Child Support lawyers often make a mockery of the system by insisting that the courts will not be fair to their clients, and that the system is rigged to keep children in the care of their fathers.

But that may be true in some instances.

And in some cases, it is not true at all.

We spoke to the lawyers behind the most egregious of the “futile claims” to find out why.


The Court Will Not Pay Child Support Without Proof: While there are no “facts” in the US legal system that require proof of child support, the fact that it is being awarded and paid based on a court order or decree is often cited as a reason why it is never awarded.

However, the US Supreme Court has ruled that the court does not have to give a reason for an order to be vacated, and it is up to the court to determine if the order was legally valid.

“We’re a nation of laws, and courts should respect those laws, said Jeffrey Zients, a partner at New York law firm Lippman & Schulz who has represented over a dozen child support clients.

The Supreme Court decision came in 2013, and in 2015, a different court struck down a similar order, but the decision was not retroactive.

In a 2013 case, Zients and his clients won a $10 million payout from a woman who had been awarded more than $200,000 for child support and was being pursued by child support agents for months, with no court action taken to prevent the money from being used to pay the child support arrears.

The judge in that case ruled that there was insufficient evidence to prove that child support was not owed because the mother had been living in New York for the previous six years. “

She was claiming she had paid child care for 18 years and didn’t pay child support,” Zients said.

The judge in that case ruled that there was insufficient evidence to prove that child support was not owed because the mother had been living in New York for the previous six years.

“That’s a reasonable rule to follow,” Zockets said.

But there are also cases in which courts have held that a woman has paid child maintenance while her husband lives in California.

In one of those cases, a California judge overturned a 2012 order that had been issued to a man who had not yet paid child custody payments.

In response, the man appealed the ruling and was denied by the California Supreme Court, which said the order violated the man’s constitutional right to privacy.

That ruling is still in appeal.


Child Support is Not an “Income-Sucking Scheme”: The US Supreme Supreme Court recently held that child care expenses are not income-sucking schemes and that children who receive child support in some circumstances may not be in dire financial straits.

That means that, in some situations, a parent can legally file for an income tax return if he or she is working, and is in a position to make a payment, even if he cannot make a full payment in a given month.

The court ruled in 2011 that child maintenance is not an income-producing scheme and that a child support payment does not require income-support.

“The income-segment of child care is not a tax benefit,” Zushes said.

“It’s a benefit.”


Child Custody Is Not an Income-Sumping Scheme: In some states, a father can be required to pay child custody and support in order to obtain an income payment.

In other states, fathers may be allowed to be reimbursed for child care costs and legal fees associated with filing child support cases.

But many child support attorneys have argued that child custody is not something that can be reimbursable.

“Custody is not income,” Zubs said.

“[A parent] does not need to have income.”

“Covid-19 is causing some parents to lose their children, and child support is a form of child abuse, and people don’t need to pay for child custody to keep their kids, they need to make money,” Zays said.

If a child custody case involves an income issue, the court can rule that it may be a form, or “instrument,” of child maintenance.

In some cases in New Mexico, for example, a mother’s ability to pay off child support can be challenged in court.

“A child support order is not just a legal document,” Zoos said.

It is an instrument, which is a kind of income, Zushes added.


Child Services Are Not an Instrument of Child Maintenance: Many child support lawyers have argued, incorrectly, that child services are not an instrument of child, or child maintenance, or any of the other terms that come up when a parent is asked to provide child support.

But child services do have a certain amount of legal power, Zubs argued.

“You’re saying a child care provider can’t do that if it