ILNews

Judges reverse support modification for lack of jurisdiction

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed a lower court’s ruling that Illinois proceedings on child support were null because jurisdiction was never properly transferred, noting it found an ex parte proceeding that excluded the mother “extremely troubling.”

Judith Lombardi and Robert Van Deusen divorced when they lived in Clark County. Van Deusen was ordered to pay $45 a week in child support. He later moved to Illinois and the parties, following the requirements of a child support enforcement transmittal based on the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, had jurisdiction over child support moved to DuPage County, Ill. The Clark Superior Court signed and entered an order transferring jurisdiction. The Illinois court modified Van Deusen’s obligation to $1,000 per month and established an arrearage of $5,000.

Van Deusen later asked the Clark County court to reassume jurisdiction, arguing Illinois didn’t have jurisdiction anymore because he now lived in Pennsylvania. Lombardi objected. Magistrate William Dawkins held a hearing on the motion to reassume jurisdiction, but had a 36-minute conference in his chambers with Van Deusen’s attorney and a Clark County deputy prosecutor, who supported the father’s motion. The magistrate didn’t allow Lombardi to attend and evidence was presented that was referred to at the hearing but never actually introduced into evidence.

Magistrate Dawkins cut mother’s testimony short and entered an order granting Van Deusen’s motions. He reinstated the original child support order of $45 a week.

The Court of Appeals reversed in Judith C. Lombardi v. Robert R. Van Deusen, No. 10A01-0910-CV-491, finding the magistrate erred by basing his ruling in part on the fact that Lombardi and the child have always lived in Clark County. Her place of residency is irrelevant under the UIFSA because both parties filed written consent with the Indiana court to move jurisdiction.

Indiana relinquished jurisdiction in November 2002 and Illinois properly assumed continuing, exclusive jurisdiction before modifying the child support order, the appellate court held. The Clark County court had no authority to make a retroactive modification to the order that would modify the Illinois court’s order, wrote Chief Judge John Baker. Jurisdiction hasn’t been properly re-established in Indiana, and when that occurs, the Clark County court could only issue a prospective modification.

The judges also found Lombardi’s due process rights were violated when the magistrate held a conference in his chamber’s that excluded her.

“It would be difficult to imagine a clearer example of prohibited ex parte communications, but the story does not end there. The conference lasted for thirty-six minutes - just eleven minutes shorter than the hearing itself. Evidence was discussed and documents changed hands that were never formally made part of the record - until Mother tracked down the documents herself and requested, after the fact, that they be included,” wrote Chief Judge Baker.

They reversed the trial court’s judgment and ordered that this case be re-assigned to a judicial officer other than Magistrate Dawkins.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT