IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF

THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA

IN RE: FAMILY DIVISION (04)

J.M., a/k/a JASON MILLER CASE NO.: 17-016674 FC 17

Petitioner/Father,

and

A.J.D., a/k/a ARLENE J. DELGADO

Respondent/Mother.
__________________________________/

RESPONDENT’S EMERGENCY MOTION FOR TEMPORARY CHILD SUPPORT

1. Respondent/Mother and Petitioner/Father have a son together, “WLD”, who is now ten
months old.

2. Mother respectfully requests the Court award temporary child support to the child at an
appropriate level, as such is in the child’s best interests.

3. The child has a right to adequate financial support from the Father and, thus far, the
Father has knowingly short-changed the child.

4. The child has a right for adequate financial support not be delayed nor postponed.

5. Father impregnated Mother in October 2016. Father cut all communication with Mother
when the Mother was two months pregnant, when Mother ceased concealing the
pregnancy.

6. Father abdicated all moral obligations and responsibilities for the child’s welfare during
the pregnancy, refusing to make any inquiries as to the pregnancy’s health or its status, or
offer to help (for example, with pre-natal costs), despite Mother’s multiple outreach
attempts regarding the pregnancy and Mother’s outreach through third party/ies regarding
the pregnancy. Father only re-surfaced, through a lawyer, the month the child was
approximately due. Even then, Father contributed nothing to the pre-natal expenses.

7. On July 10, 2017, the child, WLD, was born.

8. While Father’s counsel made broad, general statements about Father’s alleged intent to
be financially supportive, no actual offers were made to Mother regarding child support
 nor any amounts sent to Mother by Father, either directly or through counsel.

9. On the contrary, in late August, Father’s mother-in-law was instead busy mocking the
notion of child support for WLD on social media. Father’s mother-in-law went so far as
to: (a) agree with an anonymous cyber-bully that since Mother chose to have the child,
she should therefore continue on the journey alone and not seek child support; (b) railed
that the Mother had the child for the child support; and (c) sickeningly added that the
Mother’s motive for having the child was “ALL about the Benjamin’s [sic]!” (See
attached tweet as Exhibit A. The username “hc4cactus” is Petitioner’s wife’s mother.)

a. (This is also worth noting as Father and his counsel have made much ado about
Mother’s recent use of social media when, in fact, as will be shown at trial, it is
the father’s wife’s family who viciously attacked Mother on social media, even
though Mother, at the time, had not said a word about the Father on social
media or elsewhere, much less any remark at all about Father’s wife.)

b. (This is also worth noting as Father and his counsel have long sought to portray
Father’s wife as a reasonable, innocent bystander who is “loving” towards the
child and completely at peace with her the child from her husband’s affair, when,
in fact, Father’s wife, deploying her mother and other female relatives as
proxies, repeatedly attacked even the notion of the child receiving child support.

10. In late August, subsequent to an article in The Atlantic profiling mother (which noted that
Father had not sent Mother any child support), Mother’s then-counsel and Father’s
counsel informally agreed that Father would begin paying an amount of $1,500 per
month, without prejudice. Mother’s then-counsel was disadvantaged, as he had no
information on which to base a number since, at the time, Father had steadfastly refused
to disclose his income and had refused to share – much less even file, as legally required -
- a financial affidavit (in fact, Father refused to file his financial affidavit for months,
only reluctantly doing so in January 2018 when the case was already six months old, as
part of an agreement to avoid a hearing on a Contempt motion and a hearing on
Attorneys’ Fees. It remains a mystery why the 11th Circuit allowed Father to avoid filing
his financial affidavit and granted him this special treatment.)

11. Thus, this $1,500/month informal agreement agreed to in late August was done prior to
the late November 2017 production of Father’s financial documents, which indicated
Father’s child-support obligation is, in fact, far higher than $1,500 per month.

12. At Father’s December 1, 2017 deposition, Mother’s then-counsel questioned Father as to

how, given his finances, an amount of $1,500 was reached. Father could not answer other
than saying he would have to check with his counsel.

13. Despite this, Father did not offer/and has not offered to increase the monthly amount
he sends the child. Instead, he continued/continues to make only the $1,500/month
payments, and that is all the child is currently receiving. There is absolutely no reason
 why Father should not have sent an adequate amount based on his financials.

14. This is strongly against the child’s interests and the child’s rights. Not only did the child
receive zero financial help from the Father during his time in-utero towards his
healthy development and pre-natal care, but the Father has consistently ‘short-
changed’ the child on the child support he sends the child, for nearly a full year.

15. The child has a right, by law, to adequate and appropriate child support from the Father.
Thus far, the Father has denied the child adequate and appropriate child support.

16. Waiting for a final child support judgment at trial is against the child’s best interests.
There is no reason to force the child to wait to be made whole and/or to force the child to
wait to receive the financial support to which the child is entitled. Moreover, the trial
date has not even been set.

17. Mother respectfully asks this right of the child not be shelved entirely until trial,
especially as routine matters, such as Father’s demand for particular time-sharing days
(e.g., Easter) have not been made to wait.

RELIEF SOUGHT
Mother asks that Father’s monthly child support to the child be set an adequate amount on a
temporary basis, as such is the child’s right, and that Father be ordered to retroactively make the
child whole for the deficiency in the $1,500/month paid vs. what Father ought to have paid each
of those months, as such is the child’s right.
EXHIBIT A