Dad with full custody, mother wants custody back.

[stringplucker]

So she went back to work?

Yes, she did...which makes me happy. However, she still tells the kids that she can't come visit because she doesn't have any money, and that it's going to get worse, because I've filed for child support. Standard rhetoric...nothing that the kids need to know about. I just tell them that it's between myself and her, and that it really isn't any of their business.

Both of them are tired of hearing it from their mother and her family.

 

[stringplucker]

Case update!! More issues...

We went to court on the 20th concerning child support. She had quit her job where she was making $35-40k and dropped down to what she claimed was a $17k job. The courts, through her own testimony, said that she is actually making $24K. Her atty tried arguing that she can't pay any more than $100 per month, per child, for two children. The calculations actually put it at roughly $425 per month total. The judge said that since she's making so little, they would order $300 a month total ($150 per child per month).

I had full tax rights to the children due to her not paying support...I was willing to swap out children for tax purposes each year...and it was ordered as such. Odd years I claim on child, even years I claim the other child...

I pay for my family health insurance out of pocket, and am stretching every penny I get to survive. I am on long term disability currently, and am in the process of obtaining the needed licensing to start a home based business in my concrete walled out building as a gunsmith. I've done this work in the past as a side job, and am excited about starting this and getting off of long term disability. Yes, all proper and needed security precautions have been taken, and the children cannot enter the shop area without the proper code for the electronic locks. Gun vaults, not safes, are used to keep the firearms well secure.

Her lawyer has appealed the order on the the following basis. These are directly quoted from the filing...

1. Plaintiff still has to travel since Defendant voluntarily moved to Pennsylvania.

2. The cost of health insurance should be disallowed in the Child Support Comp Sheet for the reason that the Defendant voluntarily purchased health insurance when health insurance is available at no cost to him through the state.

3. Defendant is receiving tax exemptions when there is no taxable income. This is a waste of exemptions.



Basically, from what I am seeing, from my point of view...Her attorney has ignored the fact that I have already applied for the proper licenses and am gong to start a business by year's end generating a taxable income. He's forgotten that I was already living in PA for a year prior to their mother signing custody over to me, and they want me to go on a welfare health insurance policy when I have been doing everything I can to make sure I can afford NOT to.

I've been raised to work for a living...and that's what my goal is here. I was raised to do everything possible to pay my own way...which is what I've been doing all my life. Why should I be punished by the courts for refusing welfare? Sure, I make little enough that I qualify for it, but I don't need it. I more than qualify for food assistance, but we don't need it. There's more than enough food coming out of our garden each year that is carries us through the winter months. I pay a local farmer through trade to allow me to raise 3 calves a year on his farm, as well as a hog. I do all of this not only to afford to pay for insurance, but to also show the children the value of hard work. They've learned alot and enjoy eating the fruits of all of our labor. You'd think that with the current condition of our welfare system, people would be overjoyed at the prospect of a disabled man showing his children that they don't need to be on welfare to survive...that working your own land can and will provide plenty for you and your family. I do all of this, plus put money into savings each month, on an income of $2080 per month from disability insurance.

What am I missing here? How can an argument be made by her lawyer that his client shouldn't be made to pay $300 per month in child support, because their dad should be on welfare and is being stupid for doing what must be done to making sure he doesn't ever need it?? How can he make the argument that I moved voluntarily away from his client, when I lived here prior to her signing custody over?

What's your thoughts?

 

[LdiJ]

Her lawyer has appealed the order on the the following basis. These are directly quoted from the filing...

1. Plaintiff still has to travel since Defendant voluntarily moved to Pennsylvania.

2. The cost of health insurance should be disallowed in the Child Support Comp Sheet for the reason that the Defendant voluntarily purchased health insurance when health insurance is available at no cost to him through the state.

3. Defendant is receiving tax exemptions when there is no taxable income. This is a waste of exemptions.

I think I agree with her attorney.

You did move to PA and did cause the distance between homes. Yes, you did it before you got custody but you agreed to no child support when you got custody therefore it wasn't an issued to be addressed at that time.

You could get health insurance for the children for free. Its fine that you choose to pay for it instead of taking advantage of your eligibility for free insurance, but why should mom have to pay for that decision? Do you plan to decline the Obamacare subsidies when those go into effect as well?

If you have no taxable income, then yes, its wasting exemptions for you to claim either of the children. I understand that you plan to have taxable income in the future, but many start up businesses don't end up being profitable for a couple of years, and some never become profitable...so that is something that cannot be addressed now. In fact, there is no guarantee that you will become profitable before both of your children age out of child support.

 

[stringplucker]

I think I agree with her attorney.

You did move to PA and did cause the distance between homes. Yes, you did it before you got custody but you agreed to no child support when you got custody therefore it wasn't an issued to be addressed at that time.

You could get health insurance for the children for free. Its fine that you choose to pay for it instead of taking advantage of your eligibility for free insurance, but why should mom have to pay for that decision? Do you plan to decline the Obamacare subsidies when those go into effect as well?

If you have no taxable income, then yes, its wasting exemptions for you to claim either of the children. I understand that you plan to have taxable income in the future, but many start up businesses don't end up being profitable for a couple of years, and some never become profitable...so that is something that cannot be addressed now. In fact, there is no guarantee that you will become profitable before both of your children age out of child support.

I don't understand you on the first part. I moved for employment to UT in 2008, then to PA in 2010 for the same reason...there was no work in my field in the area. My living here in PA was a known issue when she signed them over...I didn't "win" them in court by judgement...she gave up custody. Please explain how this is proper...I really don't understand.

I can somewhat understand the second part, but it shouldn't be right to punish me because I've done everything properly to stay off of state aid.

As for the third part...I'll have the licensing by this time next month, the approvals are there, just waiting on them to issue them. With hunting season right around the corner, I already have a list of over 25 customers through our local rod and hunting club that need work on their firearms. I can estimate roughly $10k in profit by year's end with accuracy. This was explained to the magistrate on the 20th, and was taken into consideration by her. My only investment in the business is the cost of the licensing, which is $200. I gave a copy of the business plan to the magistrate during the hearing...and it is solid.

 

[CJane]

I don't understand you on the first part. I moved for employment to UT in 2008, then to PA in 2010 for the same reason...there was no work in my field in the area. My living here in PA was a known issue when she signed them over...I didn't "win" them in court by judgement...she gave up custody. Please explain how this is proper...I really don't understand.

While it was a "known issue", that doesn't change the fact that Mom still has to travel, or transport the children over distance in order to exercise her time with them. Time you're attempting to limit further, even though the children expressed to the magistrate that they wish to see their mother MORE.

I can somewhat understand the second part, but it shouldn't be right to punish me because I've done everything properly to stay off of state aid.

But it IS right to punish MOM because you choose to pay out of pocket for health insurance?

As for the third part...I'll have the licensing by this time next month, the approvals are there, just waiting on them to issue them. With hunting season right around the corner, I already have a list of over 25 customers through our local rod and hunting club that need work on their firearms. I can estimate roughly $10k in profit by year's end with accuracy. This was explained to the magistrate on the 20th, and was taken into consideration by her. My only investment in the business is the cost of the licensing, which is $200. I gave a copy of the business plan to the magistrate during the hearing...and it is solid.

That's irrelevant. An estimated profit is not the same thing as actual taxable income. You receive no benefit (currently) from claiming the child/ren.

 

[stringplucker]

While it was a "known issue", that doesn't change the fact that Mom still has to travel, or transport the children over distance in order to exercise her time with them. Time you're attempting to limit further, even though the children expressed to the magistrate that they wish to see their mother MORE.



But it IS right to punish MOM because you choose to pay out of pocket for health insurance?

Perhaps I neglected to state that I am not trying to limit her time with the kids...I dropped my desire to lessen her visitation time with them, even though she doesn't exercise her visitation...so that's not an issue. Since the children expressed that wish, we've been in Ohio five different times. Each time, they've called her to spend some time with her, and she's refused because she said she had already made plans with her friends. We've planned another trip for 2 weeks from now. They've told her that they'd like to see her, and want to spend the night with her, since we're going to be there overnight...she's told them that she'll think about it.

As for me paying for my own insurance...so? You'd think taxpayers would be happy that I refuse to go on any welfare program. My lawyer doesn't think it's going to be altered from the most recent order.

While I understand your argument on income, I believe the magistrate gave me the benefit of doubt. As it stands, I get to claim both of them for tax year 2013, and we start swapping years on them in 2014. BTW...the first 2 months of 2013, I was on short term disability, so I have a taxable income for two months of this year.

 

[LdiJ]

Perhaps I neglected to state that I am not trying to limit her time with the kids...I dropped my desire to lessen her visitation time with them, even though she doesn't exercise her visitation...so that's not an issue. Since the children expressed that wish, we've been in Ohio five different times. Each time, they've called her to spend some time with her, and she's refused because she said she had already made plans with her friends. We've planned another trip for 2 weeks from now. They've told her that they'd like to see her, and want to spend the night with her, since we're going to be there overnight...she's told them that she'll think about it.

Not relevant to the financial issues.

As for me paying for my own insurance...so? You'd think taxpayers would be happy that I refuse to go on any welfare program. My lawyer doesn't think it's going to be altered from the most recent order.

I don't like to disagree with lawyers but neither of you have significant income therefore I don't see how mom could be required to assist with your health insurance for the children when you refuse to take advantage of benefits that you are eligible to receive.

While I understand your argument on income, I believe the magistrate gave me the benefit of doubt. As it stands, I get to claim both of them for tax year 2013, and we start swapping years on them in 2014. BTW...the first 2 months of 2013, I was on short term disability, so I have a taxable income for two months of this year.

Which means that you will get likely get zero benefit from claiming the children. You won't be eligible for EIC on disability income and its highly unlikely that two months of disability income would give you any additional child tax credit either. Basically you will be throwing away your children's exemptions for 2013.

 

[Ohiogal]

I think I agree with her attorney.

You did move to PA and did cause the distance between homes. Yes, you did it before you got custody but you agreed to no child support when you got custody therefore it wasn't an issued to be addressed at that time.

You could get health insurance for the children for free. Its fine that you choose to pay for it instead of taking advantage of your eligibility for free insurance, but why should mom have to pay for that decision? Do you plan to decline the Obamacare subsidies when those go into effect as well?

If you have no taxable income, then yes, its wasting exemptions for you to claim either of the children. I understand that you plan to have taxable income in the future, but many start up businesses don't end up being profitable for a couple of years, and some never become profitable...so that is something that cannot be addressed now. In fact, there is no guarantee that you will become profitable before both of your children age out of child support.

The lawyer is NOT going to win the argument that dad should go on Medicaid if he can afford to purchase insurance. And he was in PA BEFORE he got custody therefore it was not a move affecting custody. However mom may get a credit for her actual transportation expenses if she can prove them. This is Ohio courts and Ohio courts do not like to see parents go on Medicaid that do not need it.

 

[LdiJ]

The lawyer is NOT going to win the argument that dad should go on Medicaid if he can afford to purchase insurance. And he was in PA BEFORE he got custody therefore it was not a move affecting custody. However mom may get a credit for her actual transportation expenses if she can prove them. This is Ohio courts and Ohio courts do not like to see parents go on Medicaid that do not need it.

Wow, so Ohio judges are willing to discriminate against someone who accepts a federal benefit that they are legitimately entitled to accept? What are they going to do when anyone making up to 400% of the poverty level is entitled to either expanded Medicaid or subsidies under Obamacare?

 

[Ohiogal]

Wow, so Ohio judges are willing to discriminate against someone who accepts a federal benefit that they are legitimately entitled to accept? What are they going to do when anyone making up to 400% of the poverty level is entitled to either expanded Medicaid or subsidies under Obamacare?

That is not it at all. You are twisting things completely outside of reality. The court is not GOING to penalize dad for purchasing insurance that he can afford (and using those numbers for the cost of insurance in the child support worksheet). Mom's attorney does not want the cost of insurance calculated in because dad could go on Medicaid instead. Reread what was stated. Dad is paying for health insurance for the children AND therefore that gets put on the child support worksheet. End of story. It is used as a calculation. There is caselaw (In Re BS out of the Ninth for one off the top of my head) that requires those numbers to be used if there is evidence they are being paid. A child support worksheet must be completed.
Dad's costs for the insurance for the children WILL continue to be used in a child support calculation as the law requires. Just because mom thinks he should go on Medicaid instead matters not. Basically you believe dad should be penalized for purchasing insurance out of pocket and mom shouldn't have to contribute to the cost of health insurance because dad might qualify for Medicaid? Quit twisting what I am saying. If he were not paying and were receiving Medicaid, he wouldn't be discriminated against. Mom however would have to pay a cash medical amount to dad. Would she like that?

 

[stringplucker]

Thank you, Ohiogal.

 

[single317dad]

1. Plaintiff still has to travel since Defendant voluntarily moved to Pennsylvania.

I'd counter that it's not a change in circumstance, and the issue was already decided in a previous order.

2. The cost of health insurance should be disallowed in the Child Support Comp Sheet for the reason that the Defendant voluntarily purchased health insurance when health insurance is available at no cost to him through the state.

3. Defendant is receiving tax exemptions when there is no taxable income. This is a waste of exemptions.

Two thoughts on these arguments:
1) Courts aren't big on theoreticals. "I'm going to start a business" is far different from "I've started a business".
2) Many courts are bound to apply tax exemptions in a manner that is most beneficial. Therefore, if Mom would get more benefit from claiming the kids than you would, the court may have to give those exemptions to her. Keep in mind, however, that the court's order is only an order to the parties involved, and doesn't supersede IRS rules, which may conflict.

 

[stringplucker]

Update

First off, I want to thank everyone for their opinions and assistance. It's been helpful.

As stated, she appealed the decision. I recently got the decision in the mail, and am happy to say that the judge agreed with the magistrate's decision. Nothing that was decided in August has changed.

I just wanted to let you know how it turned out!

 

[Ohiogal]

First off, I want to thank everyone for their opinions and assistance. It's been helpful.

As stated, she appealed the decision. I recently got the decision in the mail, and am happy to say that the judge agreed with the magistrate's decision. Nothing that was decided in August has changed.

I just wanted to let you know how it turned out!

She could still appeal to the appeals court. You will know something by New Year's Eve 2014 if she does.