Topics

This concerns a CS mod that I (CP) initiated. I'm pro se, NCP has retained an attorney--this is in Washington state. Court date is November 4. Interrogatories (to be answered) are due 28 days before court. I received interrogatories from them in September. I answered, and penned my own for them. I mailed them Oct. 6 (priority mail, for what that's worth). They apparently weren't received until Oct. 12.

Received a letter from attorney last Friday (14th) stating that they were received after deadline and thus wouldn't be answered. Specifically, he states, "The cut-off date was October 7, 2005 for this case (see page 4 of the case schedule. Since documents sent via mail are presumed to take three calendar days to be received, your request for Interrogatories was submitted after deadline to complete discovery; therefore [NCP] is under no obligation to respond , and your Interrogatories will not be answered."

The '28 days' was in the case schedule, and I was clear on that. I'd never heard of any '3 days for mail' rule, and I suspect it's a convention and not a 'rule', per se.

1. Do you know if this is a case where an attorney is trying to 'pull one over' on a pro se adversary (I know there is some gray area in the dates my interrogatories were mailed/received), or is this a clear and simple screw-up on my part?

2. Is there any way at this point that I can compel them to answer the interrogatories? (Filing a motion?)

Thanks.

I'm petitioning pro se for a CS increase in King County, WA. CS last court ordered in '98. Father in army 2/98-1/05. We agreed to an upward mod in 2003 based on increased income (agreed amount was less than guideline would have been; agreed on mod not court ordered). Father reverted to court-ordered amount upon separation from army (as agreed--agreement also entailed revisiting the CS amount a few months after Father left army, giving him time to get a job).

Father has not pursued full time employment since leaving army; he is pursuing a (second) bachelor's degree instead. Both of us are married; his wife is working, my husband is a SAHD returning to school this Fall to complete his (1st) bachelors degree. Father retained an attorney for this mod. We've exchanged settlement letters and are at an impasse. The issue seems to be whether his income will be imputed at the state average for his age (their argument) or on his actual earning capacity (my argument).

I just rec'd interrogatories from his attorney to fill out. I know (from having read these boards awhile) that you can ask for (pretty much) any information in an interrogatory, but you don't necessarily need to amswer every question.

1. As a pro se in this case, should I pick and choose what to answer (i.e. if I don't think it's relevant or *helpful* to my case, should I ignore it, or should I make an effort to be as transparent as possible)? (I don't feel I have anything to hide, but I also don't want to shoot myself in the foot by giving them more info then they need.)

2. Some of the information I want to get from them in the interrogatory I will send him is if he/his wife have other bank accounts then the (depleted) one he's reported (and their balance). I also want to find his wife's income (relevant--shows his ability to pay since he is unemployed student). Suggestions on how to do this? Interrogatory? Subpeona?

3. Any suggestions on how best to frame my argument that the court should impute his income at demonstrated earning capacity? Or, failing that (since army income might be viewed as non-replicable), that they should take into account his education and experience level and impute it higher than the state average for his age?

4. How sympathetic have courts been , in your experience, to imputing an NCP's income at a lower amount than actual earning capacity when NCP is pursuing a degree? (Does it make a difference if it's a second bachelors degree?)

5. Would recent large purchases ($22K cash for a car) have any real bearing on how the court viewed his ability to pay? (I know it wouldn't legally--but dang, that's a heck of a cash layout when he's anticpating 'student poverty'.)

6. To the best of your knowledge, will my having another child to support (mine and my husband's), have any bearing on the determiniation of CS?

7. Can you give me suggestions (other than go to the local law library, which I'll do) on how to search law, administrative code and case law releavnt to issues of imputed income, and in-kind income (since a significant minority of his army income could be viewed as in-kind)?

Thank you for all your help. :)

I am pursuing a CS mod (I am CP). My ex was an officer in the army and got out in January. He is going back to school for a (2nd) bachelors degree rather than pursuing full time employment. Court ordered CS is $294 (order was from 1998). Based on an agreement between us (not filed with the courts) he paid an additional $200/month directly to me from April 2003-January 2005.

I served him in early July and filed two weeks later. I received a settlement letter from a lawyer he retained. This (pasted below) is my response to him.

1. Does this come across as reasonable, intelligent and unemotional?

2. Am I hanging myself with this letter?

Thanks!



July 29, 2005

Mr.  D
Seattle, WA

Re:   Child Support Modification
   KCSC Case No.
   Your File No.


FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY

Dear Mr. D:

Thank you for your letter of introduction and proposed settlement. As I noted in my July 20th email to your office ('[email protected]') I filed the petition for modification in King County on July 18th.  I am hopeful that we can come to an amicable resolution.

I appreciate the law lessons implicit in your letter. I am aware that the court will impute income to (voluntarily) unemployed or underemployed parents in determining child support. The court bases imputations on demonstrated earning capacity; where no such history exists, the courts may use the median income (based on age) that you reference in your letter. Robert does have a demonstrated earning capacity that is far greater than the median of $2,154 a month; I find it unlikely that the courts will ignore this.

I am generally sympathetic to the desire to further one's education. I was very specifically sympathetic to Robert's desire to do so when child support was being determined in 1996. At his request, I acceded to his income being imputed at $0 a month at that time so that he could pursue his first bachelor's degree; this imputation of $0 income stood for over two years until child support was modified following his enlistment in the army. Having already made such a concession to Robert's desire to further his education, and taking into account that Robert has a bachelors degree, I feel no obligation to agree to an imputation of income for Robert that is less than his actual earning capacity simply because he wants to pursue a second bachelors degree.

Based on the pay stub of Robert's you provided, he was earning (and has an earning capacity) of $6120.30 per month (net). Taking into account my monthly net income, that results in a transfer payment of approximately $730. I will, for the sake of settlement purposes, discount the allowances for housing, food, etc. that make up a significant portion of military pay, and only look at Robert's base pay of $4367.70. My income was reported accurately on the child support worksheets I submitted to the court (I get paid 24 times a year). Using these figures results in a child support amount of $936, of which Robert's obligation would be $617.

Robert has paid guideline child support for Son (per his income in any given month) for less than six months out of Son's nine + years (this includes our voluntarily agreed upon increase in 2003, which set child support  at least $200 under guideline) . I strive both to be fair and to do what I can to ensure an amicable parenting relationship with Robert. In that spirit, I am willing to agree to a child support transfer payment of $500 a month (significantly lower than guideline, and the same amount I agreed to in 2003). If your client is amenable to setting child support at this amount, please draw up the paperwork and send it to me for signature. If we can agree on this amount, I am amenable to waiving the difference for July and August and having the new amount due starting September 1st.

Regarding the 'checkboxes' you addressed in your letter:

Day care—Matthew (my husband and the stay at home parent at our house) will be returning to school Fall quarter to complete his degree (his first bachelors degree, if you were curious). This will almost certainly necessitate before school care for Son. Please advise Robert that I expect this amount to be between $120 and $200 a month (I have not yet priced it and am estimating the amount based on past experience). As before, I am willing to ignore the fact that Robert has a greater income (or earning capacity) and split this expense 50/50.

Educational expenses—This has been a provision of our child support order since 1996. Robert can attest to the fact that this has been (and remains) a 'dormant' provision. Nonetheless, I expect to keep this provision in our order in anticipation of post-secondary expenses (to use your language, it is "an effort to insure don't lose a provision of the existing order").

Uninsured health care expenses—Robert and I are in agreement with continuing the provision.

Automatic adjustment of support—I am willing to waive this if Robert agrees to the proposed $500 transfer payment.


Mr.  D, I am confident that what I am proposing is fair to Robert and a reasonable-to-best-case scenario for what he could expect the court to order, should we go to court. I look forward to receiving your response.


Best Regards,

Rey

Socrateaser, long-time reader, first-time poster. Thank you in advance for any help you are able to offer.

All parties reside in (and order is in) WA. NCP pays through CSE. Order was last officially modified in 1998. NCP was in military 1998-Jan. 2005. Order was unofficially modified in 2003; CP and NCP agreed on higher amount due to NCP's increased income. Agreed amount was ~ $200 less than guideline but was NCP's income-proortionate share of what CP estimated the child-related expenses to be. Agreement had NCP paying court-ordered amount through CSE and the rest to CP directly, with the understanding that it would revert to court ordered amount only for a period of time upon NCP separating from army.

NCP discharged from army this past January; CS reverted to court ordered amount only in February.  He returned to WA with his wife in March. NCP intends to be full time student (he already has a BA). NCP is currently not working (he reports he and his wife are living off savings). CP & NCP are discussing CS (e.g. fair amount, etc.). I hope to negotiate an amount that is 1/2 of (CP-estimated) child related expenses. This amount would be guideline if NCP were making $33k (NCP's base bay in army was $48K+).

If we can't agree, I intend to pursue a modification through the courts.

1. How likely would it be (how standard is it) for income to be imputed if a (NC-) parent is un-/under-employed? (Conversely, how likely is it for a judge to impute his income at $0?)

2. Would the imputation be based on NCP's previous income, state's median for his age/education, or...? (I ask this because I expect a judge would view his army income as extraordinary and not duplicable in civilian life)

3. What are the pros/cons of pursuing a modification through CSE vs. pro se?

4. How long could I reasonably expect a modification to take (through CSE? pro se?)?

Thanks,

Rey