Not making sense to me....

[Hulksmash]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? OR, Child resides in NY

Hi there,

I would like some clarification on a judgement that I received in the mail today. I'm sorry that it's so wordy, but trying to get as much info as possible so that it makes sense. Regretfully I was not there for the court date, as I had recently relocated to my current state and had only been with my new employer for 7 days at the time. I was in training, had requested the time to appear telephonically but it was not possible due to the nature of my work. The way this is worded to me, is that I'm going to be paying $625 a month in support plus an additional $25 for arrears. Which is curious considering that there was a previous order in place where I had higher income and I was ordered to pay less.

I had no choice but to relocate to a more affordable area and reduce my work load from 2 full time jobs down to 1. Working 100 hours a week caused me to have 2 heart attacks and was under doctors orders to reduce my stress load. This new order looks like it's more than the standard 17% for one child which is throwing me for a loop. Is that possible with my new financial situation? I have a family of 4 in my house, and am below the poverty line which allows us to qualify for Medicaid. Thanks so much.

"Child's needs are $800/rent, $200 utilites, $200/food, $50/clothing= $1,250 monthly needs. The Petitioner receives $56,673 adjusted gross annual income and the Respondent receives $24,856 adjusted gross annual income;

Respondent is the non-custodial part, whose pro rata share of the basic child support obligation is $442.00 monthly for the following child:

(17 year old son)

The parties have been advised of the provisions of Section 413(1) of the Family Court Act and the unrepresented parties, if any, have received a copy of the child support standards chart promulgated by the Commissioner of the N.Y.S. Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance pursuant to Section 111-i of the Social Services Law;

Upon consideration of the follow factors specified in Family Court Act 413(1)(f), Respondent's pro rata share of the basic child support obligation would be unjust and/or inappropriate for the following reason:

*based on the needs of the child;

It is hereby ordered and adjudged that effective July 15, 2015, Respondent is chargeable with the support of Dependent Child and is possessed of sufficient means and ability to earn such means to provide the payment of the sum of $625.00 monthly to Petitioner payable through the SCU, such payments to commence on April 15, 2016;

It is further ordered that effective July 15, 2015 to August 4, 2015, Respondent shall pay 100% of the unreimbursed health related expense for the child for whom support is ordered upon presentation of paid receipts;

It is further ordered that effective August 4, 2015, Respondent shall pay 50% of the unreimbursed health related expense for the child for whom support is ordered upon presentation of paid receipts;

It is further ordered and adjudged that Respondent's retroactive support to Petitioner for the period from July 15, 2015 to March 24, 2016 is $4,185.00 for basic payment ($625 x9 months/July 2015 to April 2016 = $5,625 - $1,440 paid on temporary order of support);

It is further ordered that the above-stated amount is to be paid as follow: Respondent shall make payments of $25.00 monthly commencing on April 15, 2016 to Petitioner payable through the SCU"

 

[Silverplum]

You didn't show up, so Mom got what she requested. You knew you had a child and child support before you set up house with someone else and either had 2 new kids or took on her kids: either way, that's no reason to not pay as much as the first child needs.

 

[Hulksmash]

Thank you for your input. I appreciate the candor although I don't feel there is the need to rub my face in my life decisions. I have always provided and supported my children, even with the add on of another 10 year and going strong marriage.

Question: Can I dispute the overage and request it to be reduced to the standard 17%? My son lived with me for the majority of his life. The dates of July 2015 is when she had strongly persuaded him to come reside with her and to allow him time with his mother, I agreed. We were already 6 hours away from each other at that time, so I thought it was the only right thing to do. Up until then, she had been ordered to pay $600 a month based on her earnings (the same as she's making now and I was still making less than her) for 2 children. Which is why I'm scratching my head over the overage.

As for his needs, she currently has him in placement, only sees him on the weekends (if she deems) and is using medical insurance to cover it. On top of this I find it interesting that his rental needs are $800 a month when she owns the house (I know because I signed the quick claim deed over to her) and is only covering a $1200/mnth mortgage.

 

[CJane]

The problem that you have is that YES, all of those things could have been disputed at the hearing, but you weren't there. You MIGHT (with an attorney) be able to file a motion for reconsideration, but that's an iffy proposition.

Regardless of the scheduling issues, the court sees that you chose not to show up, and chose not to dispute her arguments, and in the absence of your testimony ruled in her favor. And that ruling is VERY likely to stand.

 

[Hulksmash]

Thank you. I'll take all of this into consideration as I move forward. The scheduling was a bit frustrating for me. The original court date had been scheduled for a date before I relocated and would have been able to attend. But it was rescheduled either by my ex or by the Judge (not sure who) and when I requested an extension I was shut down. I was assured when I contacted the clerks office that they would base it off of my current wages which I faxed over that day. Being 3000 miles away makes it difficult to show up. :/ Thank you for your help.

 

[Silverplum]

Thank you for your input. I appreciate the candor although I don't feel there is the need to rub my face in my life decisions. I have always provided and supported my children, even with the add on of another 10 year and going strong marriage.

Question: Can I dispute the overage and request it to be reduced to the standard 17%? My son lived with me for the majority of his life. The dates of July 2015 is when she had strongly persuaded him to come reside with her and to allow him time with his mother, I agreed. We were already 6 hours away from each other at that time, so I thought it was the only right thing to do. Up until then, she had been ordered to pay $600 a month based on her earnings (the same as she's making now and I was still making less than her) for 2 children. Which is why I'm scratching my head over the overage.

As for his needs, she currently has him in placement, only sees him on the weekends (if she deems) and is using medical insurance to cover it. On top of this I find it interesting that his rental needs are $800 a month when she owns the house (I know because I signed the quick claim deed over to her) and is only covering a $1200/mnth mortgage.

Regarding the bolded: you said the ruling made no sense to you, and you brought up your new family as a reason to lower the ruling. I merely explained what, apparently, made no sense to you.

 

[latigo]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? OR, Child resides in NY

Hi there,

I would like some clarification on a judgement that I received in the mail today. I'm sorry that it's so wordy, but trying to get as much info as possible so that it makes sense. Regretfully I was not there for the court date, as I had recently relocated to my current state and had only been with my new employer for 7 days at the time. I was in training, had requested the time to appear telephonically but it was not possible due to the nature of my work. The way this is worded to me, is that I'm going to be paying $625 a month in support plus an additional $25 for arrears. Which is curious considering that there was a previous order in place where I had higher income and I was ordered to pay less.

I had no choice but to relocate to a more affordable area and reduce my work load from 2 full time jobs down to 1. Working 100 hours a week caused me to have 2 heart attacks and was under doctors orders to reduce my stress load. This new order looks like it's more than the standard 17% for one child which is throwing me for a loop. Is that possible with my new financial situation? I have a family of 4 in my house, and am below the poverty line which allows us to qualify for Medicaid. Thanks so much.

"Child's needs are $800/rent, $200 utilites, $200/food, $50/clothing= $1,250 monthly needs. The Petitioner receives $56,673 adjusted gross annual income and the Respondent receives $24,856 adjusted gross annual income;

Respondent is the non-custodial part, whose pro rata share of the basic child support obligation is $442.00 monthly for the following child:

(17 year old son)

The parties have been advised of the provisions of Section 413(1) of the Family Court Act and the unrepresented parties, if any, have received a copy of the child support standards chart promulgated by the Commissioner of the N.Y.S. Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance pursuant to Section 111-i of the Social Services Law;

Upon consideration of the follow factors specified in Family Court Act 413(1)(f), Respondent's pro rata share of the basic child support obligation would be unjust and/or inappropriate for the following reason:

*based on the needs of the child;

It is hereby ordered and adjudged that effective July 15, 2015, Respondent is chargeable with the support of Dependent Child and is possessed of sufficient means and ability to earn such means to provide the payment of the sum of $625.00 monthly to Petitioner payable through the SCU, such payments to commence on April 15, 2016;

It is further ordered that effective July 15, 2015 to August 4, 2015, Respondent shall pay 100% of the unreimbursed health related expense for the child for whom support is ordered upon presentation of paid receipts;

It is further ordered that effective August 4, 2015, Respondent shall pay 50% of the unreimbursed health related expense for the child for whom support is ordered upon presentation of paid receipts;

It is further ordered and adjudged that Respondent's retroactive support to Petitioner for the period from July 15, 2015 to March 24, 2016 is $4,185.00 for basic payment ($625 x9 months/July 2015 to April 2016 = $5,625 - $1,440 paid on temporary order of support);

It is further ordered that the above-stated amount is to be paid as follow: Respondent shall make payments of $25.00 monthly commencing on April 15, 2016 to Petitioner payable through the SCU"

I think what really needs to be "clarified" is your purpose in being here. Because it seems odd that you would be asking to have the order explained and in turn express your dissatisfaction with it.

So why are you here? I mean other than making excuses why you were not present at the hearing and nothing regarding any effort to have it postponed in order to accommodate your employment responsibilities. Nor how the order might have come down any differently if you were there.

 

[CJane]

Thank you. I'll take all of this into consideration as I move forward. The scheduling was a bit frustrating for me. The original court date had been scheduled for a date before I relocated and would have been able to attend. But it was rescheduled either by my ex or by the Judge (not sure who) and when I requested an extension I was shut down. I was assured when I contacted the clerks office that they would base it off of my current wages which I faxed over that day. Being 3000 miles away makes it difficult to show up. :/ Thank you for your help.

Well, it was based off your income. And then, that accounting was found to be unjust and inappropriate based on the needs of the child/cost of living in the child's location, and was changed to include those factors.

I get that it sucks. But this is what happens when a default judgment is entered.

 

[Hulksmash]

I appreciate all of the responses and while it may make sense to you as you have a legal background and are used to understanding these complex documents and understand how the process all works. It did not to me. As for making excuses for not being there and making no effort to reschedule, I had made every effort to reschedule. I spoke to the clerks office, and faxed information in. I requested a rescheduling based off that I had recently started a new job and was not able to attend due to training. At the time of the court date, I was on the road going from house to house shadowing a case manager.

It didn't make sense to me that the standard for NYS was 17% for a single child, and yet I was paying 25% which is the % for two children. The original court date coincided with a date that I was able to attend as I was still on the East coast. There was a matter of days between the two dates. I had purposely stayed in the area and delayed the start of my new employment to attend this original hearing. The day came, I showed up and had been notified that it had been rescheduled and the notice just hadn't showed up at my house yet as at that time I lived in the next state over. My rescheduling was denied as they had my financial information and would base off of that. For a default judgment, with my income level the 17% would be $425 a month roughly. This is why I was scratching my head. I had a feeling what I was reading was true, but wanted some clarification on it. That is all.

Thank you.

 

[stealth2]

Thing is, you COULD have had a lawyer there, representing you. You pretty well hung yourself out to dry.

 

[not2cleverRed]

You could also have requested to appear telephonically (sp? by telephone).

 

[stealth2]

You could also have requested to appear telephonically (sp? by telephone).

He apparently did (first post) but it wasn't possible due to the nature of his work.