Children under the age of sixteen are not issued passports without the consent of both parents. The Two-Parent Consent Law was revised in February 2008 to include all children 16 and under, and not just children 14 and under.
Both parents must be personally present for the passport application submission, to provide identification and original birth certificates. If one parent can provide the other parents' notarized consent form, then the passport can be obtained with the presence of only one parent, who must still present identification and an original birth certificate for the child applicant.
The Department of State provides for exceptions to the requirement of either both parents' presence, or the notarized consent of a non-presenting parent as follows:
*Child's birth certificate lists only one parent
*Child born abroad
*Custody order granting sole legal custody (and not restricting the child's international travel)
*Adopted child with only one adoptive parent
*Court order specifically authorizing the child's travel
*Judicially declared incompetence of the non-applying parent
*Non-applying parent is deceased.
If the applying parent or guardian cannot obtain the written consent of the non-applying parent, the applying parent may make a statement under oath explaining the special circumstances that would warrant issuing the passport.
False statements made knowingly and willfully on passport applications, including affidavits or other supporting documents submitted with the application are punishable by fine and/or imprisonment under Federal law.
If a parent is ordered to pay child support, it is likely that the child support obligation will include a "basic" support obligation, coupled with child care support and medical support. Orthodontia costs are included as part of medical support. Basic support is based upon the income of both parents, based upon a statutory table (similar to income tax tables). But the child care support and medical support are allocated between the parents based upon each parent's percentage of income.
For instance, a parent whose income comprises sixty percent (60%) of the combined income of the parents (after payment of spousal maintenance, if any) will be responsible for sixty percent (60%) of the child care expenses and medical expenses.
The rationale for the special treatment of child care support and medical expenses is (a) for some children, parents incur child care expenses and for some, they do not; therefore, it would not work out for the same statutory table to be used for both families that do, and those that do not, incur child care costs; and (b) medical expenses (and the insurance coverage thereof) are unpredictable, and variable across families; therefore, it also would not work out for the same table to apply to all families regardless of their medical costs.
Since orthodontic expenses are sometimes elective and/or optional, there is the potential for disputes between parents about whether or not to incur orthodontic expenses. Parents who share joint legal custody share the authority to decide on orthodontia for their children. That is not to say that either parent has veto power over the expenditure of funds on orthodontic care. A family court or parenting neutral charged with the authority to decide the dispute will issue a decision based upon all facts and circumstances, with a focus on what is in the child's best interests.
Custody evaluations, guardians ad litem, early neutral evaluators, parenting consultants and parenting time expeditors. They are all objective and impartial. Here are the distinctions:
Custody evaluators are appointed by the court or contracted with privately by the parties. The evaluator will meet with the parents, meet with or observe the child (depending on how old the child is) with each parent, and speak with collateral contacts to arrive at recommendations for what is in the child's best interests. The custody evaluator issues a written report that can be entered as evidence in a contested custody hearing, or used as a basis for negotiated a stipulated parenting plan. The evaluation typically takes 90 to 150 days to complete.
Guardians ad litem are appointed by the court to assess the child's best interests in a manner similar to custody evaluations, but in many counties they are limited to children in particularly troubling circumstances, such as abuse or neglect. The guardian ad litem's process can be shorter than a custody evaluation, particularly if the court requests interim recommendations from the guardian. The family court judge may enlist the services of the guardian ad litem to assist in determining both temporary and permanent custody arrangements. The guardian's recommendations may be the basis for the court's decision, or a custody stipulation.
Early neutral evaluations have the potential to be shorter terms than other processes. The evaluators (one male, one female) meet with the parents, and typically do not meet the child. Rather than communicating with collateral contacts, the evaluators attempt to facilitate an agreement based upon what the parents themselves raise as concerns about the child and the other parent. The evaluation process transpires early in the proceedings, and is not shared with the family court; so if the parties are unable to reach an agreement, the case will typically proceed to a full-blown custody evaluation.
Parenting consultants are appointed by the parties, and approved by the court, but are not appointed by the court. Typically, they make decisions
(rather than recommendations) which are binding on the parties unless reversed by the family court. As long as a party is satisfied with the parenting consultant's decision, the process can streamline the resolution of a dispute.
Parenting time expeditors are appointed by the court, and have decision-making authority, but the scope of that authority is narrower than the other neutrals mentioned above. Issues other than parenting time fall outside the scope of a parenting time expeditor. The PTE's decision is binding on the parties, unless one of the parties seeks review by the family court.
When a divorce case is submitted to the family law mediation process, the parties sometimes will have their attorneys present, and sometimes will not. Most mediators will not insist on the attorneys being present or on the attorneys being excluded from the process. However, it is also the case that most mediators will require that either both parties have their lawyers attend, or neither. Since the foundation of the mediation process is a balance of power, and an even playing field, the presence of an attorney for one party and not for the other inherently throws off that balance.
One disadvantage of having attorneys attend mediation is the cost to the parties for not only the mediator's time (usually billed hourly) but the attorneys' time as well (also usually billed hourly). One disadvantage of excluding attorneys from the mediation session is the prospect that one party (or both parties) consulting with the attorney AFTER the mediation session will thwart any agreements reached during the mediation.
Commonly, the parties agree in advance to the presence, or absence, of counsel. If there is disagreement about this issue, the mediator will likely weigh in to recommend how to proceed; oftentimes based upon how many issues need to be mediated, and how complex the issues are. If there are many contested issues, or any complex issues to be addressed, the mediator is more likely to encourage the attorneys to attend mediation with the parties.
