What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? NJ
I am scheduled to attend a C/S modification hearing where the NCP is requesting a decrease in the support obligation due to change in circumstances. (NCP now has 3 support orders which brings him below poverty level for payroll deductions.)
I understand that the court's decision usually goes by the state C/S guidelines. But verbiage in the guidelines also mentions that the court can choose NOT to apply the guidelines in cases such as our where NCP has multiple support obligations (which is our case). I'd like to get some feedback on whether there is any point in bringing up the following issues in order for the court NOT to apply the "Self Support Reserve Test" to NCP (as he is considered below poverty under guidelines and C/S will be reduced to pennies):
He is voluntarily underemployed. I have no written proof but recently told me that he turned down a promotion within his company because it would require more hours and the additional income would go directly to C/S, not him. His corporate website does show several open job promotion opportunities posted for his location though and he has the training/experience at his current position to be the most qualified candidate for this position.
Would a judge expect the obligor to work in excess of 40 hours per week/get a 2nd job to meet the full obligation? Not sure if this would make any difference but I have written correspondence from from NCP showing that he has voluntarily forfeited 95% of his parenting time over the past few years due to his heavy participation in recreational sports teams (spends 30/hrs a week, year round on sports instead of seeing his kids or working).
Would reduced living expenses be a factor in whether to disregard the C/S guidelines? Obligor has been living rent-free for many years in his disabled mother's apartment, in which her rent is paid in full by Section 8 Housing Authority. (Note he does not assist in her care or errands.)
If the courts routinely consider these type of details, I will gather the supporting documentation for the hearing. Otherwise, I don't want to bother spinning my wheels any further on this since I didn't even request this hearing.
I am scheduled to attend a C/S modification hearing where the NCP is requesting a decrease in the support obligation due to change in circumstances. (NCP now has 3 support orders which brings him below poverty level for payroll deductions.)
I understand that the court's decision usually goes by the state C/S guidelines. But verbiage in the guidelines also mentions that the court can choose NOT to apply the guidelines in cases such as our where NCP has multiple support obligations (which is our case). I'd like to get some feedback on whether there is any point in bringing up the following issues in order for the court NOT to apply the "Self Support Reserve Test" to NCP (as he is considered below poverty under guidelines and C/S will be reduced to pennies):
He is voluntarily underemployed. I have no written proof but recently told me that he turned down a promotion within his company because it would require more hours and the additional income would go directly to C/S, not him. His corporate website does show several open job promotion opportunities posted for his location though and he has the training/experience at his current position to be the most qualified candidate for this position.
Would a judge expect the obligor to work in excess of 40 hours per week/get a 2nd job to meet the full obligation? Not sure if this would make any difference but I have written correspondence from from NCP showing that he has voluntarily forfeited 95% of his parenting time over the past few years due to his heavy participation in recreational sports teams (spends 30/hrs a week, year round on sports instead of seeing his kids or working).
Would reduced living expenses be a factor in whether to disregard the C/S guidelines? Obligor has been living rent-free for many years in his disabled mother's apartment, in which her rent is paid in full by Section 8 Housing Authority. (Note he does not assist in her care or errands.)
If the courts routinely consider these type of details, I will gather the supporting documentation for the hearing. Otherwise, I don't want to bother spinning my wheels any further on this since I didn't even request this hearing.
Last edited: