FAMILY LAW
AREAS OF PRACTICE  

Child Support: If there was a microcosm for adversely paired litigants sharing a mutual disdain of the same law but for different reasons --neither of which apply to them or the other parent: it's child support: To be clear, child support is (supposed to be) for the child. 

​

Common complaint: that didn't even touch, while blaming each other for its effect: it's the dotted line separating parents who claim they're ordered to pay too much child support, from the parents who aren't getting paid despite the relatively high child support order.  From the latter's general view: a high child support payment requirement is nice, but actually receiving a payment can also be fun. And from the view of the payor, forcing an unrealistically high payment can compromise their ability to sustain themselves, and even their job, making it further unlikely that they would satisfy their support obligation. To offset some of the dysfunctional traffic associated with child support, hearings designed to hold violating non payors accountable (i.e., Show Cause hearings --see below for more information) are typically preceded by attempts to settle their outstanding support balances in a way that gives the payee at least a decent portion of money due, while offering the payor an opportunity to get his/her financial affairs in order by spreading out their outstanding debt over time. Payors are offered temporary payment plans designed to catch them up on current child support obligations, which they must comply with to avoid the same consequences that would follow their lack of entering into that settlement (which can presumably call into question the voluntariness of those temporary agreements).  Those consequences include being held in contempt which can be sanctioned in various ways... Perhaps granting the negotiators latitude to adjust payments beyond temporary payback plans, can allow payors to not feel that unaffordable obligations spread out over time merely delays consequences for their inevitable inability to pay, and eventual violation for non payment, while encouraging them to pay a more affordable payment that can result in the payee actually getting paid something on a relatively consistent basis...  

 

Notwithstanding that, there are a number of things one can done to avoid contempt for non payment of the full child support payment at the time that it was due (the largely overlooked diligence requirement can be more helpful than it seems).  But things don't have to be this slow to develop result that no one likes (recipients don't get paid while payors spend time in jail, while payors tend to get fired from their jobs (to the extent that they have one) for missing time due to being in jail, and if not employed, being in jail doesn't help with that (there's no Indeed.com section for inmates actively seeking employment).  

 

Practical option: having the initiative to account for your circumstance can help you both avoid it, and being held liable for it: filing an action to adjust your support amount can help spare you from being accused on failing to comply with an order for a greater amount (and perhaps a lack of initiative contributes to un or underemployment, so the protocol for the effect of the problem can also help solve it...).    

 

Brief conceptual overview: the Michigan statute that governs child support contains language that accounts for, among other things, the parties' income, child care or daycare expenses, health insurance for the child and the number of 'overnights' the parents exercises with the child during their visitation or parenting time.  The platform's a little mechanical, but subject to dispute as much as any other litigated aspect.

​

Claims of inadequate child support payment amount by payors or payees drawn from an adverse party's misrepresented, underreported or an exploited low income, whether it's considered willful unemployment or underemployment, can result in imputed income assessment against the alleged mis--or--nonreporting party: The income would be imputed in accordance with their "earning income potential" (individual and industry marketability, including education, trade, skill, talent, experience, and previous salary, etc.), and offset by finding of a disability.  This is in place to help start a discussion that exceeds the mere acceptance of volunteered financial information, by somewhat ironically asking non payor about their ability to earn more income (it relies on the distrusted litigant to account for the difference between what they can do, and have done...).   

  

Remember: Because child support is (supposed to be) for the child, it's not simply left to the parents to disclaim, despite plenty of practical steps taken daily by parents that to an extent, allow them to influence the amount of their child support payments.  For more information, call me to address your child support concerns.