Messages

Leon:
I have sent you an e-mail through the tab here on the forum.  Please respond to me directly at the address provided.  Thanks!
Pip

This is based on fact.  The legislation that I have posted here is designed to eliminate any and all "extra" children from being considered.  However the guidelines do not indicate that fact.  They only provide a position on the petitioning parties extra children.  Bottom line, if you are a non custodial parent in the state of Idaho and you petition the court for a change in support due to a substantial change,  the custodial parent may have their extra children considered, while you the petitioning party may not.

Good afternoon.  I am a first time poster and I need some thought on an issue that we are fighting here in Idaho.  I have two children, which I am providing support for here in Idaho One turned 18 in December of 2005 and then Graduated from high school in June of 2006.  By Idaho's guidelines he is now "emancipated" there has been no provision in the current stipulation for an automatic reduction in the child support amount.  Now here's where it gets dicey.  I have been forced, due to any sort of an agreement during "good faith negotiations" to petition the court.  Idaho support guidelines read as follows:

In a proceeding to modify an existing award, children of
The party requesting the modification who are born or adopted after the entry of the existing order shall not be considered.

Makes sense.
Now, I am the petitioning party.  The custodial parent is not and it doesn't address the issue of her two "extra" children.
We have petitioned the court.
She has responded and asked the court to consider her two children from her current relationship, and demanded that the court exclude mine pinning her argument on the above referenced portion of the Idaho Child support guidelines.

Now we have answered, and finished with oral arguments on Friday, 1/19/2006.  We based our argument on a piece of legislation passed by the Idaho legislature and signed by our Governor in July of 2000, in which we feel this issue was handled. It reads as follows:

Statement of Purpose / Fiscal Impact

     
     
                STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
                      RS 09790
     
     The purpose of 'this legislation is to make clear to the Supreme Court when
     Adopting the Child Support Guidelines that the current section in Chapter VI on
     Adjustments for Selected Special Factors: Additional Dependents can no longer
     Be used.
     
     The current Guidelines impose an additional financial burden on the non-custodial
     Parent each time the custodial parent brings children from other relationships into
     Their home to live, i.e., child(ren) from new or old relationships, natural or
     Adopted.
     
     The current Guidelines allow the courts to increase the non- custodial parent's
     child-support obligations if the custodial parent has remarried and there are
     additional dependents from that new relationship.
     
     The current Guideline is unfair and requires guidance from the law on Child
     Support Guidelines in order to make it clear that the courts are not allowed to
     make any adjustments for additional dependents.

Now, we also introduced several other "fairness" arguments as well.
Our judge will issue a written decision, which we expect will take over 60 days to get.

Finally, we aren't really confident that he will use hjr 1376 as a controlling piece of legislation.  Judging by his opening remarks, we just don't feel really confident about this.

If he rules against us since there is no case law here in the state.  It will affect EVERY non-custodial parent here in Idaho.  As, custodial parents will be able to count their children from their new relationships, and us non-custodial parents will not.



My question, finally, is this.  Should we loose this important argument, is there any advocacy groups that would be willing to help us in our appeal.  We're nine months into this and quite frankly, my financial resources are becoming somewhat limited.

THANK YOU for your time and consideration.
Pip