Panama City, Bay County, Florida
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
By: Kevin Earl Wood, allunited@bellsouth.net
At a case management hearing on April 29, 2013, child support Hearing Officer Jacqueline Smith ruled that an Attorney for the Florida Department of Revenue (DOR), Casey Bigelow, was unlawfully representing a father who pays child support to the mother who has custody. The Hearing Officer also ruled that Mr. Bigelow did not have standing to even appear before the court in the case.
Attorney Casey Bigelow Appears Disappointed After Being Removed From Child Support Case
Mr. Bigelow argued however to the Hearing Officer that the DOR does have standing to appear in the case because the mother, Daynna Tyler of Panama City, now as of recent receives Medicaid benefits for the children from the State of Florida. The Hearing Officer and Ms. Tyler pointed out that when Mr. Bigelow filed other pleadings that neither she nor the father were receiving public assistance.
During this period the DOR attorney did not have standing according to the hearing officer and any pleadings filed then were unlawful. As a result, the father’s answer to the initial petition was stricken by the Hearing Officer when she granted Ms. Tyler’s motion to strike. The father has now been directed to file a new answer within twenty (20) days.
The mother, Daynna Tyler, representing herself “pro se” at the hearing appeared to defeat the old saying that, “a client who represents himself has a fool for an attorney.” The papers filed by Ms. Tyler with the court appear to be equal to, or even better than, those filed by an attorney.
Ms. Tyler appeared poised and confident as she argued her case to the Hearing Officer.
Ms. Tyler was arguing in her written submissions to the court and her oral argument to the hearing officer that the DOR, that is Mr. Bigelow representing DOR, was unlawfully filing pleadings for the father, Mark Isenberg, who is obligated by court order to pay child support for his and Ms. Tyler’s two minor children.
Ms. Tyler is seeking to have the child support order modified to increase the child support that Mr. Isenberg currently pays for the two minor children.
Custodial Mother Daynna Tyler (left) Listens Intently to the Hearing Officer as She Presents Her Case
While Florida law permits an attorney for DOR to appear in a child support case, the law strictly prohibits the attorney from representing either the obligee or obligor in the case. The obligor is the person who pays the child support and the obligee is the person who receives the child support and has custody of the children.
Ms. Tyler presented a “Memorandum of Law” citing to Florida law that prohibits the DOR attorney from representing any of the parties except DOR. (Click here to read the Memorandum of Law). Hearing Officer Smith recognized this law and ruled accordingly.
Mr. Bigelow had unlawfully filed pleadings for the father, Mr. Isenberg, purporting to be Mr. Isenberg’s attorney. (Click here to read one such pleading). These pleadings are in violation of Florida Law.
The law in this case is one of great public importance in Florida for the thousands of parents in Florida that seek the help of the DOR attorney to enforce, modify, or otherwise address child support orders of the court.
These parents must realize that the DOR attorney does not represent the parents or the children but only represents the DOR’s interest in recovering money that is paid on behalf of children through public assistance.
Florida law requires DOR attorneys to advise parents that they do not represent the parents or the children (obligees and obligors) but can only represent the DOR.
The only relief for parents and the children is to hire an attorney or to appear in court “pro se” representing themselves and their children.
DOR as a result should counsel their attorneys reminding them that their role in a child support case is to take actions that are in the best interests of the children and the DOR. Mr. Bigelow’s action in this case to defend, on behalf of the father, against an upward departure of child support was clearly not in the best interests of the children.
Parents should be aware of this restriction on representation when seeking assistance of the DOR in a child support matter and that they must seek the services of an attorney or appear “pro se.”
This case also resulted in a delay of justice for the children where the old saying goes, “justice delayed is justice denied.”