Dad gets out of paying CS by being in college?!

[shesaidwhat]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? WV

Hello, Dad filed for a downward modification of child support. He was previously ordered $231 per month (one child) from 2005.

He has not worked in 2 years (he drew unemployment until it ran out, and stated in court he is now living on his wife's $3000/month VA disability pay). He has attended "college" (various online classes from various online schools) for the past 10 years. He has an attorney, I am pro se.

At the hearing, I had filed an answer (the judge commented on how well written it was) and stated my argument that he should be imputed an income. If he is able to attend "college" full time, he is able to work, etc. He has never been responsible for ANY other expenses. I (and my husband) provide everything else: extra-curricular expenses, school supplies, birthdays, holidays, medical/dental/vision insurance, after school care, etc. Parenting time is not an issue in WV child support as far as I know, but Dad has not exercised any visitation or contacted child in over a year, if it matters.

I was/have been imputed an income. I just graduated in May with my BFA. Dad was NOT imputed an income. The Judge stated that, "It has been this court's practice to not impute an income if a parent is attending college full time in pursuit of a degree."

Dad and myself were both given "credits" for each having an additional child from our current marriages.

Based on all of the above, Dad was ordered to pay the minimum (the Judge said it was the minimum) of $50 per month child support.

Based on the above, is this correct? How can this be right? How can he, at 36 years old just continue attending college full time and never have to support his child? Is there anything I can do (appeal?), or is this just what it is?

 

[LdiJ]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? WV

Hello, Dad filed for a downward modification of child support. He was previously ordered $231 per month (one child) from 2005.

He has not worked in 2 years (he drew unemployment until it ran out, and stated in court he is now living on his wife's $3000/month VA disability pay). He has attended "college" (various online classes from various online schools) for the past 10 years. He has an attorney, I am pro se.

At the hearing, I had filed an answer (the judge commented on how well written it was) and stated my argument that he should be imputed an income. If he is able to attend "college" full time, he is able to work, etc. He has never been responsible for ANY other expenses. I (and my husband) provide everything else: extra-curricular expenses, school supplies, birthdays, holidays, medical/dental/vision insurance, after school care, etc. Parenting time is not an issue in WV child support as far as I know, but Dad has not exercised any visitation or contacted child in over a year, if it matters.

I was/have been imputed an income. I just graduated in May with my BFA. Dad was NOT imputed an income. The Judge stated that, "It has been this court's practice to not impute an income if a parent is attending college full time in pursuit of a degree."

Dad and myself were both given "credits" for each having an additional child from our current marriages.

Based on all of the above, Dad was ordered to pay the minimum (the Judge said it was the minimum) of $50 per month child support.

Based on the above, is this correct? How can this be right? How can he, at 36 years old just continue attending college full time and never have to support his child? Is there anything I can do (appeal?), or is this just what it is?

You can appeal, but appeals are very expensive and if the child support would be 231.00 a month like it was before, you could easily pay 5-10 years worth of child support in legal fees alone.

Of course, that is assuming that you would have to go to the appellate court. If the judge making the order was a magistrate (or the like) and you can appeal to the sitting judge, you could still do that pro se.

 

[shesaidwhat]

Was the ruling correct, though? I was always under the impression that full-time student status, as an adult, after having employment and at that age, would be looked at like voluntary under/unemployment and the parent would be imputed an income (just like I was!) based on their previous earning ability. Am I incorrect?

I just don't want to waste my time and end up with the same result. If I do anything, I will have to go pro se.

 

[CourtClerk]

With the way the economy is going, judges are getting extremely lenient on allowing people to change careers, update their skills or pursue other educational goals, at least short term.

 

[shesaidwhat]

Thank you for the replies.

I guess I'll just take it for what it is and file for a modification when/if he ever finishes. It just seems so unfair that *I* was imputed an income the past 4 years while I was attending college full time, and now he is not.

 

[CLJM]

Thank you for the replies.

I guess I'll just take it for what it is and file for a modification when/if he ever finishes. It just seems so unfair that *I* was imputed an income the past 4 years while I was attending college full time, and now he is not.

It's almost never about what is "fair".

 

[stealth2]

My Grandma always asked "Who told you life was supposed to be fair?"

 

[shesaidwhat]

Yes, point taken, I know it's not about fair. Poor choice of words.

It's a very inconsistent system, and in this case, seems to benefit NCP, not the child's best interest.

 

[aldaron]

My grandDaddy said it best "life is'nt fair" its about who sucks up the mostest.

 

[LdiJ]

Thank you for the replies.

I guess I'll just take it for what it is and file for a modification when/if he ever finishes. It just seems so unfair that *I* was imputed an income the past 4 years while I was attending college full time, and now he is not.

I actually agree that it wasn't equitable. Did you bring that to the judge's attention?

Nevertheless, what's done is done, and the cost of appealing would be higher than its worth.

Just make sure that you file again as soon as you know that he is working.

 

[mistoffolees]

It's a very inconsistent system, and in this case, seems to benefit NCP, not the child's best interest.

I'm not sure the problem is the system, but rather irresponsible parents.

You can't get blood from a stone. If someone seriously doesn't want to pay - to the point that they're willing to go to jail in order to avoid paying, I can't see any system working.

I can't imagine any system that I'd want to live in that can FORCE someone to pay if they're not working. Should they enslave him? Maybe harvest his blood or sell his kidneys?

 

[shesaidwhat]

LdiJ, I did bring it up, and the Judge really didn't have any response. He just repeated the, ''It has been this court's practice . . ." line.

I honestly felt like it was 'them' against me, Judge included. The lawyer and the Judge were joking around, talking amongst themselves, etc. during the whole process. There was a BCSE lawyer there and she seemed extremely annoyed.

mistoffolees, I realize if he doesn't want to pay he isn't going to. He hasn't. There are judgments against him for the arrears. He has never been threatened with jail or revocation of his license, just scolded and told to pay, he promises in court he will start paying, and then he doesn't. He makes a token payment the week of court every single time which starts the entire process over. He's figured out the system and he plays it.

Your sarcastic remarks are ridiculous. Of course I am not irrational or illogical enough to suggest such outlandish things (slavery, harvesting blood). I haven't said a word, not one single word, about FORCING anybody to do anything. Should they just dismiss his responsibility to support his child entirely, though? No.

If he doesn't want to pay, that's his choice. There should be consequences for that, though. There should be arrears. He shouldn't be able to go to phoenix online until kiddo is 18 to avoid it.

 

[mistoffolees]

Your sarcastic remarks are ridiculous. Of course I am not irrational or illogical enough to suggest such outlandish things (slavery, harvesting blood). I haven't said a word, not one single word, about FORCING anybody to do anything. Should they just dismiss his responsibility to support his child entirely, though? No.

My remarks apparently weren't sarcastic enough. He's not paying. What do you want them to do to get him to pay?

 

[shesaidwhat]

Apparently your concern over your sarcasm is interfering with your reading.

I said nothing about getting him to pay. I said his obligation should not be excused. Totally different.

 

[mistoffolees]

Apparently your concern over your sarcasm is interfering with your reading.

I said nothing about getting him to pay. I said his obligation should not be excused. Totally different.

And the court apparently disagrees with you.

You are accusing the system of a problem. That is not correct. The system assumes that there is a benefit to a parent going to college and therefore encourages college education by not obligating the parent to pay alimony while in college (not all states do that, but some). The principle is that the child will be better off in the long run by being supported by someone with a college education than someone with a high school diploma. Statistically, that's probably true.

The problem here is not the system. The problem is that you have a judge who is unable to distinguish between a normal parent who wants to go to college to improve life for themselves and their children vs a deadbeat who has been in college for 10 years. Your problem is not with the system, it's with one particular bad judge. That is a prime example of why pro se filings can cost you a LOT MORE than they save. You argued the point and you lost. I obviously don't know if it was a bad judge or a bad pleading, but it doesn't matter. It's not a SYSTEM problem as you claimed.