This is just a little nugget about two very unique cases that I've dealt with in the last six months. One went for me and one against. The issue: did a court have jurisdiction over the party in a case originally so that it was proper for the court to rule on anything, such as child support?

The two cases I've dealt with recently were alleged back child support cases and in both cases, the father's have successfully found deficient service of process to get out of thousands and hundreds of thousands of dollars in back child support. If you're working with some one accused of not paying child support, look back at the entire court file to see if things were done right up front. It's a method to totally get out of alleged back child support OR to negotiate a low settlement figure. I'm in a position now to vacate a divorce judgment from 1985 because there wasn't good service of process up front. The opposing client may find herself married to my client all over again when she thought she got divorced 22 years ago!!

Remember, there are only three ways a court can obtain jursidiction to order someone to pay child support:

1. Service of Summons by the Sheriff or private process server;

2. Filing of a voluntary Appearance;

3. Participation in the litigation...i.e., 1 or 2 didn't happen but the party was active in the litigation.

If there's not one of these in place, you've got yourself a problem (or a defense) depending on your perspective.