Oval3Holer,
It is not as clear cut as you think.
Firstly based upon the normal Canadian child support scale, number of children, and his rank the support award should be in the region of $30,000 p.a.. The judgment for US$755,313.73 means they did not apply the scale or the needs or the children, they applied a percentage of his gross income. He would need to need to pay for the support from his nett income.
From the records I read, the Canadian court hearing was held ex-parte. There was no evidence presented to show he was served with either a summons for appearance or with the final support order.
The issue of long arm personal jurisdiction of the Canadian courts and the personal jurisdiction of the US courts is very very grey here. To have personal jurisdiction in a US state requires a person to be in residence by a set period of time normally 6-12 months. If you move before that time is up, personal jurisdiction is not established the clock is restarted. Due to the nature of his work, he can easily show he was out of the state and never a resident for 12 months continuously.
In the US when applying for the registration of a Uniform Support Petition where a US state is the respondent, an order made ex-parte in the initiating state does not establish exclusive original jurisdiction. It is also an act of forswearing for the mother to have concurrent proceedings in California, Arizona, and Hong Kong. The father can easily have the Arizona judgement thrown out because the mother already had filed in Hong Kong on a prior date. This is known as "forum shopping" to find who will make the higher judgement, courts hate it.
I agree with you that a parent needs to pay child support, I stated that above, and I agree that you must pay the order and then address the courts later. He did pay the amount of CAD$2,400 per month which is above the scale amount required in 2003 when he was divorced.
He did try and address this in Canada in 2013 and that matter was thrown out on the basis of the action before the courts in Arizona. However we now know that the action before the courts in Arizona was improper as the mother had already filed in Hong Kong. In the summons and compliant filed in Arizona the mother will have as the petitioner sworn that there are no other actions before any other court in any jurisdiction regarding the matter.
The wife filed a fraudulent worldwide Mareva injunction in Hong Kong, so that was an abuse of process. The grounds for discharge were be summarized as:
(1) Failure to disclose the 2009 Rejection;
(2) Intentional misrepresentation in relation to the 2013 application for registration;
(3) Lies to the court;
(4) Breach of undertaking; and
(5) Miscellaneous grounds.
The Hong Kong courts said "Ms XXXXXXX was guilty of material non-disclosure, intentional misrepresentation and telling lies when seeking the Mareva injunction. She also breached the undertaking not to institute proceedings without leave of the Hong Kong court by pursuing contempt proceedings in Arizona. I discharge the Mareva injunction and decline to regrant it. I dismiss the originating summons. For the avoidance of doubt, the Hartmann order, my order dated 27 August 2014 and any orders freezing the assets of Mr ZZZZZZ are also discharged."
"On a nisi basis, Ms XXXXXXX should pay costs of the originating summons and the summons for discharge to Mr ZZZZZZZ. I will decide whether to order taxation or summary assessment in consultation with the parties."
That is a very damming statement to have placed in any Judgement, you can tell the court are not happy at all with the mothers actions.
The excerpt from the wife attorney in the HKG order basically said they were trying to get it registered in Hong Kong to get access to his provident fund. You cannot file for registration based upon where you believe assets are, it must be based upon where the person resides.
It is very possible for a CX pilot to change basing, that is not a crime. It has been 13 years since they divorced a lot can happen over that period. I dont know the guy, I am just looking at the facts.
Last edited by swh; 9th May 2016 at 16:04.