CS Arrears lowered??

[Rufie]

What is the name of your state?ca
My Ex whom is $52,000+ in arrears and currently not paying anything, AGAIN ! States he is going to Child Support Services to have arrears lowered . In the last three years he has asked for a modification 4 times and either did not follow through with paperwork or did not show up at hearings. Now he's crying arrears are unfair because I now make more than when the order came out years ago? Has anybody seen a judgement to lower arrears .
Based on "It's not Fair??"

Again, He never followed through on modicifcation paperwork. I had always had all my paperwork in and was at hearings waiting for him.

 

[nextwife]

Legally, even if he had been lying in a full body cast in a coma for the past few years he'd STILL be unable to retroactively modify support.

 

[gatorguy3]

the Bradley Amendment almost guarantees arrears will never be manipulated however, if the initial ruling was wrong then the arrrears would be changeable.

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

What is the name of your state?ca
My Ex whom is $52,000+ in arrears and currently not paying anything, AGAIN ! States he is going to Child Support Services to have arrears lowered . In the last three years he has asked for a modification 4 times and either did not follow through with paperwork or did not show up at hearings. Now he's crying arrears are unfair because I now make more than when the order came out years ago? Has anybody seen a judgement to lower arrears .
Based on "It's not Fair??"

Again, He never followed through on modicifcation paperwork. I had always had all my paperwork in and was at hearings waiting for him.

My response:

The trial court may find there are "special circumstances" warranting a reduction in the presumptively-correct formula amount pursuant to Ca Fam § 4057(b)(5); and the resulting child support order may effectively reduce the arrearages obligation and interest that otherwise would have accrued. [See City & County of San Francisco v. Funches (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 243, 247, 89 Cal.Rptr.2d 49, 52]

In County of Stanislaus v. Gibbs, 59 Cal.App.4th at 1426-1427, 69 Cal.Rptr.2d at 825, there was no abuse of discretion in reducing Father's child support obligation to zero pursuant to § 4057(b)(5) where he had only $712 in net monthly disposable income. After the maximum allowable low-income adjustment (Ca Fam § 4055(b)(7), presumptively-correct formula support came to $248/mo.; but, coupled with his $450/mo. rent, that would have left Father with only $14 for monthly expenses, (clearly "unjust and inappropriate"). [See also City & County of San Francisco v. Miller (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 866, 869, 56 Cal.Rptr.2d 887, 888] "The County's argument that low income is not a 'special circumstance' misses the mark. [Father's] income was not only low, he had virtually nothing left after his wages were garnished and his rent was paid in which to meet his monthly expenses. Moreover, [Father] maintains physical responsibility of the children for 20 percent of the time. Presumably he must attempt to feed them during this period." [City & County of San Francisco v. Miller, supra, 49 Cal.App.4th at 869, 56 Cal.Rptr.2d at 889 (brackets added) (but also affirming trial court's order "urging" Father to find a roommate to reduce his rental expense and scheduling review hearing in 2 months)]

"Unfair" is not a "special circumstance". There must be something financially pivotal for the court to order a reduction.

IAAL