A child support case was initiated against a parent who is an immigrant. The San Bernardino court based upon the false presentation of the child support attorney, at that time initiated an order specifying that a child support obligation is to paid based upon the sponsorship amount owed by the other parent to the immigrant parent.
The other parent is listed as a party to the case and the basis of the child support order is the failure to pay, by the other parent, who was ordered by another court to pay an amount based upon a sponsorship contract, which is mandatory contract. This contract is intended to prevent that the immigrant is a public charge and is based upon a change of status based upon marriage. It is a mandatory process for any immigrant in the United States who marries a Unites States citizen and specifies that the amount is at least 125% of the poverty guidelines but the contract reads essentially “whatever support” is necessary.
The County initiated this process fully aware that any immigrant would be subject to being a public charge in any case based upon an income of at least 125% of the poverty guideline. This is the first case of its kind in the United States.
The child support Elizabeth Lawrence refuses to promote a settlement and a stipulation which was offered to the other parent which would have offset the entire amount owed. The child support department has made the immigrant parent their target, escalating the conflict and the domestic violence, in this case, refusing to promote the co-operation between the parties.
CA family code section 271 specifies that a party should promote the settlement of a case to prevent litigation which is not necessary and just burdens the court system unnecessarily. Otherwise that party can be subject to sanctions. In this case, the child support case has already been flagged for domestic violence, by the Department of Child Support, and the County refuses to cease their escalation of this case, refusing to promote co-operation between the parties.
An example of this escalation is the filing of Elizabeth Lawrence under the penalty of perjury, which specifies that the amount owed to the other parent based upon the other parent’s obligation to the immigrant parent is approximately $ 11,000, and that the remainder is based upon public reimbursement assistance. None of the court orders in this case reflect that any child support obligation is based upon public reimbursement. The relevant court orders specify that the amount is based upon the amount owed by the other parent to the immigrant parent. The other parent has already specified at a court proceeding that payment has not occurred to the immigrant parent.
The filing of Elizabeth Lawrence was intended to escalate this case with a false representation that the other parent cannot sign a stipulation offsetting the entire amount, as Elizabeth Lawrence presented false information to the court about the nature of the alleged debt obligation. This false information was present with the intent to prevent the signing of a stipulation offsetting the entire amount based upon the debt owed by the other parent to the immigrant parent. The stipulation represented an offset without penalties or disadvantages to the other parent.
Elizabeth Lawrence refuses to provide the correct information to any parent at any meeting, specifying that the child support department is not aware as to what the original child support is based upon and presents false information to any parent and the court merely to escalate the court case.