View Single Post
Old 09-08-2009, 05:26 PM
thistoshallpass thistoshallpass is offline
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 36
thistoshallpass is on a distinguished road
Default Not always fair

As much as I agree that current income should be a factor in establishing CS and SS and would be fair under normal circumstances. In a situation like this where the payer has procrastinated and made every effort to avoid his responsibility. It would seem fair that a Judge would take into consideration past years income.

As I mentioned in my first post, my friends ex delayed this case going to court until the first case conference in late March. Turns out he knew well in advance that there would be cut backs at work staring the beginning of March of this year. This tactic was to cover that he was already on short work weeks. He has stalled every attempt she has made to get this into court. As a result there has been no court ordered CS or SS. He did pay CS guideline amount for 8 months Feb-Sep last year, based on 2007 income for 2 bio children ages 2 and 8yrs not for his step daughter, although he has been dad to her for 9 yrs, she is now 14. He refused to pay CS for her and refuses to pay SS. My friend dropped out of collage to be a stay at home mom agreed to by both for past 9 years. Last November he arbitrarily cut back the CS he was paying for the 2 kid’s to reflect what he felt he would be making come March this year. As for equalization they did not own a home, he did get half the furnishings and took both vehicles and their camper. His reasoning behind this was that the debt for these vehicles was half hers and that he was forgiving her half of the debt in lieu of SS. Except he still has the vehicles.