Judge ordered support amount based on false info

[MickeyMouse1325]

What is the name of your state? Louisiana

I currently live in Louisiana, however, my child support case is actually in Nevada where my daughter resides with my ex-wife.

Here's my situation. About 2 weeks prior to hurricane Katrina my current wife and I went to Reno regarding a child support hearing for my daughter, at the hearing the judge ordered me to pay child support based on my retirment income plus what the judge thought my wife could earn as a paralegal although she was not employed at the time and to top it off the judge based it on what a paralegal could earn in Nevada and not Louisiana which everyone one nows is way less and then in addition to that she did not reduce my current wifes "guessed" earning even though she has a child of her own that she cares for full time with no help from the father. I do not feel this is right.

Anyways, 2 weeks after the hearing the hurricane hit and my wife, myself and her son got stuck in the superdome, we ended up loosing everything because our apartment flooded, my wife finally got a job out here in Louisiana however, she barely makes what she used to in Nevada and we are still paying this rediculous monthly amount in child support.

Nevada Law states that you can make a motion to modify you child support based on change of circumstances and I feel this would qualify, however, I am not sure. Also, now that my wife is working we want the judge to base the child support amount off of what she really makes instead of the Judges guess of what she thinks she can make, also we want them to reduce it because she has her own child that she has to care for financially.

Can someone, anyone, give me any advice or insight and let me know if I am on the right track here. Anything at this point will help. Thanks so much.

 

[GrowUp!]

What is the name of your state? Louisiana

I currently live in Louisiana, however, my child support case is actually in Nevada where my daughter resides with my ex-wife.

Here's my situation. About 2 weeks prior to hurricane Katrina my current wife and I went to Reno regarding a child support hearing for my daughter, at the hearing the judge ordered me to pay child support based on my retirment income plus what the judge thought my wife could earn as a paralegal although she was not employed at the time and to top it off the judge based it on what a paralegal could earn in Nevada and not Louisiana which everyone one nows is way less and then in addition to that she did not reduce my current wifes "guessed" earning even though she has a child of her own that she cares for full time with no help from the father. I do not feel this is right.

Anyways, 2 weeks after the hearing the hurricane hit and my wife, myself and her son got stuck in the superdome, we ended up loosing everything because our apartment flooded, my wife finally got a job out here in Louisiana however, she barely makes what she used to in Nevada and we are still paying this rediculous monthly amount in child support.

Nevada Law states that you can make a motion to modify you child support based on change of circumstances and I feel this would qualify, however, I am not sure. Also, now that my wife is working we want the judge to base the child support amount off of what she really makes instead of the Judges guess of what she thinks she can make, also we want them to reduce it because she has her own child that she has to care for financially.

Can someone, anyone, give me any advice or insight and let me know if I am on the right track here. Anything at this point will help. Thanks so much.

You should try to file based on the hardship of Hurricane Katrina and the financial ramifications from it. Also, why do you keep referring to your wife? She's not a party to this and neither is her child -- unless it's yours biologically.

 

[MickeyMouse1325]

I keep referring to my wife because the judge based my child support on her income as well as mine, they said that Nevada Law can do that?

 

[MrsK]

I keep referring to my wife because the judge based my child support on her income as well as mine, they said that Nevada Law can do that?

I'm unsure if Nevada can do that (most states CAN NOT), but honestly...you need to try & get an atty to protect you. Sounds like you are getting screwed by Nevada, personally. You should get a lawyer to try & get your support reduced to the lowest amt possible.

 

[MickeyMouse1325]

Thats what I thought but I looked up their statutes and it says money from any sourse, including spouse or live in significant other, however, even so, they still should not include all of her income because she has a child of her own.

I have begun the process to hire an attorney, I am waiting for them to call back. Hopefully all will work out.

 

[tigger22472]

Thats what I thought but I looked up their statutes and it says money from any sourse, including spouse or live in significant other, however, even so, they still should not include all of her income because she has a child of her own.

I have begun the process to hire an attorney, I am waiting for them to call back. Hopefully all will work out.

I'm attempting to find that statute now.. Do you have the number?

 

[rmet4nzkx]

I'm attempting to find that statute now.. Do you have the number?

I think we also need to know more about his retirement income, and his age that may be why they are counting his wife's income

 

[rmet4nzkx]

NRS 125B.070 Amount of payment: Definitions; adjustment of presumptive maximum amount based on change in Consumer Price Index.

1. As used in this section and NRS 125B.080, unless the context otherwise requires:

(a) “Gross monthly income” means the total amount of income received each month from any source of a person who is not self-employed or the gross income from any source of a self-employed person, after deduction of all legitimate business expenses, but without deduction for personal income taxes, contributions for retirement benefits, contributions to a pension or for any other personal expenses.

(b) “Obligation for support” means the sum certain dollar amount determined according to the following schedule:

(1) For one child, 18 percent;

(2) For two children, 25 percent;

(3) For three children, 29 percent;

(4) For four children, 31 percent; and

(5) For each additional child, an additional 2 percent,

Ê of a parent’s gross monthly income, but not more than the presumptive maximum amount per month per child set forth for the parent in subsection 2 for an obligation for support determined pursuant to subparagraphs (1) to (4), inclusive, unless the court sets forth findings of fact as to the basis for a different amount pursuant to subsection 6 of NRS 125B.080.

2. For the purposes of paragraph (b) of subsection 1, the presumptive maximum amount per month per child for an obligation for support, as adjusted pursuant to subsection 3, is:



PRESUMPTIVE MAXIMUM AMOUNT

The Presumptive Maximum Amount the

INCOME RANGE Parent May Be Required to Pay

If the Parent’s Gross But per Month per Child Pursuant to

Monthly Income Is at Least Less Than Paragraph (b) of Subsection 1 Is



$0 - $4,168 $500

4,168 - 6,251 550

6,251 - 8,334 600

8,334 - 10,418 650

10,418 - 12,501 700

12,501 - 14,583 750



If a parent’s gross monthly income is equal to or greater than $14,583, the presumptive maximum amount the parent may be required to pay pursuant to paragraph (b) of subsection 1 is $800.

3. The presumptive maximum amounts set forth in subsection 2 for the obligation for support must be adjusted on July 1 of each year for the fiscal year beginning that day and ending June 30 in a rounded dollar amount corresponding to the percentage of increase or decrease in the Consumer Price Index (All Items) published by the United States Department of Labor for the preceding calendar year. On April 1 of each year, the Office of Court Administrator shall determine the amount of the increase or decrease required by this subsection, establish the adjusted amounts to take effect on July 1 of that year and notify each district court of the adjusted amounts.

4. As used in this section, “Office of Court Administrator” means the Office of Court Administrator created pursuant to NRS 1.320.

(Added to NRS by 1987, 2267; A 1991, 1334; 2001, 1865; 2003, 101, 342)

NRS 125B.080 Amount of payment: Determination. Except as otherwise provided in NRS 425.450:

1. A court of this State shall apply the appropriate formula set forth in NRS 125B.070 to:

(a) Determine the required support in any case involving the support of children.

(b) Any request filed after July 1, 1987, to change the amount of the required support of children.

2. If the parties agree as to the amount of support required, the parties shall certify that the amount of support is consistent with the appropriate formula set forth in NRS 125B.070. If the amount of support deviates from the formula, the parties must stipulate sufficient facts in accordance with subsection 9 which justify the deviation to the court, and the court shall make a written finding thereon. Any inaccuracy or falsification of financial information which results in an inappropriate award of support is grounds for a motion to modify or adjust the award.

3. If the parties disagree as to the amount of the gross monthly income of either party, the court shall determine the amount and may direct either party to furnish financial information or other records, including income tax returns for the preceding 3 years. Once a court has established an obligation for support by reference to a formula set forth in NRS 125B.070, any subsequent modification or adjustment of that support, except for any modification or adjustment made pursuant to subsection 3 of NRS 125B.070 or NRS 425.450 or as a result of a review conducted pursuant to subsection 1 of NRS 125B.145, must be based upon changed circumstances.

4. Notwithstanding the formulas set forth in NRS 125B.070, the minimum amount of support that may be awarded by a court in any case is $100 per month per child, unless the court makes a written finding that the obligor is unable to pay the minimum amount. Willful underemployment or unemployment is not a sufficient cause to deviate from the awarding of at least the minimum amount.

5. It is presumed that the basic needs of a child are met by the formulas set forth in NRS 125B.070. This presumption may be rebutted by evidence proving that the needs of a particular child are not met by the applicable formula.

6. If the amount of the awarded support for a child is greater or less than the amount which would be established under the applicable formula, the court shall:

(a) Set forth findings of fact as to the basis for the deviation from the formula; and

(b) Provide in the findings of fact the amount of support that would have been established under the applicable formula.

7. Expenses for health care which are not reimbursed, including expenses for medical, surgical, dental, orthodontic and optical expenses, must be borne equally by both parents in the absence of extraordinary circumstances.

8. If a parent who has an obligation for support is willfully underemployed or unemployed to avoid an obligation for support of a child, that obligation must be based upon the parent’s true potential earning capacity.

9. The court shall consider the following factors when adjusting the amount of support of a child upon specific findings of fact:

(a) The cost of health insurance;

(b) The cost of child care;

(c) Any special educational needs of the child;

(d) The age of the child;

(e) The legal responsibility of the parents for the support of others;

(f) The value of services contributed by either parent;

(g) Any public assistance paid to support the child;

(h) Any expenses reasonably related to the mother’s pregnancy and confinement;

(i) The cost of transportation of the child to and from visitation if the custodial parent moved with the child from the jurisdiction of the court which ordered the support and the noncustodial parent remained;

(j) The amount of time the child spends with each parent;

(k) Any other necessary expenses for the benefit of the child; and

(l) The relative income of both parents.

(Added to NRS by 1987, 2267; A 1989, 859; 1991, 1334; 1993, 486; 1997, 2295; 2001, 1866)

 

[tigger22472]

I am in the middle of writing a paper for school so I just skimmed it... where did it say step-parent income can be used? I saw about using their (parent's) sources of income and about self employement .. etc.. but nothing about spouse of NCP.

I also wonder if they are allowed to use the income of a NCP's spouse to raise it can they use the spouse of a CPs to reduce it? Seems only fair when it applies.

 

[rmet4nzkx]

I am in the middle of writing a paper for school so I just skimmed it... where did it say step-parent income can be used? I saw about using their (parent's) sources of income and about self employement .. etc.. but nothing about spouse of NCP.

I also wonder if they are allowed to use the income of a NCP's spouse to raise it can they use the spouse of a CPs to reduce it? Seems only fair when it applies.

Well it looks like it would be at least $500 p/m
If OP is retired (early retirement) the judge might impute a larger amount based on the family income such as when people are voluntarily un/under employed. Perhaps OP's wife should enforce CS orders fro her son and or get a part time job. THe FEA money should be about gone.

 

[Shay-Pari'e]

https://forum.freeadvice.com/showthread.php?t=315031


Hmm.

 

[tigger22472]

Well it looks like it would be at least $500 p/m
If OP is retired (early retirement) the judge might impute a larger amount based on the family income such as when people are voluntarily un/under employed. Perhaps OP's wife should enforce CS orders fro her son and or get a part time job. THe FEA money should be about gone.

Ok.. I understand the whole voluntarily un/under employment and going above and beyond the guidelines but that doesn't mean that the spouse's income is included.

I have to disagree with you in one sense. Yes, she should enforce CS for her own son if she isn't getting it or get a part time job if the household needs it. But, IMO she shouldn't have to do these things to support this child that is not hers. If he's ordered to pay more than they feel they can afford then obviously she should step up and do what it takes to help the household but that is if everything was done in a legal matter regarding the CS.

 

[rmet4nzkx]

Ok.. I understand the whole voluntarily un/under employment and going above and beyond the guidelines but that doesn't mean that the spouse's income is included.

I have to disagree with you in one sense. Yes, she should enforce CS for her own son if she isn't getting it or get a part time job if the household needs it. But, IMO she shouldn't have to do these things to support this child that is not hers. If he's ordered to pay more than they feel they can afford then obviously she should step up and do what it takes to help the household but that is if everything was done in a legal matter regarding the CS.

I meant OP should get a part time job.

 

[rmet4nzkx]

https://forum.freeadvice.com/showthread.php?t=315031


Hmm.

Thanks Shay, that was very enlightening No way will that judge lower his child support obligation, and it will be based on salary as a Reno Cop.

 

[Shay-Pari'e]

Thanks Shay, that was very enlightening No way will that judge lower his child support obligation, and it will be based on salary as a Reno Cop.

YEP!