P. 1
Initial Brief on Appeal 2D12-4553

Initial Brief on Appeal 2D12-4553

|Views: 1|Likes:
Published by Robert Lee Chaney
Florida DoR and circuit court ignore court order to collect current support and Mother files appeal. DoR claims there was no order for ongoing supoort for 9-year-old boy. DoR fights to keep Mother from collecting three and one-half years' worth of child support.
Florida DoR and circuit court ignore court order to collect current support and Mother files appeal. DoR claims there was no order for ongoing supoort for 9-year-old boy. DoR fights to keep Mother from collecting three and one-half years' worth of child support.

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: Robert Lee Chaney on Nov 01, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less







FI(ED ' Mar ) #0$*

The action below is a child support case1 filed in Sebring, Highlands County, Florida on 12 July 2001 involving one child and three court cases The !ppellant, "ellie J #otil $Kellie%, has two children, but has never been &arried 'ne child, Ca&eron ! !guero $Cameron%, (o)* 12 February 1+++ $!ge 1,% has been, arbitrarily, denied three and one-half $. /% years of court-ordered support by the State of Florida, (epart&ent of 0evenue, Child Support 1nforce&ent (ivision $DoR% $A:065 l +-1/% The purpose of this appeal is to corrrect this wrongful denial of support that goes against valid court orders, the law, the facts and public policy Ca&eron has one sibling2a half-brother, )la3e Hoff&an $Blake%2who was born on . (ece&ber 200, $age 4% )la3e5s child support2 pay&ents were never &essed up, and for the first seven $6% years, Ca&eron5s support pay&ents were not &essed up Ca&eron5s father, Jac3 0 !guero, 77 $Ja k%, "ellie, and counsel for the (o0, all appeared at a hearing on .1 January 2002 $!ee !*001 1st 8% before Judge J (avid 9angford who ordered Jac3 to pay a total of :;. 21 per wee3 as follows* "56.#$ per wee3 for current $or ongoing% support< and :6 00 per wee3 to be applied toward =retroactive child support in the su& of :,,+6; +4 > This ?Final 'rder on Support?

$the ?#00# Or%er?% $A:00$&00'% was filed on 1/ February 2002 and it stated* =The Court retains full and co&plete @urisdiction of this cause of action and the parties > 1 Ca&eron5s Case Au&ber* 24 2001 (0 000421 BB!B#B C01000421FC!BSBD 2 )la3e5s Case Au&ber* 24 200; (0 000;6; BB!B#B C0;000;6;FC!BSBD 2(12-,//. 1 !ppellant5s 7nitial )rief

$A:00' +,% Jac35s due process rights have been duly honored in the case below Three years later, on 2 June 200/, an =7nco&e (eduction 'rder> was issued to Jac35s e&ployers de&anding they ta3e the sa&e ="56.#$ per w3 for ongoing support> and increased $&odified% arrears pay&ents to =:1. 6+ per w3 to be applied towards the eEisting arrearage or public assistance obligations> for a =Total CofD ",0.00 -er .k> $the =#005 Or%er>% $A:005 +$% The 200/ 'rder also said* =the ongoing child support obligation pay&ent &ust continue at the rate in effect until all a&ounts owed are

paid in full or until &odified by the court > $A:005 +*/ Three years later, in January 2004, "ellie dated a &an who physically abused her, but not the boys 'ut of concern for "ellie and the boys, this abuse was reported to the Florida State authorities who, te&porarily, too3 )la3e and Ca&eron away fro& "ellie and placed the& with their &aternal aunt, 9aura Chaney $A0n1 (a0ra%, $A:0$6%. for about four $,% wee3s fro& &id-January to &id-February 2004 !unt 9aura was pregnant with her first baby at the ti&e and she was having trouble handling her own affairs plus "ellie5s two boys, so the State placed the& with their &aternal grandparents, 0obert and "atherine Chaney, on or about 1, February 2004 Their grandparents too3 care of the& for four $,% &onths until 14 June 2004 $A:0$,% when they were =reunited> with their #other, "ellie Fursuant to the boys being re&oved fro& "ellie5s ho&e, the (o0 as3ed for and . )oth boys5 Juvenile Case Au&ber* 04-0000.+-JF-#! G This =#e&o of Court Hearing> is dated =02H26H2004> al&ost two wee3s after the boys left 9aura5s ho&e 2(12-,//. 2 !ppellant5s 7nitial )rief

received ad&inistrative orders affecting not only the redirection of current support, but the (o0, also, obtained orders to change and redirect the pay&ents on the accu&ulated arrears )ecause the :11,+1/ 62 in arrears had already accrued and was rightfully owed to "ellie, it appears that the (o0 went beyond its @urisdiction by as3ing the lower court to order any of the accu&ulated arrears to be paid to !unt 9aura The 0edirect 'rder did not suspend and did not ter&inate the collection of the wee3ly "56.#$ ongoing support fro& Jac3 for Ca&eron, but it did give authority to the (o0 to redirect the pay&ents of Ca&eron5s support $current and arrears% fro& "ellie to his !unt 9aura However, !unt 9aura never received any :/; 21 pay&ents for current support She did receive a few :12 chec3s $:; 00Hwee3 for arrears E 2 I :12% !lthough )la3e was re&oved fro& "ellie along with Ca&eron, )la3e5s support pay&ents were never changed or interrupted due to his re&oval fro& "ellie5s ho&e Ao court order was issued for the pay&ent of any support to !unt 9aura for )la3e The (o0 attorneys ad&it that on Jednesday, 14 June 2004, "ellie contacted the (o0 by telephone several ti&es $A:$22 , a .rd 8% "ellie testified that she went to the (o05s Sebring office in June of 2004 $A:$'$ l 16-21% !lthough the (o0 did not say anything to "ellie at that ti&e, later on, the (o0 attorneys said "ellie failed to give the& an official paper--telling the& that she had gotten her children bac32until 2011 $!*1.4 l ;-16% The (o0 attorneys clai& that, as a result of "ellie5s =failure> to provide proper docu&entation to the (o0, the (o0 did not ta3e any action to ter&inate the



!ppellant5s 7nitial )rief

ad&inistrative 0edirect 'rder $!*1.6 l 2. to !*1.4 l /% 7n fact, the (o0 never co&plied with the 0edirect 'rder, because !unt 9aura never received any :/; 21 support pay&ents 7nterestingly, the Court said, =CTDhere is a statute that reKuires the (epart&ent to &ove for redirection of support if there5s a change in custodial parent, correctL> The (o0 attorney, #s Schoeppner, replied, =Correct > The Court then said, =Jhy would the (epart&ent not have had a si&ilar obligation, then, to as3 the support to be redirected
Kellie bac3 to #s #otil, and why would the (epart&ent not have Kellie4! #otil5s behalf to pursue the supportL> $!*1.6 l ;-22%

had an obligation on #s

"ellie did not as3 the State to ta3e her children away and she did not file any papers &a3ing such a reKuest She did, however, tell the (o0 that she had her boys bac3 on Jednesday, 14 June 2004, via telephone and by personal appearance in the (o05s office in Sebring $A:053 l 20-22 and A:$22 8 , a .rd 8% 7n the last few years, the (o05s actions have not been consistent with the court orders or the law and the (o05s reasoning is incoherent Here are so&e things the (o0 did, and so&e things it failed to do, after the State too3 "ellie5s two boys away fro& her in January 2004* 1 'n 22 February 2004, the (o0, sua sponte,, filed an unverified ?#otion to 0edirect Child Support? $A:006% The (o0 did not as3 the court to &odify the

, #eaning ?voluntarily< without pro&pting or suggestion ? )9(, p 1266 2(12-,//. , !ppellant5s 7nitial )rief

collecting or ?ta3ing? of current support pay&ents $"56.#$Hwee3% fro& Jac3 7n fact, the #otion ac3nowledged the =F7A!9 '0(10 'A SMFF'0T was entered by this Court on 02H1/H2002 > $A:006 81% 7t only as3ed the court to &odify the distribution or ?giving? of the &oney after it was collected The (o0 as3ed that the &oney stop going to "ellie and start going to =the person with who& the child$ren% now resides > The boys were residing with their &aternal grandparents as of 1, February 2004 The grandparents never received any support pay&ents 2 The ='rder to 0edirect Support> said that ='ngoing child support payable to "19971 J #'T79 under (0( nu&ber 240100000421FC shall be suspended as of January 11, 2004 > $A:002 81% 7t was =suspended,> not =ter&inated > 7t is "ellie5s understanding that an ad&inistrative redirection of support pay&ents does not &odify the underlying support order . The (o0 did not serve a copy of the =#otion to 0edirect> upon "ellie $!*006% , The (o0 did not file a si&ilar &otion to redirect )la3e5s support pay&ents His pay&ents did not get &essed up Than3 goodness / The (o0 did not redirect any "56.#$ ongoing support pay&ents to either !unt 9aura, or to the boys5 grandparents, in spite of the lower court5s ='rder to 0edirect Support > $A:002, A:0$* and A0$' Fayee* 9aura Chaney% The (o0 has not eEplained this !unt 9aura did not receive any =current> support pay&ents for either Ca&eron or )la3e



!ppellant5s 7nitial )rief

; The (o0 3ept sending both )la3e5s and Ca&eron5s support pay&ents to "ellie even while "ellie and the boys were living in 'hio 6 The (o0 only sent a few :; 00 arrears pay&ents to !unt 9aura She only received about :62 in total These :; pay&ents were supposed to go to "ellie pursuant the =Schedule !-1 > $A:0$0 and A:0$$ Fayee* "ellie #otil% 4 The (o0 did not file a &otion to ter&inate the 0edirect 'rder even though the (o0 3new "ellie had gotten her boys bac3 pursuant to the =#e&o of Court Hearing> dated 14 June 2004 $A:0$,% This =#e&o> indicated that the =(epart&ent> had perfor&ed a =positive ho&e study> and that the =children reunited wH&other > "ellie too3 her yellow copy of this =#e&o> to the (o05s office in Sebring located at .242 MS 26 South + 'n 16 #arch 200+--&ore than one year after the boys left !unt 9aura5s ho&e--the (o0 filed a sworn ?!ffidavit in Support of 0eKuest for 0edirection of Child Support Fay&ents? $A:0$3%/ signed by the affiant, Sue Foster, a Child Support 1nforce&ent ?0evenue Specialist ? !lthough they had not been with !unt 9aura since 1, February 2004, this affidavit said* ?The records of the (epart&ent of 0evenue, show 9!M0! M CH!A1N, who has the care, custody, and control of C!#10'A ! !OM10' ? $A:0$3 82% 7t &ay be true that the (o0

records showed the boys were living with !unt 9aura, but the records were

/ This !ffidavit was filed under 9aura5s Case nu&ber 0+-421-F1 2(12-,//. ; !ppellant5s 7nitial )rief

wrong The boys were, in fact, bac3 living with "ellie and had been living with her for eight $4% &onths This affidavit, also, declared ?That all child support pay&ents in this case should be &ade to 9!M0! M CH!A1N > $A:0$3 8.%

9aura never received any current support pay&ents for either Ca&eron or )la3e "ellie does not 3now why the (o0 filed this affidavit which was erroneous, to say the least 10 Jac3--perhaps because of the above-referenced affidavit-- told "ellie in early 200+, that his 2004 taE refund was going to be sent to !unt 9aura, so "ellie as3ed !unt 9aura to go to the (o0 'ffice in Sebring to see what was, really, going on and to fiE it if she could Jhen !unt 9aura went to the (o0 'ffice in !pril 200+, she told the& she did not want any &oney fro& Jac3, and that she did not want to stop any support &oney fro& going to "ellie The (o0 assured her everything would be o3ay and then the (o0 prepared, sua sponte, a ?0eKuest to Close Child Support Case? $A:0#0% and as3ed !unt 9aura to sign it to ?stop on-going child support and close &y court case ? The (o0 was supposed to close !unt 9aura5s case, not "ellie5s 9aura did not as3 the (o0 to close "ellie5s case 9aura had no right and no authority to even as3 the (o0 to stop ta3ing current support fro& Jac3 9aura had no right to close "ellie5s child support case !unt 9aura did not notice it at the ti&e, but the (o0 &ista3enly co&bined the two case nu&bers $9aura5s--F1 and "ellie5s--FC% on the top right of the ?0eKuest? as follows*



!ppellant5s 7nitial )rief

?C!S1 A' 01-421-F1-FC ? 11 Jhen "ellie as3ed the (o0 attorney, #s 9orren, =CHDow can she C9auraD sign off &y arrearsL,> #s 9orren said, =She did not sign off on your arrears She signed off on what was owed to her They paid you :12 000 of your arrears fro& before then > $!*0/+ l 4-12% This &eans that the (o0 considered the court-ordered, ongoing support for a then +-year-old boy to be =ter&inated,> without any &otion to &odify and without any court order to do so )y definition, this is &alicious $there was no valid support for it% 12 The (o0 used the ?0eKuest? to obtain an ?'rder of the Court? signed by Judge !ngela Cowden on 1, !pril 200+ and filed on 1/ !pril 200+ $the ?#003 Or%er?% $A:0#$% The 200+ 'rder was obtained without a &otion, without notice to either Jac3 or "ellie, and without a hearing 7t should be noted that it was in January 2004 that the (o0 started applying all support &oney, ta3en fro& Jac3, toward the arrears that had accrued as of 11 January 2004 The (o0 started applying all collected support to arrears, with no regard for three $.% court orders; which all ordered Jac3 to pay "56.#$ per wee3 for ongoing support $A:00$< A:005< and A:0$*% 1. !unt 9aura was not the =Fetitioner> in "ellie5s case The 200+ 'rder &ista3enly had "ellie5s case nu&ber, FC 01-421, instead of !unt 9aura5s $F1 01-421%, and it

; The 2002 'rder, the 200/ 'rder and the 2004 0edirect 'rder 2(12-,//. 4 !ppellant5s 7nitial )rief

said* ST'F CH79( SMFF'0T, P10' )!9!AC1 Q C9'S1 C!S1 F10 01RM1ST 'F F1T7T7'A10 1#F9'N10 T' (7SC'AT7AM1 (1(MCT7'AS F0'# 01SF'A(1AT5S J!O1SHS!9!0N, 1FF1CT7S1 7##1(7!T19N, F'0 TH1 CH79( SMFF'0T !A(H'0 !97#'AN 1, Jhile "ellie was still living in 'hio, she authoriTed her dad, 0obert Chaney to go to the (o05s office in Sebring on 1+ 'ctober 2010 in an atte&pt to fiE the proble& !fter he &et with the (o0 personnel, he wrote a letter to su&&ariTe our position $A:0##% His atte&pt failed to resolve the issues with the (o0 1/ The (o0 prepared papers which, effectively--but not legally, ter&inated all child support fro& going to "ellie for al&ost three and one-half $. /% yearsU Aote* "ellie as3ed the (o0 to ?enforce? court orders, not ?&odify? the& The decision to reKuest a &odification was &ade, sua sponte, by the (o0 attorneys The cu&ulative effect of the (o05s actions, and inactions, was to ter&inate all "ellie5s support for the ti&e period of 11 January 2004 to 2; !pril 20116 This de facto ter&ination of support was carried out by the (o0 in spite of its &ission--and its duty--to enforce child support 7ncredibly, The (o05s attorney said the (o0 =had no affir&ative duty to act on #s #otil5s unsubstantiated clai& > $A:$22% !t the Kellie4! hearing of 24 June 2012, "ellie as3ed the (o0 attorney, #s Schoeppner, =C(Do you have anything showing where you, as the (epart&ent of 0evenue, were

6 The (o05s =Fetition for #odification of Child Support> was filed 2; !pril 2011 2(12-,//. + !ppellant5s 7nitial )rief

ordered to continue to collect the support buy apply it towards arrears instead of current support in February of 2004L> The Court re-stated the Kuestion, =Jhat she5s as3ing is once you all deter&ined that #s 9aura Chaney no longer had the child, did you receive any court order that then told you to start ta3ing the &oney that, if you5re collecting it, and applying it towards arrearsL> #s Shoeppner said, =Ao, sir, 7 don5t believe > Then "ellie as3ed, =CJDhy did you start applying it towards arrearsL> #s Shoeppner replied, =That would be so&ething we would have done ad&inistratively > "ellie then as3ed, =Jhy wasn5t 7 notifiedL> #s Shoeppner said, =7 can5t answer the Kuestion > $A:$60 l / to A:$6$ l 6% )ecause "ellie was still receiving the :1,0 every two wee3s, she was not aware that, although the (o0 was still ta3ing &oney fro& Jac3 and giving it to "ellie every other wee3, the (o0 was not applying any of that &oney to =current> support Jithout an order directing it to do so, the (o0, arbitrarily, started applying all &oney collected fro& Jac3 to the :11,+1/ 62 in arrears as of 11 January 2004 The (o0 ignored the 2002 'rder, the 200/ 'rder and the 0edirect 'rder which all said to ta3e :/; 21 fro& Jac3 as current support ! little over three $.% years later, the (o0 considered this :11,+1/ 62 arrearage to be fully paid off in (ece&ber 200+U The (o05s &ista3en accounting is so bad, that on 1 Septe&ber 2011, the (o0 said "ellie owed Jac3 :1,0 00U $A:0,#% The (o0, &ista3enly, contends that =Frior to this Court5s July 26, 2011 order, #r !guero Ja k had not been under an order to pay ongoing child support for years > $A:$2, 2(12-,//. 10 !ppellant5s 7nitial )rief

8. b 2nd sentence% The (o0 attached a handwritten note dated, /H2;H11, fro& Jac3 as =1Ehibit 1> $A:$30% to its =Jritten Closing !rgu&ents Following June 24, 2012 Hearing > $A:$26% This note said* To who& it &ay concern, 7 Jac3 0 !guero 77 willfully paid support for years and have no proble& paying again (idn5t 3now it stopped Q will pay again no proble& !s of 11 January 2004, the (o0 had, arbitrarily, effectively and &aliciously4, ter&inated current or =ongoing> support for Ca&eron !fter that day, every penny collected fro& Jac3 was being applied only to arrears that had accrued before January 2004 Aeither Jac3 nor "ellie 3new that the (o0 had de facto ter&inated current support 'n 22 February 2004, the (o0 filed a =#otion to 0edirect Child Support>+ $A:006% fro& "ellie to their !unt 9aura The (o05s &otion was not verified, and a copy of it was not served upon "ellie $A:00,% This appears to be a violation of the rules and a denial of "ellie5s and Ca&eron5s due-process rights to notice and an opportunity to be heard Aevertheless, on the sa&e day, the lower tribunal issued an ad&inistrative ='rder to 0edirect Support> $the =0edirect 'rder>% which was &eant to te&porarily suspend current support =payable to> "ellie =as of January 11, 2004 > Aote* The 0edirect 'rder 4 ?5&alice5 &erely &eans a lac3 of legal @ustification ? Gates v. Utsey, 166 So 2d ,4;, 1st (C! $July 26, 1+;/%, at ,44 ?#alice in law The intentional doing of a wrongful act without @ust cause or eEcuse ? BLD at p 4;. + =Support> still being collected fro& Jac3 under the 2002 and 200/ orders 2(12-,//. 11 !ppellant5s 7nitial )rief

was not &eant to, and did not, ?suspend? the underlying 2002 'rder for the collection of support from Jac3 and it did not, nor was it &eant to, =ter&inate> either the collection of support from Jac3 or the pay&ent of the collected support to "ellie The ad&instrative 0edirect 'rder was only &eant to, te&porarily, suspend the collected support pay&ents fro& being sent to "ellie 7f "ellie had been notified about the (o05s #otion to 0edirect, she would have told the& that !unt 9aura no longer had custody of "ellie5s sons 7n fact, the boys had been living with their grandparents for a wee3 when the (o05s &otion was filed The 0edirect 'rder was never enforced by the (o0, at least not in the way the lower court intended 7nstead, the (o0 used the 0edirect 'rder along with !unt 9aura5s !pril 200+ =0eKuest to Close> her =on-going child support> case against Jac3, and the ='rder of the Court>10 to, effectively, erase all support $current and arrears% for the ti&e period of 12 January 2004 to 2; !pril 201111 !s of 11 January 2004, Jac3 owed child-support arrears in the a&ount of :11,+1/ 62 !ccording to the 0edirect 'rder5s =Schedule !-1> , "ellie was to be paid :; 00 per wee3 towards this arrearage $A:0$0 and A:0$$% She never received any :;pay&ents2and2she 3ept receiving her nor&al :60Hwee3 pay&ents in the for& of a :1,0 pay&ent every two wee3s until the last one ca&e in (ece&ber 200+ She received

10 Signed by Judge !ngela Cowden on 1, !pril 200+ and filed 1/ !pril 200+ $A:0#$% 11 The 24 July 2011 ='rder on #odificaiton of Child Support> was &ade retroactive to the day the =Fetition for #odification of Child Support> was filed on 2; !pril 2011 2(12-,//. 12 !ppellant5s 7nitial )rief

two $2% :;2-pay&ents* one in January and one in February of 2010 !unt 9aura was supposed to get :;2 00 per wee3 $:/; 21 for =ongoing support> and :/ 6+ toward arrears% pursuant to the 0edirect 'rder5s =Schedule !-2> $A:0$*% but she never received &ore than :12 at one ti&e !unt 9aura only had the boys for four $,% wee3s, and she should have received :22, 4, for Ca&eron, alone However, she only received a few :12 chec3s for a total of about :62 00 for Ca&eron She received no &oney for )la3e !unt 9aura never received any support for )la3e because there was never any &otion or any order addressing his child support being collected fro& his father "ellie never had any proble& with the (o0 regarding )la3e5s support The (o0 attorneys have asserted that the (o0 did not 3now where "ellie was living, $!*0// l 6-+% but this assertion is disengenuous because the (o0 3ept sending support pay&ents to "ellie for both Ca&eron and )la3e $A:0,5 86 last sentence< and A:0,6 820 last sentence% II. S5MMAR6 OF AR75MENT "ellie never as3ed for a =&odification> of child support "ellie has as3ed, repeatedly, that the (o0 enforce the eEisting, valid child support order $A:00$% 7n response to "ellie5s reKuest to enforce the eEiting orders for support, the (o0, eventually, petitioned the court for a &odification of support $A:$35% 7t see&s logical that one cannot =&odify> an order unless one eEists 7f an order 2(12-,//. 1. !ppellant5s 7nitial )rief

did not eEist, then the (o0 should have petitioned the court to =establish> one The (o0 clai&s there was no order for support fro& January 2004 until July 2011, yet they sought to =&odify> a support order The (o0 should have @ust enforced the eEisting orders This fact is undisputed* there was a valid, per&anent order for Jac3 to pay :/; 21Hwee3 for Ca&eron5s current $=ongoing>% support fro& 1/ February, 2002 to 2; !pril 2011 $A:00$/ "ellie eEpressed her position to the Court at the hearing on 24 June 2012 $A:$*$ l , to A:$*6 l +% The (o0 never offered any evidence that the 2002 'rder $to ta3e :/; 21 per wee3 fro& Jac3% was ever suspended or ter&inated There is no &otion in the record for &odification of this support order prior to !pril 2011 "ellie contends that this per&anent support order had two parts* 1% the =ta3ing> of &oney fro& Jac32which was not affected by the ad&inistrative redirect order< and 2% the =giving> of &oney to "ellie2which was ordered by the court to be =redirected> te&porarily, however, the (o0 did not redirect those pay&ents 7nstead, the (o0 continued to collect the &oney fro& Jac3, and continued to give it to "ellie Jhat changed was how the (o0 categoriTed the &oney it collected fro& Jac3 The (o0 had, sua sponte, deter&ined that all support collected was for arrears The (o0 was concerned about Jac35s due-process rights $A:$2, 8. b %, but the (o0 never addressed the validity of the per&anent support order for the collection of :/; 21 fro& Jac3



!ppellant5s 7nitial )rief

III. AR75MENT There was a valid, per&anent order for Jac3 to pay :/; 21Hwee3 for Ca&eron5s current $?ongoing?% support and :1. 6+Hwee3 for arrears to "ellie for a total support of :60 00 per wee3 $200/ 'rder% $A:005% SiE $;% years later, a te&porary, ad&inistrative order was issued to re-direct the distribution of the &oney--collected by the (o02to the boys5 !unt 9aura, but there was no order that ever said Jac3 could stop paying any support The validity of the 0edirect 'rder is uncertain because the &otion which produced it was not verified and neither "ellie, nor !unt 9aura received any notice of the hearing on the &otion Salid or not, the 0edirect 'rder was never enforced by the (o0 "ellie 3ept on receiving Ca&eron5s child support pay&ents every two wee3s in the a&ount of :1,0 fro& January 2004 until (ece&ber 200+ Then she received two $2% pay&ents of :;2 00 each before "ellie stopped receiving all support pay&ents fro& Jac3 in February 2010 "ellie found out, later, that the (o0 had changed the way it categoriTed the &oney it too3 fro& Jac3 7n January 2004, the (o0 counted every penny it too3 as ?arrears ? There was no order authoriTing the (o05s re-categoriTation of ongoing support Florida Statute ;1 1,$;%$d% says* ?Fay&ents on @udg&ents shall be applied first to the current child support due, then to any delinKuent principal, and then to interest on the support @udg&ent ?



!ppellant5s 7nitial )rief

! Florida divorce lawyer said it well* ?Florida Statute ;1 .0 regards child support as a necessity for the child, which cannot be negotiated away Since the benefit is for the child and not the parent, the parents are not supposed to negotiate the right to child support The idea is that the child is not able to &a3e such a deter&ination and the parentsV role is to protect the child and loo3 out for his or her best interests 7n so doing, Florida believes that deter&ining child support and paying child support is vital to properly caring for the child ?12 Florida Statute ;1 2+$1% says* ?The following principles establish the public policy of the State of Florida in the creation of the child support guidelines* 1ach parent has a funda&ental obligation to support his or her &inor or legally dependent child ? The Third (istrict Court of !ppeal opined* Child support is a right that belongs to the child, and &ay not be contracted away by the parents =7t is not a reKuire&ent i&posed by one parent on the other< rather it is a dual obligation i&posed on the parents by the State> Further, a custodial parent5s waiver of a child5s right to all support would =clearly be contrary to public policy> and unenforceable by the courts because it is not in the best interests of the child C DeChant v. Florida DoR +1/ So 2d 21/ at 21; $.(C! 200;% citations o&itted !unt 9aura received a few :12 pay&ents $:;Hwee3 E 2 I :12% for a total of about :62 The boys5 grandparents did not as3 for any &oney to ta3e care of the&, so they never received any child support pay&ents fro& the boys5 fathers, nor did they receive any public assistance fro& the State of Florida for ta3ing care of Ca&eron and )la3e 'n 14 June 2004, the day "ellie got her sons bac3, she called the (o0 office in Sebring and went there, in person, to let the& 3now the boys were bac3 in her custody 12 http*HHwww @ac3sonvilledivorcelawyerblog co&HchildWsupportH 2(12-,//. 1; !ppellant5s 7nitial )rief

The attorneys for the (o0, later, said that "ellie did not file the right piece of paper to let the& 3now they were bac3 ho&e The funny thing is, the (o0 3ept sending all child support pay&ents to "ellie for both boys until January 2010 when Ca&eron5s entire $current and arrears% support stopped--and--the (o0 never &issed any pay&ents to "ellie for )la3e5s support fro& his father, to date The two boys have lived together since )la3e was born To "ellie, everything appeared fine until January 2010 when the a&ount of Ca&eron5s chec3 changed fro& :1,0 to :;2 )ecause she received no notice of the (o05s changes in its classification of collected support, "ellie was totally unaware that the support she received fro& 2004 through 2010 was classified only as arrears by the (o0, which she was only &ade aware of when she called the (o0 to find out why the a&ount of Ca&eron5s chec3 had changed and the (o0 told her it was because the arrears had been paid in full and that there was no order for ongoing supportU I8. CONC(5SION ! per&anent order for support was established in 2002 for Jac3 to pay :/; 21 per wee3 7n spite of this order, the (o0, through its own actions and o&issions, ad&instratively ter&inated all Ca&eron5s support fro& January 2004 to !pril 2011 This is not Jac35s fault The bla&e for this confusing &ess rests totally upon the (o0 !s the lower Court said* =CSDo&ebody went in and changed so&ething and 7 do not 3now where it

went but they need to reconcile the account > $A:0*3 l 4-10 and A:0'2 8+ a % To date,



!ppellant5s 7nitial )rief

Ca&eron5s support account has not been reconciled pursuant to the valid, eEisting orders for his support The Court &ista3enly thought that "ellie was being paid arrears and that !unt 9aura was being paid current support $A:052 l 10-1/% ! little later, the Court said there was no =current support> order for the ti&e in Kuestion $A:060 l .-21% ! private attorney cannot fiE this The (o0 &ade the &ista3es The (o0 needs to correct its &ista3es, but the (o0 will not do so until it is orderd to do so by the Court The (o05s &ission is to enforce the support rights of children and parents 7n this case, the (o0 has ignored valid court orders< filed needless court papers< &ade false state&ents of fact $A:0$3% and, basically, done as &uch as it could to prevent Ca&eron and "ellie fro& receiving child support The Court &ade this state&ent at the June 24, 2012 hearing* =#s Shoeppner is an officer of the court She has an obligation to provide &e any case law that is for or against her position !ny attorney is reKuired ethically to provide &e that > $A:$#2 l 2, to A:$#3 l .% 7t is "ellie5s contention that all the (o0 attorneys had an obligation to recogniTe the validity of the 2002 'rder, but they continue to ignore it as if it never eEisted How can these (o0 attorneys say that they did not 3now where "ellie and her boys were living, when the (o0 3ept sending her support pay&ents to her in 'hio and Florida for both boysL The (o0 did not stop sending Ca&eron5s pay&ents because they did not 3now where he was They stopped the pay&ents because they, wrongly, charged



!ppellant5s 7nitial )rief

those pay&ents to arrearsU )y law, current support was to be collected and paid first 9HEREFORE, !ppellant prays that this !ppellate Court will perfor& a plenary review of the actions of the lower court as eEpressed in the lower court5s orders fro& 2002 onward, &entioned herein, $A:00$< A:005< A:006< A:0'#: A:05$< and A:062% and deter&ine the validity of those orders as well as the rights and obligations of the parties pursuant to said deter&ination< S!C!T1 the erroneous ='rder !ddressing !rrears fro& 0e-direct> $A:062%< issue an order ac3nowledging that the 2002 '0(10 was still in effect at least until !pril 2011< order that a deter&ination of 0espondent5s arrears and current support be re-classified and re-calculated by the (o0 $fro& January 2004 until at least !pril 2011% based upon the eEisting 2002 '0(10< that the proper child-support agency2or a private, independent accountant2do a full accounting of any and all child support $including arrears, current support and a&ounts owed by 0espondent as rei&burse&ent for public assistance, if any%< or, in the alternative, order the pertinent State !gency to pay "ellie and Ca&eron for the support they lost due to the acts and o&issions of (o0 personnel< for an order relieving both "ellie J #otil and Jac3 0 !guero, 77 fro& any court fees and costs involved in "ellie5s atte&pt to have the (o0 enforce valid, eEisting support orders< for findings of fact and conclusions of law, and for such other, further and different relief as this !ppellate Court dee&s proper 01SF1CTFM99N SM)#7TT1( by* "19971 J #'T79, Self-0epresented ..14 )'97(1 ST011T S1)07AO, F9 ..462-.201 WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW Telephone* $4;.% .4/-/;00 2(12-,//. 1+ !ppellant5s 7nitial )rief

CERTIFICATE OF SER8ICE 7 H101)N C10T7FN that a copy of the foregoing docu&ent was sent via M S #ail to the persons listed below on the ,th day of #arch 201.* 'FF7C1 'F TH1 ST!T1 !TT'0A1N CH79( SMFF'0T 1AF'0C1#1AT (7S CH' #191N 9'001A, !S! 21/ A'0TH F9'0! !S1AM1 )!0T'J F9 ..4.0-.6.1 J!C" 0 !OM10' 77 ,+2/ 20TH ST 1!ST )0!(1AT'A F9 .,20.-.612 Certified by* "ellie J #otil WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW ..14 )'97(1 ST011T S1)07AO, F9 ..462-.201 Telephone* $4;.% .4/-/;00 Telephone* $4;.% /1+-,6,, 1&ail* &lorenXsao10 co&

CERTIFICATE OF FONT COM;(IANCE 7 certify that the co&puter-font used in this brief is Ti&es Aew 0o&an, 1,-point, in co&pliance with the font reKuire&ents of Florida 0ule of !ppellate Frocedure + 210$a%$2%

WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW "ellie J #otil, Self-0epresented, #other and Custodial Farent of the #inor Child ..14 )'97(1 ST011T S1)07AO, F9 ..462-.201 Telephone* $4;.% .4/-/;00



!ppellant5s 7nitial )rief

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->