But it was no laughing matter.

The case came about because, as The Daily Mail reported, the man was still legally married to that woman, his long-estranged wife. The pair had never formally divorced. In Iowa – just like in Indiana – a woman’s husband is the presumed father if:

• He and his wife were married when the child was born;
• The child is born no later than 300 days after the marriage ends.

more

The father in that case spoke to the state agency, explained the situation and offered to take a paternity test. However, the state agency informed him it would not be so simple. His only option, she said, is to “de-establish” paternity. That means he’s got to hire and attorney and take the matter to court. And in the meantime, he’s going to be paying child support.

It may seem nonsensical, but the law was written to ensure that children would be protected. But of course, infidelity is a reality in many unions. And then of course, there are situations like this in which spouses are long-estranged.

This case makes a strong argument to avoid putting off divorce. Beyond this example, some reasons you may want to avoid a long-term separation:

• Lack of control over expenditure of marital assets;
• Ample opportunity to hide assets;
• Divorce settlement may ultimately be less if either of your financial circumstances change;
• Spouse could move out-of-state or out-of-country, complicating legal matters;
• Alimony laws in your state could change;
• If your spouse gets into trouble financially, you may be liable too.

And then, of course, there is the matter of future relationships and future children.

When it comes to paternity, there have been many Indiana child support cases in which men have been expected to pay for children who are biologically not their own because the law presumed they were the father.

Some examples of this include:

• Parents not married with no formal establishment of paternity, but father has been informally supporting child and holding child out as his or her own;
• Parents are married – or in the process of divorcing – but have not yet finalized that divorce;
• Parents are divorced and father is paying child support, but now has reason to believe the child is not biologically his own;
• Paternity has been established by means other than a formal DNA test and now father wants to challenge paternity with a formal test.

In the first scenario, the father generally won’t be ordered to pay unless a paternity test establishes he is the biological father. Otherwise, he wouldn’t be required to pay support unless he chose to do so.

In the other scenarios, the father may have to request a paternity test and after that, file a formal request to terminate the child support order and ask that the child not be considered a product of the marriage.

Keep in mind, though, courts generally will not overturn a finding of paternity after two years of being established, no matter what the circumstances.

If you have concerns about establishing paternity, de-establishing paternity or arranging for child support, contact our Gary, Indiana paternity attorneys.

Indiana Family Law Attorney Burton A. Padove handles divorce and child custody matters throughout northern Indiana, including Gary and Hammond.

Additional Resources:

Man protests law requiring him to pay child support for another man’s child, March 24, 2016, By Tribune Media Wire

More Blog Entries:

Betancourt v. Betancourt – Indiana Child Support Arrears Dispute, March 11, 2016, Gary Paternity Lawyer Blog

• Salaries and wages
• Income from overtime and second jobs
• Investment and interest income
• Pension income
• Trust or estate income
• Annuities
• Capital gains
• Social Security benefits
• Veterans’ benefits
• Military personnel fringe benefits
• National Reserve and drill pay
• Workers’ compensation
• Unemployment
• Disability insurance benefits
• Prizes and gifts (including gambling and lottery winnings)
• Income of a new spouse
• Alimony received from another
• Real estate income

more

As our Gary, Indiana child support lawyers can explain, this kind of analysis can lead to unexpected results. It’s imperative to have strong legal representation to ensure your rights and financial future are protected. This is especially important because once the amount is set, obtaining a reversal or modification can be very difficult.

Although there are child support guidelines set for each state, judges have the option to deviate from those guidelines in certain circumstances. This was the case in the Nebraska Supreme Court case of Stekr v. Beecham. Here, it was a non-income real estate property that prompted the court to deviate. The moving party, the father, appealed this decision, but the state supreme court affirmed.

According to court records, the couple in question divorced in 2001 and at that time, the court granted custody of the couple’s daughter to her mother. Father, meanwhile, was ordered to pay $985 monthly in child support. That obligation was raised to $1,800 in 2007.

Three years later, father filed a motion to modify child support, asserting his income had decreased. The court referred the case to a referee (an attorney appointed by judges to act as a judicial hearing officer in certain cases).

At the hearing, father testified that he worked trading and selling bonds and mortgage-backed securities, and had done so since the early 1990s. For about five years, he worked for a large firm, and had the opportunity to earn substantial commissions. One years, his gross income was $130,000. The following year, it was $330,000. The year after that, it was nearly $350,000.

But then, he was laid off. He later found another job with an annual salary of $60,000, and was given a bonus of 5 percent.

He is also the sole shareholder of a small asset management company that has a single asset: A “spec home.” He built it back in 2007, and the goal was to flip it and make money. However, the real estate market collapsed around the same time, so selling proved difficult.

Originally, he listed the house for $950,000. Then he dropped it to $825,000 and, as of the hearing, it was down to less than $800,000. The mortgage on the property was $690,000, and he’d personally made those payments since the house was finished – about $2,400 to $2,600 monthly. No one had ever lived in or rented the home.

Husband also owns two other homes.

Meanwhile, mother lives in Nebraska with her new husband and is a stay-at-home parent.

At the hearing, the referee pointed out that the father was paying monthly mortgages on the home, and pointed out that “the money is coming from somewhere,” and that if he has access to that money, it should be spent on the child.

Father countered it was derived mostly from savings, which were depleted.

Ultimately, the referee recommended the court dismiss father’s complaint for child support modification. Although noting he could be entitle to a modification under the normal guidelines, the referee argued the case was outside the normal financial framework because of father’s real estate holdings. The state supreme court affirmed.

Indiana Family Law Attorney Burton A. Padove handles divorce and child custody matters throughout northern Indiana, including Gary and Hammond.

Additional Resources:

Stekr v. Beecham, Sept. 25, 2015, Nebraska Supreme Court

More Blog Entries:

Adultery Site Ashley Madison Hack Reveals Indiana Government Emails, Sept. 9, 2015, Gary Divorce Lawyer Blog