary to meet the child's needs. Under the qualitative approach to the time rule embraced by most time rule states, the member would receive half of this sum himself - $1,003.55. Each of his former spouses, having been married to him for exactly half the time the pension accrued, would receive half of that sum - $501.78. In other words: The bill which created NRS 125A.340, as originally proposed, would have allowed grandparents to seek visitation even when the natural parents were still married. There were, however, numerous objections to state interference with intact marriages. In response to this concern, the bill was amended to allow for court intervention only when the natural parents were divorced.... Specifically, the Alaska joint-custody formula is triggered when the percentage of time (usually, but not always, to be defined as overnights of 110 or more) reaches 30% of custodial time. Trial courts are then to examine the details of the visitation schedule, and the financial disclosures, to determine whether expenses relating to the child divide in the same manner as the time spent with the child are divided. If so, normal guideline support is expanded by 50% to account for "redundant payments" in the two households, before application of Alaska’s deviation factors. For example, this office has a virtual sideline just fixing the screwed-up retirement and pension division orders that come from such companies. In one recent case, a local non-attorney QDRO preparer wrote an order that gave the wife 50% of a 401(k). Which was great - except that the parties had been married for only 8 out of the 24 years the husband had been contributing to the account. Took about a year, and over $20,000, to track down and recover (most) of the missing money. a portion of each such dollar, exactly equal to whatever percentage she received of the retirement benefits divided upon divorce, and paid to the retiree out of the money she would otherwise receive every month. In the context of the cases holding that community property accrues "until the parties are divorced," the Court has always treated the trial and the divorce as synonymous, even when the decree is entered months later. In Forrest v. Forrest,5 the Court held that community property accrues until parties are divorced, but in issuing instructions for the trial court, the Court treated the trial and the divorce as synonymous. Pointing out that property rights accrued "during marriage" and did not terminate upon separation, the Court in remanding referenced the financial facts as they existed at the moment of trial, and directed the trial court on remand to address those specific numbers.6 A) the member or former member, while a member of the armed forces and after becoming eligible to be retired from the armed forces on the basis of years of service, has eligibility to receive retired pay terminated as a result of misconduct while a member involving abuse of a spouse or dependent child (as defined in regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense or, for the Coast Guard when it is not operating as a service in the Navy, by the Secretary of Transportation); and The primary purpose of the USFSPA was to define state court jurisdiction to consider and use military retired pay in fixing the property and support rights of the parties to a divorce, dissolution, annulment, or legal separation.3 By fits and starts, every State in the Union has permitted military retirement benefits to be divided as property, at least in certain circumstances. Range of potential downward deviation is $1,328 (if this Court allows support to flow "uphill" from a majority time-share parent to a minority time-share parent) or $664 (if this Court does not allow support to flow "uphill"). The amounts withheld were based on the member’s pay period and exemptions. This led to widespread anecdotal accounts of abuse by members, who manipulated their tax status so as to maximize withholding and minimize disposable income available for division with former spouses. There has been an administrative ruling from the Comptroller General prohibiting this practice since 1984, but enforcement of the prohibition was uneven, since the pay centers had no uniform policy on how to handle accusations of such manipulation.2

You can find Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act and PKPA The Marren and Page Case List In re Swall Exhibits on Rivero Exhibit Four A Nevada divorce and family law The Marren and Page Case List Willerton v Bassham by Welfare Divorce Feral paralegals part 2 How to Allocate the SBP Premium Cost-Shifting Hitting the Jackpot in Pension Cases Secrets to Getting the Retirement Shar Partition Actions The Marren and Page Case List Wolford v Wolford The Marren and Page Case List Reed v Reed and Kennedy v Kennedy Attorney liens post Argentena actually getting paid Termination of Parental Rights Rivero v Rivero Opinion Section V Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act and PKPA available at lvfamilylawyer.com by clicking above.

Site Map

Divison of Military Retirement Benefits In Divorce Section III Key Concepts Divison of Military Retirement Benefits In Divorce Section V Subsection G The Marren and Page Case List Abell v Second Judicial District Court Cole v Hitting the Jackpot in Pension Cases Secrets to Getting the Retirement Shar Time to distinguish enterprise and personal goodwill The ¡°Ubiquitous Time Rule¡± ¨C More Flavors than You Might Expect Las Vegas child visitation expert

Reciprocal Links: Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act and PKPA Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act and PKPA Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act and PKPA Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act and PKPA