The individual, Mom is preparing to present evidence related to child support and medical insurance in court. They are advised on how to share documents during the proceedings and are guided on the process of submitting evidence one document at a time. The defendant, Dad is accused of not putting the dependent on his insurance plan, despite having a family plan in place for the past 15 years. The evidence presented includes text messages where the plaintiff repeatedly requested the defendant to obtain insurance for their daughter, who has severe allergies and requires an Epipen. The plaintiff pays $390 per pay period for insurance, totaling $780 per month for herself and her daughter. Despite the defendant being informed by his job that he could put the daughter on his insurance with no change to his payroll deductions, he refused to do so. The plaintiff also presented proof of insurance cards and receipts for medical expenses related to her daughter's allergies. The defendant's refusal to put the dependent on his insurance plan has resulted in significant financial burden on the plaintiff.

Mr. Slocum discussed his efforts to put his daughter on his insurance in 2021 and 2022. He explained that he faced difficulties with his job and HR in getting her added to the insurance plan. Despite his efforts, he was unable to provide concrete evidence of his attempts to add her to the plan in 2022. In 2024, he was able to successfully add his daughter to his insurance after working with an agent and sorting out issues with child support. However, he admitted to making assumptions in the process and acknowledged his lack of knowledge in navigating the system. Mr. Slocum also mentioned his son in New York being added to his insurance automatically, which raised questions about the differences in adding his children to the plan.

Additionally, a text message exchange between Mr. Slocum and his daughter highlighted tensions and misunderstandings regarding insurance coverage. The individual, Dad in question is behind on child support payments. They claim that they got injured and workers' compensation was supposed to take care of it, leading to confusion about the situation. They mention speaking to child support in January and being told everything was fine. However, it is clarified that just because workers' compensation may be paying a portion of the amount owed, the individual still owes the total outstanding amount unless they request a modification from the court. The individual also mentions having other children and child support obligations for one of them.

The father who is struggling with financial and housing instability. He has one child in Atlanta and another child in New York. The father is considered homeless. He mentions that he has a vehicle, a Jeep Compass, but it is not in his name. The father expresses frustration and confusion about his children's insurance coverage, especially regarding his daughter Lennox. He admits to not being proactive in ensuring Lennox's insurance coverage and acknowledges his mistakes in assuming she was covered. The father expresses a desire to support his children financially but struggles due to his current circumstances.

The 40-year-old Dad is facing a significant amount of debt totaling $24,313.06, which includes unpaid Epipens, child support, and various fees. The individual is unable to pay the full amount and requests to split the payments or come up with a lower lump sum. The legal representative suggests a purge amount of $12,000 to be paid within 30 days, but the individual expresses difficulty in meeting this obligation due to medical issues and financial constraints. They offer to pay $1500 extra monthly and plead for leniency, citing personal hardships and a willingness to work extra to cover the debt.

The parent could stay out of jail on a purge condition, meaning he or she agrees to make a purge payment that covers the arrears in order to end contempt for the court's order. The parent could be ordered to serve an indefinite period in jail until the support owed is paid, typically in a lump sum.

Contempt proceedings are the most common enforcement actions taken against parents who fail to pay support. The key to holding a parent in contempt is the court’s finding that he or she had the ability to pay, yet willfully failed to do so. A parent who genuinely does not have the ability to pay support as ordered may have a successful defense in a contempt proceeding.

[ Ссылка ]

The Father on the Birth Certificate Is NOT the The Biological Father | Paternity Court

@courtwatchers
#court
#comedyvideo
#trending
#comedy
#viralshorts
#childsupport
#video
#viral
​#familylaw #familycourt #court #livecourt #law #court #storytime #lawandcrime #childsupport #zoomcourt #courtcam #familycourt #courtdrama #crime #childbenefit #news #childmaintenance #zoomcourt
#judgesimpson #courtroomdrama #courtdrama

свернуть