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. No second amendment, pro life, pro traditional marriage, reagan or trump tshirts will be sold either. And you cannot draw Mohammed even in your own notebook. And you must wear a helmet at all times while at the fair. And no lawyer jokes can be told except in the designated protest area. And next year no crucifixes, since they are uber offensive to all but Catholics. Have a nice bland day here in the Lego movie. Remember ... Everything is awesome comrades.

  2. Thank you for this post . I just bought a LG External DVD It came with Cyber pwr 2 go . It would not play on Lenovo Idea pad w/8.1 . Your recommended free VLC worked great .

  3. All these sites putting up all the crap they do making Brent Look like A Monster like he's not a good person . First off th fight actually started not because of Brent but because of one of his friends then when the fight popped off his friend ran like a coward which left Brent to fend for himself .It IS NOT a crime to defend yourself 3 of them and 1 of him . just so happened he was a better fighter. I'm Brent s wife so I know him personally and up close . He's a very caring kind loving man . He's not abusive in any way . He is a loving father and really shouldn't be where he is not for self defense . Now because of one of his stupid friends trying to show off and turning out to be nothing but a coward and leaving Brent to be jumped by 3 men not only is Brent suffering but Me his wife , his kids abd step kidshis mom and brother his family is left to live without him abd suffering in more ways then one . that man was and still is my smile ....he's the one real thing I've ever had in my life .....f@#@ You Lafayette court system . Learn to do your jobs right he maybe should have gotten that year for misdemeanor battery but that s it . not one person can stand to me and tell me if u we're in a fight facing 3 men and u just by yourself u wouldn't fight back that you wouldn't do everything u could to walk away to ur family ur kids That's what Brent is guilty of trying to defend himself against 3 men he wanted to go home tohisfamily worse then they did he just happened to be a better fighter and he got the best of th others . what would you do ? Stand there lay there and be stomped and beaten or would u give it everything u got and fight back ? I'd of done the same only I'm so smallid of probably shot or stabbed or picked up something to use as a weapon . if it was me or them I'd do everything I could to make sure I was going to live that I would make it hone to see my kids and husband . I Love You Brent Anthony Forever & Always .....Soul 1 baby

  4. Good points, although this man did have a dog in the legal fight as that it was his mother on trial ... and he a dependent. As for parking spaces, handicap spots for pregnant women sure makes sense to me ... er, I mean pregnant men or women. (Please, I meant to include pregnant men the first time, not Room 101 again, please not Room 101 again. I love BB)

  5. I have no doubt that the ADA and related laws provide that many disabilities must be addressed. The question, however, is "by whom?" Many people get dealt bad cards by life. Some are deaf. Some are blind. Some are crippled. Why is it the business of the state to "collectivize" these problems and to force those who are NOT so afflicted to pay for those who are? The fact that this litigant was a mere spectator and not a party is chilling. What happens when somebody who speaks only East Bazurkistanish wants a translator so that he can "understand" the proceedings in a case in which he has NO interest? Do I and all other taxpayers have to cough up? It would seem so. ADA should be amended to provide a simple rule: "Your handicap, YOUR problem". This would apply particularly to handicapped parking spaces, where it seems that if the "handicap" is an ingrown toenail, the government comes rushing in to assist the poor downtrodden victim. I would grant wounded vets (IED victims come to mind in particular) a pass on this.. but others? Nope.

ADVERTISEMENT