Second Opinions please........

[Mom in GA]

What is the name of your state? GA

My question: Is School clothes $ still due based on modification below?

The Court has considered the existence of special circumstances, and finds that the Plaintiff father’s support obligation to his two younger children is a special circumstance which justifies a departure from guidelines found at O.C.G.A. 19-6-15 et seq., and is one of the special circumstances therein delineated. The Court also considered that the Plaintiff father has an obligation to pay $ annually for school clothes for the parties’ minor child.

Based on the forgoing, and having found the single circumstance as set out above to be applicable, the Court denies the Plaintiff’s petition for a downward modification of his support obligation, and finds in favor of the Defendant on her claim for an upward modification, and orders that the Plaintiff pay to the Defendant for the support and maintenance of the minor child the sum of $ each week, which is % of the Plaintiff father’s gross income, beginning instanter and continuing thereafter as set out in the parties’ original divorce agreement. The stated amount is below the guidelines of 17% to 23% for one child……………………………

 

[BL]

NO , you were awarded an upward amount of child support that includes it .

The Court denied the request to lower it .

 

[LdiJ]

NO , you were awarded an upward amount of child support that includes it .

The Court denied the request to lower it .

I am not sure that I agree with that. I read it twice and its arguably unclear, but I interpret it as the court ordering both a specific amount for school clothes, AND an upward modification in child support.

 

[Mom in GA]

I am not sure that I agree with that. I read it twice and its arguably unclear, but I interpret it as the court ordering both a specific amount for school clothes, AND an upward modification in child support.

That's what I thought also .... the first paragraph is explaining his financial responsibilities. It states "has an obligation" it does not state a releif of that obligation.

You'd think you could get the Jugde to interpret his intention without contempt action but I guess not.

Thanks for you input

 

[BL]

Based on the forgoing, and having found the single circumstance as set out above to be applicable, the Court denies the Plaintiff’s petition for a downward modification of his support obligation, and finds in favor of the Defendant on her claim for an upward modification

They way I interpret it , is that based on the forgoing ( first paragraph ) , Etc .
Then goes on to state an amount .

 

[Mom in GA]

They way I interpret it , is that based on the forgoing ( first paragraph ) , Etc .
Then goes on to state an amount .

the clothing allowance is in the original divorce separate from the cs amount

 

[BL]

the clothing allowance is in the original divorce separate from the cs amount

Thus supporting my interpretation : As set out in the Parties original divorce agreement .

and orders that the Plaintiff pay to the Defendant for the support and maintenance of the minor child the sum of $ each week, which is % of the Plaintiff father’s gross income, beginning instanter and continuing thereafter as set out in the parties’ original divorce agreement.

In other words , the way I see It , the Father attempted to have it lowered .
The Court Found a " Special Circumstance " to your benefit , denying for reduction, and instead kept it according to the Divorce agreement .

 

[LdiJ]

Thus supporting my interpretation : As set out in the Parties original divorce agreement .



In other words , the way I see It , the Father attempted to have it lowered .
The Court Found a " Special Circumstance " to your benefit , denying for reduction, and instead kept it according to the Divorce agreement .

You may be right...I have now read it several times and I am still not 100%..but I am leaning closer to your interpretion. It probably would have been clearer if mom hadn't left the numbers out when she posted what the order said.

 

[Mom in GA]

Let me explain the situation to see if you still feel the same......

CSE lowered cs amount due to additional children & lower income I had it overturned, due to the fact that neither parent is on welfare they had no right to make the change. The father then took me back to court to get the Judge to enforce the reduction. Instead he found that there was an increase in pay. The Judge also did not calculate as CSE does (3 children 2 with father 1 with ex - 30% divided by 3 .... each child to recv 10%). The Judge looked at the fact that he did have additional children and the fact that he "has" the clothing allowance and awarded 15% of his income. (which was almost double what CSE was doing.... go figure) They say their Atty said they do not owe the clothing but mine says the do but then they said if i think they need to get a second opinion they would??? ...... don't really want to go back to court but if they are supposed to pay??? (I say "they" it's really a battle W/ stepmom not Dad... I know get over it ... easier said than done... that 's why I'm seeking opinions) This is the second time we have had a problem with interputation on our papers the first time I won. It's all in the way you read it.... dropping the clothing allowance was never mentioned in court.

I left out the amounts just in case she was hanging around here ...as she has posted here in the past ... didn't think I needed to air his income situation.

As I have seen when going to court on such as this you just never know what might happpen.

 

[Mom in GA]

You may be right...I have now read it several times and I am still not 100%..but I am leaning closer to your interpretion. It probably would have been clearer if mom hadn't left the numbers out when she posted what the order said.

Let me explain the situation to see if you still feel the same......

CSE lowered cs amount due to additional children & lower income I had it overturned, due to the fact that neither parent is on welfare they had no right to make the change. The father then took me back to court to get the Judge to enforce the reduction. Instead he found that there was an increase in pay. The Judge also did not calculate as CSE does (3 children 2 with father 1 with ex - 30% divided by 3 .... each child to recv 10%). The Judge looked at the fact that he did have additional children and the fact that he "has" the clothing allowance and awarded 15% of his income. (which was almost double what CSE was doing.... go figure) They say their Atty said they do not owe the clothing but mine says the do but then they said if i think they need to get a second opinion they would??? ...... don't really want to go back to court but if they are supposed to pay??? (I say "they" it's really a battle W/ stepmom not Dad... I know get over it ... easier said than done... that 's why I'm seeking opinions) This is the second time we have had a problem with interputation on our papers the first time I won. It's all in the way you read it.... dropping the clothing allowance was never mentioned in court.

I left out the amounts just in case she was hanging around here ...as she has posted here in the past ... didn't think I needed to air his income situation.

 

[kat1963]

How about filing a *motion to clarify*?

KAT

 

[BelizeBreeze]

The first paragraph is simply an explanation of the facts which the court considered in your ex's request for a downward modification hearing.

They are a review of the current situation only.

The second paragraph is the actual order, modified to increase child support based on the current facts of the case. Unless the clothing monies are mentioned elsewhere specifically, they are now included within the amount of CS awarded.

It looks as if the court has seen the two of you having problems with the Clothing allowance and has taken that problem away by rolling all monies awarded into a single sum, which resulted in an upward modification, albeit small, which still falls below the state-mandated range.