Child Support

Wife Seeks Child Support

September 18, 2018 By Elliot S. Schlissel

A wife had brought an application seeking child support about a year after the divorce case started. The husband was a teacher. He also owned a small construction company. He made $152,000.00 in 2015. During that same year the wife had earned $122,000.00. In addition, the wife received substantial rental income from a variety of real estate interests she inherited from her family.

The Parties Separated

The parties separated in December 2013. The father moved into the parties’ second home located in Sayville, Long Island. She remained in their former marital residence. The father had instead of paying the wife child support for the children, agreed to pay the Sayville property expenses. In addition, he was paying medical and other insurance expenses included on both properties. He contributed to the children’s expenses whenever wife requested as well as when the children were with him.

Child Support Denied

Justice Quinn sitting in Supreme Court in Suffolk County took note there were no allegations in wife’s submissions the children’s needs were not being met. He further found the wife had substantial income above a teacher’s salary. In addition, the husband’s health insurance covered all the parties’ medical expenses. Justice Quinn found the children’s standard of living remained consistent. Their financial and emotional needs were provided for. He denied Elliot Schlissel the wife’s application for child support.

Elliot S. Schlissel is a father’s rights lawyer representing fathers throughout the Metropolitan New York area for more than 3 decades. He can be reached at 800-344-6431 or e-mailed at Elliot@sdnylaw.com.

Filed Under: Child Support, Divorce, Fathers Rights

Father Obtains Court Order Reducing His Child Support

March 30, 2017 By Elliot S. Schlissel

A father brought a child support modification proceeding. A hearing was brought before a support magistrate and the father’s child support obligations were modified to $283.00 per week. The father objected to this finding and appealed the decision to a Family Court Judge. The father asked that his child support be reduced from $283.00 a week to $167.87 per week.

The Support Magistrate is Overruled

Judge Stephen Aronson sitting in the Family Court part in Ontario County New York agreed with the father. Judge Aronson ruled that the father’s prior modification petition was denied on the basis that his income reduction was self-imposed. Judge Aronson found although the father earned $50,000.00 in 2013, this was the exception to the rule. Judge Aronson also found the father did not voluntarily quit his job. Unfortunately, he was laid off because there was no longer a need for his position by his employer. Judge Aronson therefor overruled the support obligation to $166.77 per week.

Conclusion

In the Family Court in the State of New York, Support Magistrates deal with issues involving child support. Often Support Magistrates are very busy and have limited amounts of time to conduct hearings with regard to the appropriate amount of child support. This can result in incorrect calculations as to what a father’s financial obligations for child support are. In these situations, a type of appeal called “Objections to the Support Magistrate’s ruling” can be filed. In this case, when the Objections were filed, the Family Court judge carefully reviewed the situation and determined the father’s child support obligation was incorrectly calculated and therefore they were reduced.

Elliot S. Schlissel is a father’s rights attorney. Elliot and his associates have more than 100 years of combined experience representing fathers in child support and child custody legal cases.

Filed Under: Child Support

Video Blog: Father Challenges Decision Imputing Income to Him

March 22, 2017 By Elliot S. Schlissel

Filed Under: Child Support

Father’s Challenge to Imputed Income Granted

January 10, 2017 By Elliot S. Schlissel

In a case before Judge Machelle Sweeting sitting in the Family Court of New York County, a father brought objections (an appeal) to a support magistrate’s finding he had imputed income. The father challenged the support magistrate’s decision. The mother had a petition for an upward modification of child support. At the time the petition was filed the father was unemployed. However the support magistrate found he had voluntarily left his position. The court therefore imputed the income to him that he would have received had he not left his job. The father sought to present testimony he did not voluntarily leave his job. However he was not allowed to present this testimony with regard to how he came to be unemployed.

The Family Court Judge’s Decision

Family Court Judge Machelle Sweeting found that there was no evidence submitted before the support magistrate that the father had taken action to intentionally reduce his earnings by leaving his job. Judge Sweeting found there must be a factual basis on the record for imputing income to a father. She stated there must be a determination made that the parent intentionally reduced earnings for the purpose of avoiding child support obligations. She held this can be imputed based on a litigant’s employment history and/or educational background. She found in this case a hearing would need to be held as to whether the father intentionally reduced his earnings and for recalculation, should it be reasonable based on the outcome of this hearing.

Conclusion

If you appear before a Support Magistrate and receive an unfair or incorrect decision your remedy is to bring an appeal.

Filed Under: Child Support, Fathers Rights

Court Refuses to Deviate From Child Support Standards Act Requirement

December 21, 2016 By Elliot S. Schlissel

A mother had filed a petition for child support. On the basis of this filing a hearing was held before a support magistrate. The magistrate initially found the father’s bi-weekly child support obligations under the Child Support Standards Act was $396.00. It was then reduced by the support magistrate to $270.00 bi-weekly. The support magistrate rendered a decision which stated that applying the Child Support Standards Act was not appropriate in this case. The basis of the magistrate’s decision was that the child spent between 35% and 40% of the time with their father. The support magistrate felt that this constituted significant time sufficient to justify a deviation from the Child Support Standards Act.

Mother Files Objection (appealed) Support Magistrate’s Decision

The mother in her appeal argued there was a significant difference between the parties’ financial resources. The Family Court Judge reviewing this matter agreed with the mother’s arguments. The Family Court Judge made new findings requiring the father to make child support payments of $436.00 bi-weekly. The Family Court Judge stated in his custody cases the amount of time a child spends with the non-custodial parent should not be the driving force for a deviation with regard to the child support payments. The court held in absence of compelling factors, a deviation in child support from the presumably correct amount was not warranted in this case.

Conclusion

In most shared custody or joint custody cases the non-residential custodial parent has to pay the full amount of child support to the custodial parent. This is true even if each of the parties spend similar amounts of time with the child or children. The father should be careful when negotiating these agreements. However, in shared custody cases if a court is unsure of who should be paying child support to the other parent the courts will generally force the parent who has greater income resources to pay child support to the other parent.

Elliot S. Schlissel is a father’s rights lawyer representing fathers throughout the Metropolitan New York area for almost more than 45 years.

Filed Under: Child Support

FATHER’S CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS DECREASED

July 7, 2016 By Elliot S. Schlissel

An appeals court in Manhattan has recently reduced a child support award against the father. The appeals court, in its decision stated that the lawyer/father was not required to pay for private school “up to the cost of Trinity School in New York City,” as had been previously ordered by a trial court.

THE APPEALS COURT

The Appellate Division in it’s decision stated that the trial court “did not follow the precise requirements of the New York Child Support Standards Act by ordering Michael Devereaux to pay for the cost of private school education as well as “extracurricular activities, summer school, and weekend activities.” The Appellate Court found there was insufficient support in the record for payment.”

The appellate Court found although Mr. Devereaux stated his intention to give his child “the best of everything” when living with his wife, this was not a basis for an award above the basic child support amount. The appellate court went on to state: “there is no record that the child has any special needs or gifts” which would be the basis of Devereaux paying above the standard child support amount. The Court also stated that tuition at a private school such as Trinity could cost as much as $45,000 a year.

Elliot S. Schlissel is a father’s rights attorney representing fathers with regard to custody, support and visitation matters throughout the metropolitan New York area.

Filed Under: Child Support, Fathers Rights