I-864 and welfare

[Lemonslice 4,859]

2 hours ago, HawaiiFarmer said:

I understand this and that is why my ex-wife's attorneys are so aggressive and unethical.

I have reported them to the State Bar.  She has 2 attorneys and a paralegal working for her

for over 2 years now.  One of the attorneys is already on disciplinary probation for different offenses.

They control all aspects of her life, from immigration to social services to our child custody case

and beyond.

She now even lives with a woman she met through the law firm.  She came to California to live with her relatives,

but she doesn't live with her relatives anymore.

I figure going after the attorneys is one of my best routes to get out of this mess.

I'm not sure what you mean, or intend to do, but that would not necessarily change anything in the case between you and your ex. 

[HawaiiFarmer 3]

1 hour ago, Lemonslice said:

I'm not sure what you mean, or intend to do, but that would not necessarily change anything in the case between you and your ex. 

Yes, not necessarily.

But everything is at the Court's discretion.  The Court can impute income to the other party.

Right now they are imputing income to me, but not to my ex, hopefully that will soon change.

I believe getting my ex's attorneys in trouble for "misrepresentations to the Court" could have an effect on our case.

 

I-864 case law is few and far between and how it's enforced needs to be looked at on a case by case basis.

I've never seen a case like mine where someone went to a different state to sue the other party.

California's friendly stance on social services should also be a factor.

 

The purpose of spousal support is so that neither party will be impoverished.  My ex's attorneys have never tried to

find a reasonable solution. 

Lastly, we all understand that the contractual obligation is not spousal support.

Yet, California is treating it as though it is.

 

Thanks all for your help.