Modification of Child Support (CS)

[BigFamily]

Dear Socrateaser:

Quite a bit of info, sorry for the length.

All parties involved reside in Thurston County, WA.

Original Child support order was entered May 14, 2001. Child support (CS) awarded to NCP $266.00. Court gave deviation of $100.00 for residential credit (CP has child 10 hours more each week than NCP). Also deviation for 1 child from other relationship for $59.00. Set CS at $107.00/month.

Support modification entered on December 28, 2004. Filed with court April 21, 2004. Stated modified CS  to $243.00/month.

CP protested new amount on May 27, 2005. Commissioner ruled NCP to be given deviation for full residential credit, but no deviation for children from other relationship.

State calculated full residential credit for NCP per commissioner's decision, reducing CS to $141.00/month. Re-entered support modification.

CP protested new amount, NCP agreed.

Hearing on June 24, 2005  to reduce deviation for residential credit to $100.00, no deviation for two biological children, setting CS @ $276.00/month.

Commissioner stated in above order: "The child spends a significant amount of time in the father's (NCP) household for which he receives a residential credit of $100 per month." Also states: "The deviation sought by the obligor (NCP) for a deviation based upon a multi-child calculation for two additional biological children for whom he provides support is denied as such deviation would result in insufficient income into the child's household. Likewise, a residential credit for the time the child spends in the father's household is reduced to $100.00 per month."

Commissioner stated on July  15, 2005, that the reason that the residential deviation was reduced was because of the decision of the previous CS order entered on May 14, 2001. Commissioner stated that previous commissioner gave $100.00 residential credit deviation, so therefore deviation for residential credit would stay the same.

Questions:

1. Is there any argument that could be entered using the state's calculation of full residential credit for NCP entered on June 3, 2005 based on the current commissioner's ruling that could keep this deviation the same?

2. Could the previous commissioner's ruling of giving NCP a deviation of both residential credit of $100/month AND deviation of  children from other relationships of $59/child/month be used as some sort of precedent to receive both deviations for the current modification?

3. Could the NCP request the court to explain why the deviations for residential credit and children from another relationship were denied and would result in insufficient income to the CP's household when the child only spends an extra 40 hours a month at the CP's residence?

4. CP recently became employed. The current modification states that CP is voluntarily unemployed, and imputes CP's income at $1807/month. Would it be worth addressing to the court this new information since the CP hasn't, or would it open up a "can of worms" so to speak? i.e. re-entering both party's income information, taxes, expenses, etc.

Thank you in advance.

[socrateaser]

>Questions:
>
>1. Is there any argument that could be entered using the
>state's calculation of full residential credit for NCP entered
>on June 3, 2005 based on the current commissioner's ruling
>that could keep this deviation the same?

All of these rulings are within the broad discretion of the court. The objective is to balance the available financial resources in both households, so as to give the child effectively equal living arrangements in both homes. Your only reasonable argument would be to prove that the other household actually enjoys a substantially greater standard of living than you do, even though you have substantially equal custody. In order to do that you would need a pretty thorough forensic analysis of both parents' income/expenses/assets/liabilities, etc. This would likely require an expert witness forensic accountant, which will cost you about $300 an hour, for oh, say 50 hours. As Clint Eastwood/Dirty Harry once said, "Are ya feelin' lucky, punk? Well, are ya?"

You're probably better off just paying the extra $100 a month and counting your blessings that it ain't more.

>
>2. Could the previous commissioner's ruling of giving NCP a
>deviation of both residential credit of $100/month AND
>deviation of  children from other relationships of
>$59/child/month be used as some sort of precedent to receive
>both deviations for the current modification?

No. The mod requires a change in circumstances, so it's a new ballgame every time.

>
>3. Could the NCP request the court to explain why the
>deviations for residential credit and children from another
>relationship were denied and would result in insufficient
>income to the CP's household when the child only spends an
>extra 40 hours a month at the CP's residence?

You could request it, but, you'll probably be ignored, because you didn't try to prove this issue at the hearing. You're trying to raise the issue after the fact and courts don't have to indulge this. Next time there's a change in circumstances and a mod is filed, be prepared to fight the battle to prove that the household lifestyles are out of balance.

>
>4. CP recently became employed. The current modification
>states that CP is voluntarily unemployed, and imputes CP's
>income at $1807/month. Would it be worth addressing to the
>court this new information since the CP hasn't, or would it
>open up a "can of worms" so to speak? i.e. re-entering both
>party's income information, taxes, expenses, etc.

That would be a new change in circumstances which would permit a new modification and an opportunity to raise the issue that I just discussed above. I don't know what you have that will prove your case, but if you have good objective evidence, or you believe that you can obtain it via discovery, then it's something to think about. Obviously, if CP's actual income is less than $1807, then your moving to modify will end up hurting you rather than helping.