"Well, the father has never spent any time with the kids, but he just got fired from his job, so I think I'm going to give him shared custody"
...said no judge ever.
Getting fired from his job is not a material change in circumstances effecting access. It's a material change in circumstances effecting child support - imputed income to be precise.
For those who don't know there are 3 different types of material change in circumstances in family law.
1. Material change in circumstances re: custody.
2. Material change in circumstances re: access.
3. Material change in circumstances re: child support.
Once a material change in circumstances has taken place regarding access, it can be changed and status quo is meaningless. IF the access is increased to at least 40% then a material change in circumstances has taken place regarding child support and it can be altered based on offset amount (difference of your incomes).
With respect to my heavily contested arguments that status quo is history once a material change in circumstances has taken place, I believe it is time to bring in some case law.
Without further adue...
If the threshold is met, the judge on the application must embark on a fresh inquiry into what is in the best interests of the child, having regard to all the relevant circumstances relating to the child’s needs and the ability of the respective parents to satisfy them.
This inquiry is based on the findings of the judge who made the previous order and evidence of the new circumstances.
The inquiry does not begin with a legal presumption in favour of the custodial parent, although the custodial parent’s views are entitled to great respect.
Each case turns on its own unique circumstances. The only issue is the best interest of the child in the particular circumstances of the case.
The focus is on the best interests of the child, not the interests and rights of the parents.
You can rant and rave status quo all you want once a material change in circumstances has taken place. It will simply fall on deaf ears.
Getting fired from his job is not a material change in circumstances effecting access. It's a material change in circumstances effecting child support - imputed income to be precise.
Janus was being facetious. Many people try stunts like losing their job as a material change.
Janus was being facetious. Many people try stunts like losing their job as a material change.
I find that assumption/stereotype way out of place and rather hilarious and completely uncalled for because the father in question here did not get fired from his job. He quadrupled his salary to $400,000 - more than a judges salary - and has voluntarily paid the increase in child support.
He is an excellent dad - and I take back my comments about him trying to save 5 bux - he just wanted to make sure he was paying the correct amount based on orthodox calculations used for incomes over 150,000k. Very reasonable question from a very reasonable man.
Comment