CS question about 2nd job

[nala_mia8]

the state is TX

I've asked this of 2 different lawyers and gotten 2 diff answers and can't find anything in the TX family code that references 2nd jobs...

NCP (me) gets a 2nd job. Doesn't tell CP. The 2nd job means a significant increase in my income.

CP retains an attorney (vs going through the AG) and files for CS mod. CP finds out about 2nd job.

Questions:

1) Can the CP request that the CS modification be effective of when the 2nd job started and NOT the original CS mod date, therefore automatically causing a significant arrearage?

2) Can the judge decide for him/herself to make the CS modification effective the date of the 2nd job, therefore automatically causing a significant arrearage?

3) is there ANY scenario where the CP can receive any type of arrearage or back payment since the NCP didn't report the 2nd job?

[socrateaser]

>the state is TX
>
>I've asked this of 2 different lawyers and gotten 2 diff
>answers and can't find anything in the TX family code that
>references 2nd jobs...
>
>NCP (me) gets a 2nd job. Doesn't tell CP. The 2nd job means a
>significant increase in my income.
>
>CP retains an attorney (vs going through the AG) and files for
>CS mod. CP finds out about 2nd job.
>
>Questions:
>
>1) Can the CP request that the CS modification be effective of
>when the 2nd job started and NOT the original CS mod date,
>therefore automatically causing a significant arrearage?

No, retroactive mod would be barred by federal law, unless you got the second job at the time that the prior order was pending, and you didn't tell the other party or the court about the additional income. Then, the prior order could be set aside as a fraud and a new order entered as of the prior order's date using new calculations.
>
>2) Can the judge decide for him/herself to make the CS
>modification effective the date of the 2nd job, therefore
>automatically causing a significant arrearage?

Same as above.

>3) is there ANY scenario where the CP can receive any type of
>arrearage or back payment since the NCP didn't report the 2nd
>job?

If this were the "original/first" order, or if your prior order was only temporary, or if you defrauded the court on the prior order, or if you stipulated to in a prior order that you voluntarily waived your rights to a retroactive modification bar.

Those would be the only reasons I can think of.

[nala_mia8]

the state is TX

I've asked this of 2 different lawyers and gotten 2 diff answers and can't find anything in the TX family code that references 2nd jobs...

NCP (me) gets a 2nd job. Doesn't tell CP. The 2nd job means a significant increase in my income.

CP retains an attorney (vs going through the AG) and files for CS mod. CP finds out about 2nd job.

Questions:

1) Can the CP request that the CS modification be effective of when the 2nd job started and NOT the original CS mod date, therefore automatically causing a significant arrearage?

2) Can the judge decide for him/herself to make the CS modification effective the date of the 2nd job, therefore automatically causing a significant arrearage?

3) is there ANY scenario where the CP can receive any type of arrearage or back payment since the NCP didn't report the 2nd job?

[socrateaser]

>the state is TX
>
>I've asked this of 2 different lawyers and gotten 2 diff
>answers and can't find anything in the TX family code that
>references 2nd jobs...
>
>NCP (me) gets a 2nd job. Doesn't tell CP. The 2nd job means a
>significant increase in my income.
>
>CP retains an attorney (vs going through the AG) and files for
>CS mod. CP finds out about 2nd job.
>
>Questions:
>
>1) Can the CP request that the CS modification be effective of
>when the 2nd job started and NOT the original CS mod date,
>therefore automatically causing a significant arrearage?

No, retroactive mod would be barred by federal law, unless you got the second job at the time that the prior order was pending, and you didn't tell the other party or the court about the additional income. Then, the prior order could be set aside as a fraud and a new order entered as of the prior order's date using new calculations.
>
>2) Can the judge decide for him/herself to make the CS
>modification effective the date of the 2nd job, therefore
>automatically causing a significant arrearage?

Same as above.

>3) is there ANY scenario where the CP can receive any type of
>arrearage or back payment since the NCP didn't report the 2nd
>job?

If this were the "original/first" order, or if your prior order was only temporary, or if you defrauded the court on the prior order, or if you stipulated to in a prior order that you voluntarily waived your rights to a retroactive modification bar.

Those would be the only reasons I can think of.

[DecentDad]

I've always been curious about this...

What if the 2nd job is temporary (e.g., 10 months) and required the CS payor to work 60 hours total per week?

When the payor voluntarily quits the 2nd job and payor goes back to working 40 hours per week, how easily can payor get a CS reduction?

[socrateaser]

>I've always been curious about this...
>
>What if the 2nd job is temporary (e.g., 10 months) and
>required the CS payor to work 60 hours total per week?
>
>When the payor voluntarily quits the 2nd job and payor goes
>back to working 40 hours per week, how easily can payor get a
>CS reduction?

There is a CA case on point (can't recall the cite). The appellate court said, "No one can be forced to work more than 40 hours per week." So, if you work more than 40 hrs, you will pay support on your earnings. But, you don't have to work more than the 40 hrs.

[DecentDad]

So a reduction of hours to 40/week, which causes a drop in income, would be a solid change of circumstance to modify child support downward?  

And a court would have no discretion to impute income at the prior level that was more than 40 hours/week?

In CA, at least.

[socrateaser]

>So a reduction of hours to 40/week, which causes a drop in
>income, would be a solid change of circumstance to modify
>child support downward?  

yes.

>
>And a court would have no discretion to impute income at the
>prior level that was more than 40 hours/week?
>
>In CA, at least.

yes.