How do i stop child support in florida

Florida Dept. of Revenue - Changing a Support Order

An order to pay child support can be changed (or modified) by the court or administrative agency that issued the order if the circumstances of either parent change after the order is issued. Until an order is changed, terminated or vacated, the amount ordered is owed and legally enforceable. To understand how the law applies in your situation, you should seek legal advice from a licensed attorney.

Do I Qualify for a Review of my Child Support Order?

How to Request a Change to a Support Order

Either parent with a child support case can ask the Child Support Program to review their support order to see if the order should be changed. Parents can also file a petition in circuit court to change their support order.

What Happens When You Ask the Child Support Program to Review Your Support Order

First, the parent making the request gives their financial and other information to the Child Support Program for review. Once this information is received, the Program contacts the other parent to obtain their information. The Program reviews the parents' information to determine if there is a substantial, permanent, and involuntary change, or it appears there are other legal grounds to change the order. When the Program completes the review, it mails the results to both parents.

If the Program Determines the Order Should Change

If the review shows the order should be changed, the Program may start a proceeding to change the order. The steps to change an order depend on whether the order is a court order, an administrative support order issued by the Program or if another state issued the order. To change a court order, the Program involves a Program attorney who handles the court action. To change an administrative support order, the Program starts by notifying the parents of the proceeding to change the order. Parents are entitled to a formal hearing before a court or administrative order is changed.

If the support order was issued by another state, that state may need to review and modify the order, if appropriate. If that is the case and you make the request to the Program, we will forward your request to the other state.

If the Program Determines the Order Should Not Change

If the Program determines the order should not change, we notify the parents of our decision and take no further action.

What is a Change in Circumstances?

The parent seeking to change (or modify) a support order has the burden to prove a change in circumstances. In most cases, before an order can be changed, a parent's change in circumstances must be substantial, permanent, and involuntary.

If it has been less than three years since the support order was issued, reviewed or changed, a substantial change means that the change in circumstances would cause a change in the order amount that is at least 15 percent but not less than $50. If it has been more than three years since the support order was issued, reviewed, or changed, a change in circumstances means the change would cause a change in the order amount of at least 10 percent but not less than $25.

A permanent change in circumstances depends on the specific facts of the case. In most cases, to prove a permanent change, one must show the change has lasted for six months or more. Temporary or short-term changes are not enough to prove a lasting, permanent change. For example, a loss of employment is not a permanent change if you expect to find new employment. In some cases, a parent may be able to prove a permanent change right away; for example, a severe, life-changing injury or illness or retirement at the normal retirement age.

An involuntary change, comes about through no fault of the parent, like an extended illness or employment layoff. A voluntary change is a result of the parent's own choices. A voluntary change does not meet the standard for a support order to be changed. Examples of voluntary changes include quitting a job, being terminated for reasons within the parent's control, taking a lower paying job, or engaging in criminal conduct that results in incarceration.

Note: A support order change (modification) involves applying the law to the specific facts of the case. The general principles here are only a partial statement of the law and are not legal advice. Only a licensed attorney is authorized to provide legal advice based on the specific circumstances of your case.

Other Resources

Either parent can file their own petition in circuit court to change (modify) a support order. You can hire a lawyer of your choosing or file your own petition and represent yourself. Other resources you may find helpful include:

• Florida Courts Self-Help Page for Child Support
• Find a Florida Courts Self-Help Center Near You
• Florida Courts Self-Help Resources
• Download the Florida Courts Help App | Google Play Store | Apple App Store
• Florida Bar Legal Referral Service
• Florida. FreeLegalAnswers.org

When does child support end in Florida?

Quick info:

When does child support end in Florida?

There are a number of circumstances that may bring child support payments to an end.  The most common reasons includes: when the child turns 18, graduation from high school, or age 19, and sometimes never for special needs children. There are twists and turns in Florida child support law and it is worth it to read on, and compare the law to your specific circumstance.

In the past decade, Florida enacted a statute that requires all child support orders to contain a end date for child support, specifying that child support ends on the child’s 18th birthday.  When there are multiple children included in a child support order, child support is calculated for different dates in the future, as each child reaches the age of 18.

An Income Withholding Order, an IWO (formerly called an Income Deduction Order) normally accompanies child support orders.  The IWO is also required to contain end dates for child support.  If there are several children, the IWO should contain changed amounts of child support as each child ages out.

Any Florida child support order signed before October of 2010 may not have end dates  or termination dates. Despite the requirements of Florida child support law, many child support orders signed after October 2010 do not contain any mention of support termination dates. Many judges still regularly sign orders without dates and those orders are still valid despite the requirements in Florida child support statutes. The same potential problem exists for Income Withholding Orders.

The requirement to incorporate end dates for Florida child support was intended to eliminate a major headache for many parents – the need to return to court for an order terminating child support.  Sometimes it works well and other times it does not.  How easy it will be to terminate a child support obligation will depend on several factors.

The easiest way to end child support is if your child support order requires you to make direct payments to the other parent, and not to the State of Florida.  In other words, if have a history of writing checks and mailing directly to the other parent, that is considered direct payment.    If you have a child support order that requires direct payment, and your children reach the legal termination for child support, you can simply stop paying. The reason for the added simplicity is that no state agency is tabulating and tracking your payments.

Your right to end payments hinges on whether you have reached the correct date, and there are no exceptions that extend your obligation of child support. But if your children are old enough, there are no exceptions, and you pay directly, you can simply stop making payments. There is no obligation to reopen your child support case or file documents with the court. When you reach the proper child support end date – you are done!

Many people pay their child support directly to the state, or their employers do so on their

Get to know us: Jason Ponder, Esq.

behalf. The State of Florida has an agency called the State Disbursement Unit. It is run by Florida Department of Revenue Child Support Enforcement, and is charged with keeping accurate records of child support. You may see the acronym on your child support judgment, the FSDU.  Your child support judgment may say payments shall be made through the FSDU. That is shorthand indicating the state will accept and disburse child support payments. If your employer deducts support because of an Income Withholding Order, the money always flows through the FSDU

Even if your judgment indicates when child support will end, you must get an order from a judge terminating the disbursement unit account. Even if your Income Withholding Order

has an end date and your employer terminates child support deductions, you still must get an order terminating the disbursement unit account. If you do not properly take care of that you are in danger of being accused of failing to pay child support. Payers of child support should be aware of potential pitfalls in orders of termination for child support. Several different agencies must become aware of the termination order. The most important is the Florida state disbursement unit. Normally your local clerk of court takes care of this step. But there are occasional issues. Your Ayo and Iken attorney can help you ensure there are no loose ends.

The Florida statutes contain a provision that extends child support until your child reaches the age of 19.  If your child has not graduated high school by his or her 18th birthday, child support will not end at 18, but instead will continue until graduation.  19 years old is the maximum age of a child in Florida for parent to continue receiving child support (except in rare instances – read below). 

If a child graduates from high school after 18, but before 19, child support ends the day of graduation.

There is a little twist in Florida child support law that may terminate child support earlier.  If your child is definitely not on track to graduate high school before the age of 19, then child support will terminate at the 18th birthday. That is a provision that encourages parents to ensure their child graduates on time. It probably was not intended that way – but that is the effect.

If your child is special needs, and cannot become a self-supporting adult, then Florida child support never ends and can last for the life of the child.   If your situation matches this, it is essential you recognize the special needs status in the text of the final court order, or a later child support modification.  If you have not done that, your child reaches the age of 18, and child support has already ended, then you cannot reopen the case to continue child support. This requirement is absolute and cannot be later changed by a court.

Florida child support enforcement, also called the Florida Department of Revenue can help, hinder, or completely ignore you when it comes time to end, change, enforce, or suspend child support. They are more likely to get involved if they have been involved from the start. But like most state agencies, they are large, unwieldy, and unpredictable.  Their telephone and voice mail system can be completely maddening.  Many people talk of spending hours on the phone trying to reach a human being – without success. Many people relay experiences of speaking to child support representatives in person, getting a promise of action, and then seeing the opposite result.

If you have a problem with child support or need to terminate child support in Florida, you may or may not want to visit the Dept of Revenue office. They have local offices in most counties.   The basic problem for people paying child support is that that Florida Child Support Enforcement does not appear particularly concerned with helping them. Payers and receivers of child support sometimes get excellent help – and sometimes they receive no help.

Get to know us: Keosha Crawford, Accounting

Out of state child support orders can be a problem for many people. There is a network of state laws all over the country that require states to work together on the collection of child support. If an out of state court issued the original child support order, then that state’s law governs when child support ends.  That holds true even if Florida is helping with enforcement and collection.

But there are situations where a paying parent can move the court order to Florida and get an order terminating child support.  That may be possible if both parents and the child are now located in Florida. This is a complex area of child support law and it is best for an Ayo and Iken child support attorney to determine the proper course of action.

A good child support attorney can always bring value to the situation.  A qualified professional, that is working for your side can read through the last child support orders and determine what further action is needed to stop your child support.  As shown above, the course of action depends on the exact language in the child support order.  Even if child support enforcement is uncooperative, a private child support attorney can bring the issue to a judge and get an order that overrides the decisions of everyone else. A judge can issue orders to the Florida State Disbursement Unit, can change child support arrears, and can terminate child support under the various rules and Florida child support law.

If your situation does not allow simply ceasing to pay child support, you must file a Supplemental Petition to Modify Child Support. It is filed under your original case number – in the same court where the order was originally entered.  This process can be complex depending on the county, and jurisdiction. Many times the process is similar to an original divorce or paternity case and can require the same amount of steps.

A Supplemental Petition to Modify or Terminate Child Support must be filed, served on the other side, financial information must be swapped, you may be required to mediate, and the court may schedule a final hearing.   It is a complex, drawn out process. It is best for a support attorney to look at things to determine if there is a more simple way to end child support.

The Law Firm of Ayo and Iken gives free consultations for termination of child support issues.  The best child support attorneys will always work with you to determine the most simple, direct way to end child support for your particular situation. We can help with that process and guide you to the most cost-effective, timely way.

Not his day

Cool job

This is the story that happened to lawyer Dmitry Ilchenko from Kherson, Ukraine.

This was at the very beginning of Ilchenko's career, tentatively in 2010. He had become a lawyer only a few months earlier and had agreed to handle some pro bono cases. The Ukrainian bar often provides young lawyers with cases to work for free. Usually these things are very simple.

It was a very simple matter of getting custody of a child after a divorce. It was literally for one day - to open and close the meeting: the mother has a good family, a separate apartment, a positive psychological portrait. She was a freelancer on the Internet. As she explained, she was considered a very good writer. Her account data showed that she received a fairly stable income. At the same time, her ex-husband was unemployed and had previously committed serious crimes. He lived in a rented room in the most seedy area of ​​the city. Because he refused to voluntarily sign a child custody agreement, the case ended up in court. The father of the child did appear before the court. He said his boy needed a father to teach him to "be a man" and nothing more. He didn't have a lawyer.

Ilchenko prepared for the case. He had all the necessary documents confirming that guardianship should be given to the mother. However, Ilchenko did not expect what happened next. Since the boy was already 12 years old, the court had to hear him too. Ilchenko previously spoke with the child, and he said that he wanted to live with his mother.

And so the boy came to court. He appeared before the judge, and the judge, already ready to decide the case, asked him:

Judge: So Andrey, do you know why you're here?

Boy: Yes, Your Honor. You decide that I will live with my mother.

Referee: This has not yet been decided. Depends on you. So please answer me honestly. Who do you want to live with?

Boy: With my mother!

Judge: Why?

Boy: Because my mom is very kind to me, she always helps me with my homework, bakes great pies and lets me play PS4 with my friends. And my father was always drunk or was in prison and beat me several times! Also my mom has a really cool job and we have a lot of money!

(At this stage, Ilchenko had already decided that a clear victory was approaching, but ...)

Judge: And what is this cool job?

Boy (with great pride): She is an elite prostitute!

There was a moment of silence. The judge then cautiously asked the boy...

Judge: Why are you talking about your mother like that?

Boy: What's wrong? She earns a lot of money by chatting with some man on the Internet. In my room. Without clothing. But she never lets me in when she's working!

At that moment, the judge adjourned and asked Ilchenko and a representative of the local child protection agency to go to her office. Long story short, freelancing jobs online actually ended up being some kind of video sex chat job. The woman really earned a lot of money. Her son somehow found out about this, and she explained to him that she had a very cool job. She asked him not to tell anyone because "If everyone finds out, everyone will want the same job and we will lose income." So the boy never thought of it as something bad.

After this revelation, the guardianship authorities actually wanted to take the boy from both parents. It was a rather complicated trial that took almost a year. In the end, the mother won, but it cost Ilchenko a lot of nerves.

When his mother explained the situation to Ilchenko, he was very angry. An ordinary, simple task turned out to be so difficult only because she decided that there was nothing wrong with her 12-year-old boy knowing that she was working naked.

Unbelievable divorce

This story happened to Robert Charles Lee, a British solicitor. He had two divorce cases that everyone, oddly enough, could not accept as true when he told them about them ...

Divorce with zero contestation

An Indian couple in the UK, both are professionals, highly qualified, with a high level of income. No kids. Were married in India by arrangement (marriage planned by parents) as teenagers.

After fulfilling their duty to their parents and emigrating to the UK, they decided to end the relationship because they had nothing in common and could not imagine growing old together.

During the paperwork for divorce, both were very accommodating and behaved at ease.

At some point, the wife said, “Wait. This [alimony] can harm his future wife and children? Then I don't need it."

Side note: The smoothest divorce Lee and colleagues have ever seen in their entire legal career.

Divorce without child custody

English couple in London, both professionals, one child (daughter).

The legal separation is not contested, but the divorce itself is contested in terms of child custody—both parties categorically refuse to take custody of the child. Both parties were perfectly capable of supporting the child without any child support from the other party.

It may not seem like a big deal, but it's much more complicated than it looks. The referee had a hell of a time dealing with this.

In the end, the judge "convinced" the mother to take custody and ordered the father to pay the appropriate alimony, which he did: more than a year in advance so that he would not have to "have to deal with this woman at all."

Remark: it was this case that finally confirmed Lee's decision to no longer engage in divorce proceedings.

One day in federal court!

This story happened to lawyer Scott Williams from Florida, USA, when he worked as an FBI special agent.

It was a hot summer day in 1994 at the federal courthouse for the Southern District of Florida. Williams was an FBI special agent from the Miami field office and was present at the sentencing of a white-collar criminal who deceived several people by separating bills of exchange from mortgages and reselling them several times. The Assistant US Attorney was present, as was the US Bankruptcy Manager, who, along with Williams, collected evidence for the prosecution.

The case went to a federal district court judge, known for always deviating from the Sentencing Rules in the direction of leniency. Not quite what Williams had hoped for. It was also the time that the US Marshals Service began requiring all law enforcement officials to hand over their weapons when entering a courthouse. This annoyed all the federal law enforcement officers in the area, but given that the defendants were often better dressed and groomed than law enforcement officers, trying to separate the good guys from the bad during a shootout at the courthouse would not be easy.

So Williams was sitting at the table with the prosecutor, and the defense counsel, a very respected female lawyer, came up to the prosecutor's table and said that the defendant, who was here for sentencing, should make a statement. At the same time, she made it clear that she advised her client not to make a statement. Williams and the assistant prosecutor looked at each other, which might have made routine sentencing hearings interesting.

Friends and relatives of the defendant were also present in the courtroom - about 40 people. They seemed to be led by a young man who Williams seemed to be what the athletes call "Asteroid" (an immoral on steroids), in short, with low emotional control and large muscles capable of supporting any kind of violent action. It turned out that this was the son of the defendant.

Williams summarized the situation as follows: "Yes, we have an Asteroid here today." Then he looked up and saw that the court security officer was not a US marshal, but a retired (and long retired) law enforcement officer. And Williams has no weapons. Lucky for him....

Then he heard: "Everyone stand up ...", and the judge entered. He took his seat and allowed everyone to sit down. The judge began with standard sentencing procedures. Then he turned to the defendant and said: "Do you want to say anything before I announce the amount of the punishment?" And then the defendant replied: "Yes, I want to." And from that moment on, everything went downhill.

The defendant began a 20-minute diatribe, blaming everyone but himself for his plight. At the conclusion of his speech, he began banging his fist on the podium three times after each statement: "It's not my fault, it's not my fault, it's... just... not... my... fault!" No admission of responsibility on the part of the guy, which is insulting for a federal district court judge known for leniency from the Sentencing Rules. Now Williams began to clearly understand the warning defender.

The judge, who, as far as Williams knew, had never deviated from the Sentencing Rules in the direction of toughening, nevertheless deviated in this direction by as much as two years. For a white-collar crime, that says a lot. The asteroid and its crew were getting a little restless.

It sounded: "Everyone stand up ..." when the judge left. The security officer of the court, as well as the assistant prosecutor and the defense lawyer, began to leave. And Williams continued to keep the bankrupt manager by his side until the crowd dispersed. But they did not think to leave. In fact, Asteroid began to approach the bankrupt manager, along with the rest of his friends and relatives, screaming and yelling at him. Williams is more fortunate...

So, the immediate threat hung over the bankruptcy trustee right in the middle of the courtroom of the federal district, where the only representative of the federal government was Williams. And no weapons. But these people did not know that Williams did not have a weapon. Shouts, outbursts of anger - and Williams must lead the bankruptcy manager out of the courtroom, where they were left alone. At that moment, Williams clearly saw tomorrow's headlines in the Miami Herald newspaper that would appear if he did not quickly get rid of the threat: "FBI AGENT AND BANKRUPTIVE DEALER BEATED IN FEDERAL COURTROOM. " The director won't like it.

Williams began to pretend that he was preparing to get a gun, which he did not have. He managed to fight his way to the door, repeatedly yelling, "Back, just step back!" He got to the door, pushed the manager out, and waited a couple of seconds that felt like minutes before he could break through to the US Marshal's command post. And finally, Williams himself managed to slip out, get to the hall and go to the command post of the US Marshal.

The crowd had dispersed and they were now in the main hall, where there were many law enforcement officials. Another day spent doing the work entrusted by the director...

Source: https://www.quora.com/As-a-lawyer-what-is-your-best-court-room-story

Vicious tactics

This story happened to Jack Adkins, an attorney from Michigan, USA

Adkins was in federal court with his client, and they were about to appear before a judge to approve a confession deal, but they had another defendant before them. The judge who heard the cases, John Engler, was a liberal Democrat and hated the then governor of Michigan. It was a well known fact. The guy's lawyer tried to use that hatred for his gambit. He stated that his client had robbed the bank because the governor had cut social programs and other assistance, and he was desperate. As he continued his tirade, the judge's face could be seen getting redder and redder. When he finished speaking, the judge asked too politely if he had finished. Then there was an explosion, and the guy looked like a deer caught in the headlights. His Honor declared that his attempt at such a tactic was despicable and, in fact, he did his client a disservice. He canceled the plea deal for six years in prison and sentenced the lawyer's client to ten years. The poor convict burst into tears and told the judge that he could not serve ten years. The judge told him, “Don't worry about it. You will do your best, and we will help you with the rest." Adkins was very frightened, thinking that the attitude of the judge would be the same when he introduced his client to him. It turned out that the judge did accept the results of the deal and gave Adkins' client sixty days to get his affairs in order. Adkins is still wondering if the previous lawyer's client won the appeal of his conviction.

Aplomb is not all

This story happened to bankruptcy attorney John Roberts of Placeville, California, USA, in a bankruptcy court that is part of the US federal court system.

A little background. Once a bankruptcy filing is filed, two dates are automatically assigned. These dates are communicated to all interested parties, including all creditors.

The first is the date of the meeting of creditors, at which the bankruptcy trustee and all creditors can get acquainted with the state of affairs of the debtor. The second is the last day anyone can file a grievance to deny a debtor a release or claim that a particular debt is non-refundable.

These terms are established by law as preventive and cannot be extended without a court order.

Now a little history about Roberts' clients. They were an elderly couple who had sold their home in the San Francisco area and moved to the foothills to lead a quieter life. They were insurance brokers, but they were struggling to establish their business.

The buyer of their home experienced "buyer's remorse" and sued Roberts' clients, alleging that a fraud had been committed in the sale. The lawyer representing them had a "I'm a big bad lawyer from a big city" attitude.

Roberts' sister was in law school with him and said that even then he was a rare bastard.

He argued that Roberts' clients violated their fiduciary duty to identify any defects because they were brokers. It doesn't matter that they were insurance brokers and not real estate brokers.

Roberts filed for bankruptcy on behalf of his clients.

At the "first meeting of creditors" appeared "big bad" lawyer. He was rude and arrogant and began to demand that Roberts' clients submit financial documents. He claimed they had emptied their bank accounts and were hiding funds.

The bankruptcy trustee continued the meeting and asked Roberts' clients to send him documents. The documents showed that the lawyer's statements were lies.

At the next meeting, the lawyer began accusing Roberts' clients of having expensive art in their home.

The bankruptcy trustee continued the meeting again. Roberts invited the bankruptcy trustee to his clients' home. Everything in the house was very modest.

The lawyer then accused Roberts' clients of cheating on credit cards and giving purchases to someone to keep them. The bankruptcy trustee continued the meeting again.

At that moment, the client's wife broke down and began to cry. Roberts told her to calm down. If the bankruptcy trustee wants to continue the meeting, you will cooperate. You have nothing to hide. Roberts was very strict with his client.

After the meeting, Roberts apologized to clients for being so hard on them, but he did it to put on a show for another lawyer. Roberts explained to them that the bankruptcy trustee had extended the creditors' meeting one day past the last day to object to the cancellation of the debt. Roberts also informed his clients that the other party's lawyer was so stupid that he did not know the consequences of what the bankruptcy trustee had done.

On the day of the hearing, Roberts checked the court clerk's office and found that no complaint had been filed.

Now the fun begins. It should be borne in mind that the lawyer was rude to Roberts' clients during the entire process.

Another lawyer showed up and began interrogating Roberts' clients. Roberts instructed his clients not to answer questions, any questions.

Another lawyer lost his temper and started yelling at Roberts, asking why he wouldn't let his clients answer questions.

Roberts replied, "Because your clients have no right to make claims against my clients." He started talking about a lawsuit.

Roberts said very calmly that yesterday was the last day to object to the cancellation of the debt, and he had already checked in the clerk's office and made sure that there was no claim.

Panic appeared on the lawyer's face. He said he would find a way around it. Roberts told him that he could not do this, as the date set was fixed by law.

Roberts stated, “If you really think my clients have committed fraud, you need to contact their professional liability insurance company. If you don't think they've committed a scam, you can just shut up and leave my clients alone." The meeting was over.

Roberts' clients received debt relief.

However, this foolish lawyer thought he was very smart and tried to get a decision in state court.

Roberts sued him for breach of bankruptcy and secured $10,000 from him. He refused to pay, saying that he was a "local resident".

In California, if an attorney fails to pay penalties ordered by the court, the state bar association prohibits the attorney from practicing law until the penalties are paid.

Roberts received payment for the recovery the day after he notified the bar association of the unpaid recovery.

A few months later, Roberts learned that the lawyer did not have professional liability insurance. His clients sued him.

Roberts did not know how this lawsuit ended, but it is known that this lawyer stopped his practice as an attorney.

Need to know when to stop

This story is about criminal defense attorney Lariya Rivets of Los Angeles, California, USA, who specializes in aggravated homicides that can carry the death penalty.

Rivetz represented a man accused of six murders, most of which took place in an area of ​​Los Angeles called "Korean Town."

He was known as the "Korean Town Cutter" because he used a knife. His victims, mostly homeless elderly (not a single Korean), were chosen at random. Needless to say, the prosecutor sought the death penalty. In the middle of the jury selection process, which lasted for several months and was a laborious process of individual interrogation of all potential jurors, during which their attitude towards the death penalty was clarified, the client stabbed Rivets with a homemade knife he had brought to court. Fortunately, he only grazed the lawyer, missing the eye. Then he told Rivets that he aimed precisely at the eyes, since they were windows to the soul. He carried the sharpener in his pocket, not in his body cavity. The bailiffs might have been expected to search him, as he had bludgeoned two other inmates in the prison while awaiting trial.

Rivets thought so, so he wasn't on his guard. The defendant was not a physically imposing person. Rivets remained in the case because if he had recoiled, the prosecution could have used this incident as an aggravating circumstance, and later Rivets even managed to get his client a life sentence.

After an error was declared in the trial, the process was restarted. During jury selection, the defendant tried to attack again. This time he approached Rivets, intending to remove the shackles, as he had done in the waiting room, and use them as a weapon. He approached Rivets, still shackled hand and foot. Rivets just grabbed it (it was about a hundred and twenty pounds in weight). The prosecutor threw a chair at the defendant, but instead hit Rivets in the legs, forcing him to sit down and hold the defendant at arm's length. The bailiffs, vigilant as always, having finally finished their lunch, seized the defendant, and the process was continued.

If anyone is wondering why Rivets did not choose innocence by reason of insanity as a line of defense, the answer is: because the defendant was not legally insane. Rivets was assisted in the trial by the University of Southern California Institute of Psychiatry and Law, one of the leading forensic psychiatric institutions in the world, and they were unable to reach an insanity opinion. Rivets used their findings to secure a life sentence for the defendant. Why did the defendant attack Rivets? He sent Rivets for a free cross, a small metal thing about an inch long. The sheriffs did not allow the lawyer to give it to the defendant, because it was metal, despite all his requests to the judge to allow it, but the defendant blamed Rivets for the lack of a cross.

Learn more

• 
  How early can pre eclampsia start
• 
  Early pregnancy wrist pain
• 
  How to alternate tylenol and ibuprofen for child
• 
  What not to have when pregnant
• 
  How do i help my child with spelling
• 
  Leg pain early sign of pregnancy
• 
  Stomach muscle separation post pregnancy
• 
  Watery discharge while pregnant
• 
  Beta strep test
• 
  Pregnant pictures 10 weeks
• 
  How to deal with a child that does not listen