Also, just to add:
I think this is simply an issue of the judge forgetting to insert an update clause. I don't believe a judge would knowingly order that no c/s be paid forever, notwithstanding any material changes in financial situations. It just doesn't seem reasonable, as a person in the field (albeit not family law), that a judge would do that. Is it possible? Sure. Is it likely? No.
My reasoning for thinking the above is the order does order that NoA's be exchanged, which is step 1 to updating c/s. It is simply missing step 2, actually ordering that c/s be adjusted accordingly. Assuming the order is written as the OP provides, it is likely a judge would also think in a similar manner and order c/s be updated.
I think this is simply an issue of the judge forgetting to insert an update clause. I don't believe a judge would knowingly order that no c/s be paid forever, notwithstanding any material changes in financial situations. It just doesn't seem reasonable, as a person in the field (albeit not family law), that a judge would do that. Is it possible? Sure. Is it likely? No.
My reasoning for thinking the above is the order does order that NoA's be exchanged, which is step 1 to updating c/s. It is simply missing step 2, actually ordering that c/s be adjusted accordingly. Assuming the order is written as the OP provides, it is likely a judge would also think in a similar manner and order c/s be updated.
Comment