Child Support Order above 50% of income
- Thread Starter stepmom07
- Start date
- Status
Scooterdog
New Member
Go to the clerk of court, and ask for a forum to report a change of income, the court should re-adjust it for you.
You need to google your states child support guidelines. If someone voluntarily leaves a job and is purposely underemployed, then yes CS can be set at what income that person is capable of making.
As far as dependents, only adopted or aubsequent children MAY come into play here. again see what your state guidelines say, or find an attorney wlling to help you.
As far as dependents, only adopted or aubsequent children MAY come into play here. again see what your state guidelines say, or find an attorney wlling to help you.
We've mentioned it to ex and her atty. but they said that he left that job voluntarily so the support has to be based on that and wouldn't talk about it anymore. So i'm wondering if that rule applies to the actual income or the income the child support is based on (also it has been based on the old income for 4 years) He is working for his family business that he plans to completely take over in a couple more years. Him and the ex. both knew this was inevitable but she denies this, saying he hadn't planned on it.. etc.
Well it still sounds like Dad left a job to make less money. Unfortunately he might be stuck right now. If he has other children then the guidelines might be deviated from a bit. He might want to contact a fathers rights group in his state to see if anyone can give him some guidance. Also, some states allow a parenting time discount. If he has a certain number of overnights a year, CS may be reduced a bit. Is the state also factoring in moms income? I do not know what state you are in, so I have no idea what the state guidelines say. You should google them.
Scooterdog
New Member
The man has a constitutional right to work where he wants, and for whatever amount he wants. The guidlines for child support is set in your states law, and goes on percentage.
If the court is going to keep the same support, now moving out of the guidlines, the judge HAS to give reason for this, and no, "you don't make the money I demand you make' won't cut it.
I have case law to show that a father can pick and chose his work/pay and the only thing the court can do, is lower the support by the guidlines.
If the court is going to keep the same support, now moving out of the guidlines, the judge HAS to give reason for this, and no, "you don't make the money I demand you make' won't cut it.
I have case law to show that a father can pick and chose his work/pay and the only thing the court can do, is lower the support by the guidlines.
Scooterdog that is not correct. Many states dictate that a man has a responsibility to work a job at a wage he is capable of working. If that was the case, fathers would purposely work minimum wage jobs to avoid a high child support obligation. Many states are not going to penalize mom becuase Dad gets up and chooses to work a lower paying job. If a man has a masters degree, and is working at Wal-mart, there is an issue there.
I am in AZ and the guidelines specifically state underemployment, and a judge does have the right to enforce child support based on a higher income if a NCP purposely took a lower paying job.
Courts also see alot of people being self employed, where it is near impossible to prove what they make. If this man went from being W2'd to 1099/self employed/partner in a company, it is VERY easy to hide income and the courts probably see alot of people doing that to skirt CS obligations.
I am in AZ and the guidelines specifically state underemployment, and a judge does have the right to enforce child support based on a higher income if a NCP purposely took a lower paying job.
Courts also see alot of people being self employed, where it is near impossible to prove what they make. If this man went from being W2'd to 1099/self employed/partner in a company, it is VERY easy to hide income and the courts probably see alot of people doing that to skirt CS obligations.
Scooterdog
New Member
CHILD SUPPORT INCORRECTLY FIGURED UPON "IMPUTED" (WHAT YOU SHOULD BE MAKING, BUT ARE NOT MAKING) INCOME/INPUTED INCOME IS INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE!
The court is requiring this person to pay child support with money that he does not have and requires him to go to work and earn money at a level that is higher than he may be capable of making at this time. Further, this places him in a state of peonage defined by Congress to be a crime, 18 UCA S 1581.
The United States Supreme Court has found that the threat and enactment of legal process to compel employment, Ie imputing income, is "involuntary servitude prohibited by the Thirteenth Amendment. Clyatt vs United States (1905) 197 US 205, 25 S. Ct. 429; United States vs Kozminsky (1988) 487 US 931, 108 S. Ct. 2751.
This is in direct violation of 42 USC Section 2002 declaring that any use of state law to hold a person in service of labor as a "peon" in liquidation of any debt; obligation or otherwise, is null and void; and is contrary to Federal Law.
"Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the DEPRIVATION OF ANY RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES, OR IMMUNITIES SECURED BY THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS. SHALL BE LIABLE TO THE PARTY INJURED IN AN ACTION AT LAW, SUIT IN EQUITY, OR OTHER PROPER PROCEEDING FOR REDRESS" Title 42 USC Section 1983
I really don't care what your state code says, it's clear there are Federal issues if they persue this type of action.
The court is requiring this person to pay child support with money that he does not have and requires him to go to work and earn money at a level that is higher than he may be capable of making at this time. Further, this places him in a state of peonage defined by Congress to be a crime, 18 UCA S 1581.
The United States Supreme Court has found that the threat and enactment of legal process to compel employment, Ie imputing income, is "involuntary servitude prohibited by the Thirteenth Amendment. Clyatt vs United States (1905) 197 US 205, 25 S. Ct. 429; United States vs Kozminsky (1988) 487 US 931, 108 S. Ct. 2751.
This is in direct violation of 42 USC Section 2002 declaring that any use of state law to hold a person in service of labor as a "peon" in liquidation of any debt; obligation or otherwise, is null and void; and is contrary to Federal Law.
"Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the DEPRIVATION OF ANY RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES, OR IMMUNITIES SECURED BY THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS. SHALL BE LIABLE TO THE PARTY INJURED IN AN ACTION AT LAW, SUIT IN EQUITY, OR OTHER PROPER PROCEEDING FOR REDRESS" Title 42 USC Section 1983
I really don't care what your state code says, it's clear there are Federal issues if they persue this type of action.
Last edited:
- Status
Ask a Question
Share this page
