How to tell....
why she filed for a modification. Things have gone along for over 6 years quite fine. No arrearage, always paid on time...
But I do have two ideas.
We think she is now divorced from her second husband because the Clerk told me that they have a notation from the 4/15 hearing that says there is a "change of recipient's name" and she is either in very good financial condition and just looking for more or she's not - we wouldn't know since we apparently have no right to have access to her financial status, and;
I think she thought that after over 5 years in his prior job that he would be making more and he was - until he was involuntarily severed. The timing of her modification filing coincided with his losing his job. She filed on 12/21, he lost his job on 12/29.
So she may well have been entitled to more earlier because his income did increase a little from when he started to when he was let go but I sure don't think it's our job to volunteer more money. She has always had the right to file a modification, of course, she just never did until now. She and her attorney also told my husband back in 1997 that she would never seek an increase but we all know how useless verbal comments/agreements are.
The new job he got pays less to start and is his field so he can utilize his training and skills.
The judge didn't see it that way and apparently feels he quit his job to avoid CS or an increase.
We were still sending the old CS amount faithfully even tho' my husband had not gotten a paycheck from 1/15 to 3/1 (we did have just about enough in savings to keep paying CS in at the old amount - now have nothing in savings but support is still current)
We do keep careful track of expenditures and CS paid. And, yes, medical insurance premiums are accounted for, or at least they were previously.
The new CS amount of $834.00 (37% of my husband's current NET monthly pay) is based on the judge's feeling that he should pay CS on an income he no longer makes.
I don't know if the judge took medical insurance premiums into account this time.
We did not attend the hearing, as I said before, based on our lawyer's representation that we did not have to, it was only a "formality" to set the new CS amount based on his CURRENT income and was agreed to by her attorney. We have yet to see a record of the hearing's proceedings or the judge's rationale for deviating from the state guidelines (Illinois)
Her attorney got to the hearing and threw a real curveball into the proceedings by telling the judge my husband quit his job when he (the Plaintiff's attorney) has written proof that my husband did NOT quit, he was involuntarily severed.
So we need to deal with that as well and that is what the Motion to Reduce Child Support hearing will cover as well as the judge ordering 37% withheld.
We have no clue where this figure comes from because even $834.00 a month would be more than he would have had to pay had he been able to stay at his old job.
I did not pick up on the "standard of living" point - glad you pointed it out because that could, indeed, be the case if he were still married to her. And, no, I can't imagine trying to provide anyone with anything with a $100 a month left over and that is NO exaggeration, it is a fact. It'd be hard to even buy food for a month with that.
why she filed for a modification. Things have gone along for over 6 years quite fine. No arrearage, always paid on time...
But I do have two ideas.
We think she is now divorced from her second husband because the Clerk told me that they have a notation from the 4/15 hearing that says there is a "change of recipient's name" and she is either in very good financial condition and just looking for more or she's not - we wouldn't know since we apparently have no right to have access to her financial status, and;
I think she thought that after over 5 years in his prior job that he would be making more and he was - until he was involuntarily severed. The timing of her modification filing coincided with his losing his job. She filed on 12/21, he lost his job on 12/29.
So she may well have been entitled to more earlier because his income did increase a little from when he started to when he was let go but I sure don't think it's our job to volunteer more money. She has always had the right to file a modification, of course, she just never did until now. She and her attorney also told my husband back in 1997 that she would never seek an increase but we all know how useless verbal comments/agreements are.
The new job he got pays less to start and is his field so he can utilize his training and skills.
The judge didn't see it that way and apparently feels he quit his job to avoid CS or an increase.
We were still sending the old CS amount faithfully even tho' my husband had not gotten a paycheck from 1/15 to 3/1 (we did have just about enough in savings to keep paying CS in at the old amount - now have nothing in savings but support is still current)
We do keep careful track of expenditures and CS paid. And, yes, medical insurance premiums are accounted for, or at least they were previously.
The new CS amount of $834.00 (37% of my husband's current NET monthly pay) is based on the judge's feeling that he should pay CS on an income he no longer makes.
I don't know if the judge took medical insurance premiums into account this time.
We did not attend the hearing, as I said before, based on our lawyer's representation that we did not have to, it was only a "formality" to set the new CS amount based on his CURRENT income and was agreed to by her attorney. We have yet to see a record of the hearing's proceedings or the judge's rationale for deviating from the state guidelines (Illinois)
Her attorney got to the hearing and threw a real curveball into the proceedings by telling the judge my husband quit his job when he (the Plaintiff's attorney) has written proof that my husband did NOT quit, he was involuntarily severed.
So we need to deal with that as well and that is what the Motion to Reduce Child Support hearing will cover as well as the judge ordering 37% withheld.
We have no clue where this figure comes from because even $834.00 a month would be more than he would have had to pay had he been able to stay at his old job.
I did not pick up on the "standard of living" point - glad you pointed it out because that could, indeed, be the case if he were still married to her. And, no, I can't imagine trying to provide anyone with anything with a $100 a month left over and that is NO exaggeration, it is a fact. It'd be hard to even buy food for a month with that.