Adjourn due to possible incarceration?

[Teenwolf]

Hi all. Quick question: do the courts typically adjourn an upcoming hearing due to a pending criminal charge and possible incarceration?

The GF's ex's lawyer contacted her today and said the following:

In any case, I will be pursuing an adjournment until after February, 2013 so that more will be known about his circumstances at the time of any hearing. Of course, if he is incarcerated, he will not be obligated to pay support and any order for support will need to be varied. Given those circumstances, I feel a hearing this month is just premature. Kindly advise as to your position in relation to a possible adjournment.

The Family Court hearing is schedule two weeks from now, and his criminal case will be heard in February.

[wretchedotis]

He is asking your consent to adjourn. It's up to you to agree or not. He can then request/motion for an adjournment should you not agree.

What exactly is the 'hearing' you have in two weeks?

[Teenwolf]

He is asking your consent to adjourn. It's up to you to agree or not. He can then request/motion for an adjournment should you not agree.

What exactly is the 'hearing' you have in two weeks?

It's a final hearing to impute his income to full time min wage. They already had several conferences, and have one more this Friday due his lack of financial disclosure, which finally got filed today.

I doubt the GF will agree to an adjournment. What's the likelihood that his motion to adjourn would succeed?

[wretchedotis]

I can't say. But I would deny consent. Have them impute income. Should he become incarcerated - they can deal with that bridge crossing then.
Until then - PAY CS ALREADY!!

Courts don't typically engage in "what if's", so I would press on with the facts as they currently are.

[Rioe]

Yeah, adjourning for something that may or may not happen four months from now is pretty silly. Push for CS to be paid until then based on his newly disclosed income, or imputed on minimum or other appropriate wage, and then it can be suspended or whatever IF he is incarcerated and can no longer work. That way you can easily push for CS to resume smoothly when he is released, instead of more waiting.

[Teenwolf]

Thanks for the input. It's refreshing to hear what you both said, as it mirrors my thoughts. Adjourning for something that may or may not happen didn't make sense to me either. I think his lawyer is digging.

[wretchedotis]

I think his lawyer is digging.

I agree. It's the lawyers' job after all. Try to get the outcome the client wants. He obviously doesn't want to pay CS.

[Berner_Faith]

I agree. It's the lawyers job after all. try to get the outcome the client wants. He obviously doesn't want to pay CS.

I would say he absolutely had to the day the relationship ended (providing the ex had custody of the child then)... unfortunately, he may be one of those people that avoid paying CS at all costs... sad story for the child involved.

[wretchedotis]

I would say he absolutely had to the day the relationship ended (providing the ex had custody of the child then)... unfortunately, he may be one of those people that avoid paying CS at all costs... sad story for the child involved.

Well yes, and no.

CS is a good thing. And every child deserves it. Don't get me wrong.
But it does certainly piss me off when one party INSISTS on and then GAINS full custody.

Those type of people should be forced to raise the child on their own dollar. If your willing to cut one parent out of a kids life - you should be willing to foot the entire bill.

Sorry - personal demons....

[Berner_Faith]

Understand where you are coming from wretchdois... unfortunately a lot of people who push for sold custody, are more concerned about the money, rather than what is in the best interest of the child(ren).

I bet if what you were saying were law (those who want sole custody when the other parent is completely fit to parent equally) had to raise their child on their dime, things would be completely different in family law...

[Teenwolf]

I agree. It's the lawyers' job after all. Try to get the outcome the client wants. He obviously doesn't want to pay CS.

That seems very clear to me; the question is: will the judge see it crystal clear too?

Quick background: under the income threshold for CS since 2008; had a poor payment record prior to 2008 when he was required to pay CS; claimed medically unfit to work earlier this year, but reneged on that position when he was directed to produce a medical expert opinion; busted for selling drugs in May; now using "possible incarceration" to adjourn the final court hearing; and may be claiming undue hardship, but his lawyer isn't sure because she has trouble reaching him. Also took 11 months and 5 court orders for him to disclose income tax returns.

I would say he absolutely had to the day the relationship ended (providing the ex had custody of the child then)... unfortunately, he may be one of those people that avoid paying CS at all costs... sad story for the child involved.

Bingo!

I bet if what you were saying were law (those who want sole custody when the other parent is completely fit to parent equally) had to raise their child on their dime, things would be completely different in family law...

Agreed; however, that's not the case here. They have joint custody and the child is with the father EOW.

[wretchedotis]

My opinion.

Adjournment will be denied, CS will be imputed (or otherwsie based on his financials), and if it's his first offense- there will be no jail time.

Unless maybe he was selling cocaine to minors and then filming under-age sexual explotiation (or some such similar REALLY BAD BEHAIVOUR). Like REALLY REALLY bad.

No one goes to jail on first offense (in Canada) unless it's a really big deal.

She should go in guns blazing for CS. Period.

[Teenwolf]

My opinion.

No one goes to jail on first offense (in Canada) unless it's a really big deal.

That's my take too, but I'm not sure about this case. The police raided his house after three young adults in the community died from consumption of prescription drugs and alcohol. There was a lot of heat on the police and, when they raided his house, they seized undisclosed quantities of prescription drugs (same type as the people died from), cash and marijuana. He hasn't been charged with anything connecting him to the deaths, but it thickens the plot. This is his first charge for trafficking drugs.

He has also pleaded not guilty, so I find it interesting how an innocent man would use possible incarceration as justification to adjourn a Family Court hearing.

[wretchedotis]

You can't mix his plead in criminal court with that sentiment, unfortunately.

He is innocent, unless proven guilty.

The two cannot mix until he is found guilty. Then, should that be the case, chase that concept down to the absolute maximum allowable.

[Teenwolf]

You can't mix his plead in criminal court with that sentiment, unfortunately.

He is innocent, unless proven guilty.

The two cannot mix until he is found guilty. Then, should that be the case, chase that concept down to the absolute maximum allowable.

Good point. Like you said earlier, just stick to the facts we have now. To date, he hasn't been found guilty of any crime, so this is what the GF should argue on Friday.