After an ongoing battle over child support, lasting now 1 year, my husband has decided to serve his child's mother with an offer to settle. For the past year, my husband has been employed, unemployed, employed for a few months, unemployed for a few months, employed and unemployed again. It has been a vicious employment-unemployment cycle. Each time there was a change in financial circumstance, he tried to change his child support obligation to depict his financial state. Unfortunately, after 4 court dates, we noticed that the judge had no problem INCREASING his child support each time he got a new job with higher salary, but never once did the judge DECREASE his child support due to unemployment. (Pretty "fair" huh?)
My husband begun a new job today. The last thing he wants is for a judge to rule child support on - yet again - his "current" salary at the time of court. The reason he believes this isn't fair is that each time, at the time of court, he was employed, if even for a couple of days. Yet for months before, he was unemployed - at times collecting EI benefits, and at times not. Yet the judge never once took his unemployment into consideration, and based every support order on whatever the current salary was that he was offered at the most recent job he obtained. So even when he was not making any money, he was being ordered to pay child support based on income he did not have.
His offer to settle is simple. He is giving his son's mother 2 options to choose from:
Option A: Base his current child support on the income depicted on line 150 of his 2008 income tax return, and come July 1st 2010, base it on the income depicted on his 2009 income tax return, provided that this method of calculation is used yearly thereafter; or
Option B: Base his current child support on the average income of the last 3 years as depicted on his 2006, 2007, 2008 income tax returns, and come July 1st 1020, base it on the average income of the last 3 years as depicted on his 2007, 2008, 2009 income tax returns, provided that this method of calculation is used yearly thereafter.
The above options are the two guiding methods of calculating child support according to the Federal Child Support Guidelines.
My husband has offered this to my stepson's mom in the last few months, but she declined both offers. You see, my stepson's mother disagrees with the above methods of calculation, and with having to abide by one methods of calculation for all adjustments. She feels that she should be entitled to whichever method yields the highest amount of child support, whether that is "current" salary, last year's total income, or a 3-year-average - whichever is greatest (because that was the "method" used by the judge we've encountered during our last 3 court appearances/conferences).
Neither my husband nor I - nor the duty counsel we've spoken to about this - agree with this type of calculation. So, my husband wants to serve his son's mother with an actual offer to settle, before we go to trial in 3-4 months, to show that he has tried to be reasonable and abide by the court order and CS Guidelines, yet she has refused.
Do you think his offer (the 2 options above) is fair?
Will it appear fair in the eyes of a judge?
Any advice is greatly appreciated. Thank you.
My husband begun a new job today. The last thing he wants is for a judge to rule child support on - yet again - his "current" salary at the time of court. The reason he believes this isn't fair is that each time, at the time of court, he was employed, if even for a couple of days. Yet for months before, he was unemployed - at times collecting EI benefits, and at times not. Yet the judge never once took his unemployment into consideration, and based every support order on whatever the current salary was that he was offered at the most recent job he obtained. So even when he was not making any money, he was being ordered to pay child support based on income he did not have.
His offer to settle is simple. He is giving his son's mother 2 options to choose from:
Option A: Base his current child support on the income depicted on line 150 of his 2008 income tax return, and come July 1st 2010, base it on the income depicted on his 2009 income tax return, provided that this method of calculation is used yearly thereafter; or
Option B: Base his current child support on the average income of the last 3 years as depicted on his 2006, 2007, 2008 income tax returns, and come July 1st 1020, base it on the average income of the last 3 years as depicted on his 2007, 2008, 2009 income tax returns, provided that this method of calculation is used yearly thereafter.
The above options are the two guiding methods of calculating child support according to the Federal Child Support Guidelines.
My husband has offered this to my stepson's mom in the last few months, but she declined both offers. You see, my stepson's mother disagrees with the above methods of calculation, and with having to abide by one methods of calculation for all adjustments. She feels that she should be entitled to whichever method yields the highest amount of child support, whether that is "current" salary, last year's total income, or a 3-year-average - whichever is greatest (because that was the "method" used by the judge we've encountered during our last 3 court appearances/conferences).
Neither my husband nor I - nor the duty counsel we've spoken to about this - agree with this type of calculation. So, my husband wants to serve his son's mother with an actual offer to settle, before we go to trial in 3-4 months, to show that he has tried to be reasonable and abide by the court order and CS Guidelines, yet she has refused.
Do you think his offer (the 2 options above) is fair?
Will it appear fair in the eyes of a judge?
Any advice is greatly appreciated. Thank you.
Comment