• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

After 5 year Review Support Increased 3x - SOLVED

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Ohio

After dealing with a bunch of nincompoops in this previous thread that got the thread locked locked before any sensible answer could be given

here:
https://forum.freeadvice.com/child-support-98/after-5-year-review-support-increased-3x-income-ratio-same-544739.html#post2770146

I ended up getting my problem solved in the real world vicariously.

I requested a hearing to get the deviation that was awarded when the decree was first issued to be re-instated.

Plain and simple I went before the judge with my ex and explained that I still had the kids 50% of the time and our income ratio was still the same and how a 3x increase in support for me would jeopardise my care for my kids.

The reason I had to do this through a hearing is that Ohio has no law that says the court HAS to reconsider the deviation on the subsequent hearings.

So THAT is the REAL answer to this problem that no one here, given the facts, could give.
 


Proserpina

Senior Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Ohio

After dealing with a bunch of nincompoops in this previous thread that got the thread locked locked before any sensible answer could be given

here:
https://forum.freeadvice.com/child-support-98/after-5-year-review-support-increased-3x-income-ratio-same-544739.html#post2770146

I ended up getting my problem solved in the real world vicariously.

I requested a hearing to get the deviation that was awarded when the decree was first issued to be re-instated.

Plain and simple I went before the judge with my ex and explained that I still had the kids 50% of the time and our income ratio was still the same and how a 3x increase in support for me would jeopardise my care for my kids.

The reason I had to do this through a hearing is that Ohio has no law that says the court HAS to reconsider the deviation on the subsequent hearings.

So THAT is the REAL answer to this problem that no one here, given the facts, could give.



Well good for you.

You're welcome.
 

CJane

Senior Member
So THAT is the REAL answer to this problem that no one here, given the facts, could give.
Right. Because THESE facts:

Plain and simple I went before the judge with my ex and explained that I still had the kids 50% of the time and our income ratio was still the same and how a 3x increase in support for me would jeopardise my care for my kids.
Were never presented in your original thread.

Nincompoops, indeed.
 
Not only was the 50/50 custody split never mentioned, but how much their incomes INCREASED wasn't mentioned. If the incomes both went up 3x and stayed in the same ratio, then it would make sense that the support would go up 3x.

Some pertinent facts were left out.
 
Not only was the 50/50 custody split never mentioned, but how much their incomes INCREASED wasn't mentioned. If the incomes both went up 3x and stayed in the same ratio, then it would make sense that the support would go up 3x.

Some pertinent facts were left out.

Incorrect, the support went up because the deviation disappeared after the review and was not required to be re-applied as there is no state law to require this and couldn't be re-instated without a hearing.

The deviation was appropriate for "joint shared" custody in this case as was determined to be so a second time by a judge.

If you couldn't get a clue from "joint shared"

and this:

"based on us being joint shared with equal time throughout the year."

being 50/50, o well, sorry you didn't have the brilliance to understand that extremely difficult set of words as they relate to math.
 
Last edited:

Ohiogal

Queen Bee
Incorrect, the support went up because the deviation disappeared after the review and was not required to be re-applied as there is no state law to require this and couldn't be re-instated without a hearing.

The deviation was appropriate for "joint shared" custody in this case as was determined to be so a second time by a judge.

If you couldn't get a clue from "joint shared"

and this:

"based on us being joint shared with equal time throughout the year."

being 50/50, o well, sorry you didn't have the brilliance to understand that extremely difficult set of words as they relate to math.
Joint custody does NOT automatically equate to an equal timeshare. Your idiocy is noted. You are now dismissed.
 
I'm just curious, doesn't me saying "equal time" denote 50/50?

I think the best way to know when you have won a debate is when the other person resigns to ad hominem attacks, n'est ce pas?
 

Just Blue

Senior Member
I'm just curious, doesn't me saying "equal time" denote 50/50?

I think the best way to know when you have won a debate is when the other person resigns to ad hominem attacks, n'est ce pas?
You DO realize that OhioGal is a site vetted Ohio Attorney/Guardian Ad Litum?? Right? She deals with this stuff EVERYDAY.
 
If you couldn't get a clue from "joint shared"

and this:

"based on us being joint shared with equal time throughout the year."

being 50/50, o well, sorry you didn't have the brilliance to understand that extremely difficult set of words as they relate to math.
With all due respect, we typically get parents in here who swear up and down that they've got "equal time" and "joint custody" of said children and then admit later that they really DIDN'T have anything close to joint. Even to the degree where they admit that in THEIR view, 30/70 is "joint" or "equal time."

Consider it operant conditioning, so to speak.

Bottom line: Your derision is not deserved and is pointless.
 

stealth2

Under the Radar Member
I hate people who use big words only to try to impress, then look stupid when they don't even know what the word means...
I was just about to post something similar.

OP - don't use words you don't know. It just makes you look stupider than you already do. Mkay? Thanks!
 
With all due respect, we typically get parents in here who swear up and down that they've got "equal time" and "joint custody" of said children and then admit later that they really DIDN'T have anything close to joint. Even to the degree where they admit that in THEIR view, 30/70 is "joint" or "equal time."

Consider it operant conditioning, so to speak.

Bottom line: Your derision is not deserved and is pointless.
Thanks for the respect. And if what one says is not to be taken literally and factually, why is it responded to (or in my case previously, IGNORED ) as if it were and not questioned?

I'm sorry but you can't have it both ways. You can't deride me by saying the details I provided are real and not real at the same time for the sake of condescending showmanship. To me, THAT is what is pointless.

I think I'm done as I don't want to dance to the childrens' piped tune.
 
Last edited:

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top