Majority child custody AND paying child support
How does this make sense?
This is an absolutely terrible decision. Isn't child support supposed to be about what it costs to raise the children and not about equalizing the incomes of two parents?
Since the majority of custody in child support cases is held by women, this sets an especially bad precident. It says that even if you have minority custody/visitation, you can sue your spouse because of income differences and because you claim to need money to support the child for the minority of the time you have them.
This decision basically says that a mother who divorces a deadbeat dad and works to support her children, could be sued for support by that dad because he doesn't earn enough money to pay for his weekend visits, or because he feels there is too large an income disparity between her income and his. (This disparity might be especially large if he, for example, doesn't seem to hold down a job.)
But the point is that having minority custody/visitation use to pretty much guarantee that you owed support to the parent who had majority custody. Changing that precident is bad in my opinion. It is especially bad for women, even though in this instance the beneficiary was a woman.
Nick
Quote:
In a decision that changes the rules regarding child support payments in Pennsylvania, the state Supreme Court said Thursday that a Pittsburgh man must send money to his ex-wife even though he has primary custody of their four children.
The court ruled 3-2 that Robert J. Colonna, of the city's Squirrel Hill section -- who has custody of the children nearly 75 percent of the year -- must pay child support to Mary M. Colonna, also of Squirrel Hill.
In a decision that changes the rules regarding child support payments in Pennsylvania, the state Supreme Court said Thursday that a Pittsburgh man must send money to his ex-wife even though he has primary custody of their four children.
The court ruled 3-2 that Robert J. Colonna, of the city's Squirrel Hill section -- who has custody of the children nearly 75 percent of the year -- must pay child support to Mary M. Colonna, also of Squirrel Hill.
This is an absolutely terrible decision. Isn't child support supposed to be about what it costs to raise the children and not about equalizing the incomes of two parents?
Since the majority of custody in child support cases is held by women, this sets an especially bad precident. It says that even if you have minority custody/visitation, you can sue your spouse because of income differences and because you claim to need money to support the child for the minority of the time you have them.
This decision basically says that a mother who divorces a deadbeat dad and works to support her children, could be sued for support by that dad because he doesn't earn enough money to pay for his weekend visits, or because he feels there is too large an income disparity between her income and his. (This disparity might be especially large if he, for example, doesn't seem to hold down a job.)
But the point is that having minority custody/visitation use to pretty much guarantee that you owed support to the parent who had majority custody. Changing that precident is bad in my opinion. It is especially bad for women, even though in this instance the beneficiary was a woman.
Nick
Comments
My brother comes home to find his wife screwing his best friend. Brother files for divorce due to infidelity.
After a short court session (where the wife admits to having sex with other people) the judge awards full custody of my brothers son to the cheating wife AND my brother must pay ~40% of his salary to her for child support!!
Originally posted by podmate
My brother got screwed by the courts too.
My brother comes home to find his wife screwing his best friend. Brother files for divorce due to infidelity.
After a short court session (where the wife admits to having sex with other people) the judge awards full custody of my brothers son to the cheating wife AND my brother must pay ~40% of his salary to her for child support!!
that sucks but your brother should have hired a better lawyer. unfortunately that's just the way the system works.
my brother was able to win custody of his 2 kids in 2 separate cases in oklahoma (not the most progressive state in the union by the way) even though his ex was spending tons of her family's money on legal mumbo jumbo. he did his homework and was able to get a damn fine lawyer. it wasn't cheap but he was able to keep his wife from taking the kids out of state and away from him and our family. The bummer is that she could, in the long run, out spend him if she was to keep taking him to court over and over again. her family's pockets are very deep.
Originally posted by podmate
My brother got screwed by the courts too.
My brother comes home to find his wife screwing his best friend. Brother files for divorce due to infidelity.
After a short court session (where the wife admits to having sex with other people) the judge awards full custody of my brothers son to the cheating wife AND my brother must pay ~40% of his salary to her for child support!!
That is sickening . . . . it turns my stumach!!
as for the furst case . . . I don't know the specifics but it sounds bad too.
Originally posted by pfflam
That is sickening . . . . it turns my stumach!!
as for the furst case . . . I don't know the specifics but it sounds bad too.
Worse yet many states and judges allow the partner who has full custody to shack up with a new boy/girlfriend and move out of state as well.
Sad.
Nick
Parents are ordered by law to support their children - even when the children are forty years old.
Originally posted by running with scissors
that sucks but your brother should have hired a better lawyer. unfortunately that's just the way the system works.
Wrong. The judge needs to get shit-canned because he obviously has no sense of what is just, based on the facts. Which brings us back to the old problem of people just electing judges willy-nilly because they don't know anything about any of them.