Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Child Support Guidelines [8] Division of Child Support Enforcement [9] Alaska Civil Rule 90.3 [10] Division of Child Support Enforcement [11] Arizona Child Support Guidelines [12] is based on the Income Shares model. [13] Division of Child Support Enforcement [14] Arkansas Administrative Order of the Supreme Court No. 10 [15]
The Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA), passed in 1950, concerns interstate cooperation in the collection of spousal and child support. [1] The law establishes procedures for enforcement in cases in which the person owing alimony or child support is in one state and the person to whom the support is owed is in another state (hence the word "reciprocal").
Child support may be ordered to be paid by one parent to another when one is a non-custodial parent and the other is a custodial parent. Similarly, child support may also be ordered to be paid by one parent to another when both parents are custodial parents (joint or shared custody) and they share the child-raising responsibilities.
Online bill pay can add convenience and security to managing your routine bills. ... For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us. Sign in. Mail. 24/7 Help.
Arizona gas prices fell again this week, this time by 16 cents, bringing the state's average total to $4.25. Here's what to know before filling up.
Child support and the income shares have some purposes like these are creating a support for children consistent with the suitable needs of children and parents to pay, making child support orders coherent and giving guidance to courts and parents to set child support. Child support is prorated between each parent depend on their total income.
A Houston, Texas, man was ordered to pay $65,000 in child support to his ex-girlfriend for a child he did not biologically father, according to KOCO.. A Texas child support court ruled in 2003 ...
Hermesmann v. Seyer (State of Kansas ex rel. Hermesmann v. Seyer, 847 P.2d 1273 (Kan. 1993)) [1] was a precedent-setting Kansas, United States, case in which Colleen Hermesmann successfully argued that a woman is entitled to sue the father of her child for child support even if conception occurred as a result of a criminal act committed by the woman.