|
ood fathers are the oppressed...
Memo
To: B
From: Caruso, Esq.
Date: December 15, 2004
The purpose of this memo is to recap what happened at the hearing on Friday,
December 10th and to discuss some of our options. At the modification
trial, we introduced into evidence, all of Steve's pay checks for the past
two years, his bank account statements evidencing all money he has had
access to over the past year, and supplemented this with Steve's testimony
concerning his efforts to locate employment and the reason for each change
of employment he has undergone in the past several years. Steve testified
that the narrow sub-specialty he had in the IT field was no longer in
demand. He also testified that some of his computer skills were being
utilized and, in fact, enhanced by working at K's. At the conclusion of
Steve's direct testimony, the Judge immediately began asking questions about
why he had not undergone additional training to make himself qualified for
other jobs in the IT field. Steve testified that for approximately
$3,000-$5,000 he could receive certification as a network engineer from
either Microsoft or Oracle. Steve further testified that this would make
him eligible for an entry level position that would pay approximately
$30,000.00 per year. Although our evidence was not strong on this issue, we
also argued that even if Steve were eligible for an entry level position,
his chances of getting such a job is not good because:
1. The entire job market in the IT field is very tight, even for incoming
network engineers; and
2. Steve's competition would consist primarily of younger men and women just
out of college who could work long hours for little pay, and would generally
present more attractive long-term employees.
Ming did not present any credible evidence concerning whether a modification
should be granted. Rather, she merely stated that she believed Steve could
earn more money and always said he would take care of her. The Division of
Child Support Enforcement attorney who is representing Ming was not at all
prepared or familiar with this case and really did little to advance Ming's
case.
At the conclusion of the trial, we argued that Steve's actual income should
be utilized in calculating his support obligation which would have resulted
in a child support obligation of approximately $360-$390 per month.
Instead, the court adopted the finding made by Judge Ney at the conclusion
of the Circuit Court trial in May 2003. Judge Ney found that with a minimal
amount of training Steve should be eligible for a job that pays
approximately $33,000.00. Accordingly, the court imputed gross monthly
income of $2,792.00 (as opposed to the $1,953.00 Steve actually earns) and
therefore awarded child support of $485.00 per month with no spousal
support.
Despite the fact the court had to impute income to Steve in order to reach
this support figure, reducing Steve's total support obligation from
$1,129.00 per month to $485.00 per month is probably as good as we could do.
The problem, however, is that the court then refused to apply this
modification retroactively meaning that, although Steve had his actual
support obligation reduced, he is left with arrears of around $10,000.00.
Unfortunately, the statute leaves it completely within the discretion of the
trial court as to whether a support modification should be awarded
retroactively. I argued that because we had to impute income to Steve to be
able to get an award of $485.00, it was completely unfair to pile on
additional imputed income over the past year. The judge countered with the
fact that if Steve had had network training a year and a half ago, he may
not have lost his job at APS. This was grounded in Steve's remark, in
response to the Judge's questioning, that he might not have lost his job at
APS if he had been trained in networking. Notwithstanding our opinion about
the strength or significance of that evidence, the judge is permitted by
statute to make his or her own judgment as to whether retroactive effect
should be given to support modifications. Indeed, even if the only reason
for declining to modify the award retroactively is because the judge
believes Steve got away with not having to pay $10,000 for the equitable
distribution award, that would be considered a valid justification.
The court also set a review hearing for May 23, 2005, at which time she said
she wanted to hear evidence concerning what efforts or progress Steve had
made in obtaining a higher paying job. Although we will have to come well
prepared with proof that Steve has been diligent about his attempts to find
better employment, it is highly unlikely that he will have located a job
that pays more then $33,0000 a year so I do not think it is likely
(although I cannot guarantee) that the court will increase the support award
at that time.
Additionally, the contempt hearing against Steve was also continued to the
May date. A continuance of the contempt portion of the hearing was mandated
in part because DCSE believed Steve's arrearages totaled approximately
$21,000.00, while our calculations showed it to be around $10,000.00 and
Ming's showed it to be around $11,000.00. I have rerun the numbers and the
figure I have is $8,940.00. The court ordered DCSE to "fix its numbers." I
have faxed over a copy of my arrearages calculation so that they will
hopefully get this straight.
At this point, we have to decide whether to appeal Judge Daniels' decision
or to come up with a way to satisfy the arrears. If we elect to appeal, we
must do so by no later than December 20, 2004. The appeal would be to the
Circuit Court and we would receive a de novo trial, meaning we must
relitigate in Circuit Court the issue of whether Steve is entitled to a
modification of the court order that establishes his support obligation as
$1,129.00 per month. Assuming we are successful and the Circuit Court
agrees that the support obligation should be reduced to somewhere around
$485.00 per month, we would once again be in the position of having to
persuade the Circuit Court judge to apply the modification retroactively.
Although I believe we have several persuasive arguments why it should be
made retroactive, there is no guarantee we would prevail and there would be
no basis for appealing a refusal to make the award retroactive. We must
also remember that it will take at least six, and probably eight, months to
get to trial so we would potentially have an additional six to eight months
of support in the amount of $1,129.00 for which Steve would be obligated (as
soon as we appeal Judge Daniels' order, it will be of no force and effect;
therefore, arrears in the amount of $1,129.00 will continue to accrue).
Naturally, we also have to consider the cost of litigating an appeal.
Although I am very familiar with the facts of this case, preparing for
Ci
|
| |
| |
ell, that is obviously no surprise. Courts are financially raping men
daily in family-law courts across this "once-great" nation. Spousal support
ought to be removed as an option; if you can't get along, go your separate
ways and be done with it. Child support is another issue altogether, and
although "our courts" would like to perpetrate the nonsense that support and
visitation are separate issues, it clearly is not. Women (mostly) use
children to "get even" with their former partners . . . men do as well, but
given that the preponderance of decisions unjustifiably award primary
custody to women . . . men get "screwed" far more often.
The courts should award 50/50 custody in the majority of cases, requiring
each parent to support the child(ren) equally. Tough luck if it's a
financial burden. Men, nor women, should be financially burdened to pick up
the "slack" of the other parent. As I stated, it's financial rape. With
respect to important decisions in the child's life, both parents ought to be
consulted and approve such decisions, e.g., medical, schooling, health care.
To allow one parent to manipulate the circumstances and ignore the wishes of
the other parent is criminal at best. Most certainly it is immoral.
If the entire process is burdensome on the parents, too damn bad. The
child(ren) did not ask to come into the world, and those responsible should
face the consequences of the idiotic behavior. At the same time, courts
should not allow women to continually abuse the system, their ex-partners,
and most of all their own children which they purport to love so much.
Good fathers are the oppressed...
Memo
To: B
From: Caruso, Esq.
Date: December 15, 2004
The purpose of this memo is to recap what happened at the hearing on
Friday,
December 10th and to discuss some of our options. At the modification
trial, we introduced into evidence, all of Steve's pay checks for the past
two years, his bank account statements evidencing all money he has had
access to over the past year, and supplemented this with Steve's testimony
concerning his efforts to locate employment and the reason for each change
of employment he has undergone in the past several years. Steve testified
that the narrow sub-specialty he had in the IT field was no longer in
demand. He also testified that some of his computer skills were being
utilized and, in fact, enhanced by working at K's. At the conclusion of
Steve's direct testimony, the Judge immediately began asking questions
about
why he had not undergone additional training to make himself qualified for
other jobs in the IT field. Steve testified that for approximately
$3,000-$5,000 he could receive certification as a network engineer from
either Microsoft or Oracle. Steve further testified that this would make
him eligible for an entry level position that would pay approximately
$30,000.00 per year. Although our evidence was not strong on this issue,
we
also argued that even if Steve were eligible for an entry level position,
his chances of getting such a job is not good because:
1. The entire job market in the IT field is very tight, even for incoming
network engineers; and
2. Steve's competition would consist primarily of younger men and women
just
out of college who could work long hours for little pay, and would
generally
present more attractive long-term employees.
Ming did not present any credible evidence concerning whether a
modification
should be granted. Rather, she merely stated that she believed Steve
could
earn more money and always said he would take care of her. The Division
of
Child Support Enforcement attorney who is representing Ming was not at all
prepared or familiar with this case and really did little to advance
Ming's
case.
At the conclusion of the trial, we argued that Steve's actual income
should
be utilized in calculating his support obligation which would have
resulted
in a child support obligation of approximately $360-$390 per month.
Instead, the court adopted the finding made by Judge Ney at the conclusion
of the Circuit Court trial in May 2003. Judge Ney found that with a
minimal
amount of training Steve should be eligible for a job that pays
approximately $33,000.00. Accordingly, the court imputed gross monthly
income of $2,792.00 (as opposed to the $1,953.00 Steve actually earns) and
therefore awarded child support of $485.00 per month with no spousal
support.
Despite the fact the court had to impute income to Steve in order to reach
this support figure, reducing Steve's total support obligation from
$1,129.00 per month to $485.00 per month is probably as good as we could
do.
The problem, however, is that the court then refused to apply this
modification retroactively meaning that, although Steve had his actual
support obligation reduced, he is left with arrears of around $10,000.00.
Unfortunately, the statute leaves it completely within the discretion of
the
trial court as to whether a support modification should be awarded
retroactively. I argued that because we had to impute income to Steve to
be
able to get an award of $485.00, it was completely unfair to pile on
additional imputed income over the past year. The judge countered with
the
fact that if Steve had had network training a year and a half ago, he may
not have lost his job at APS. This was grounded in Steve's remark, in
response to the Judge's questioning, that he might not have lost his job
at
APS if he had been trained in networking. Notwithstanding our opinion
about
the strength or significance of that evidence, the judge is permitted by
statute to make his or her own judgment as to whether retroactive effect
should be given to support modifications. Indeed, even if the only reason
for declining to modify the award retroactively is because the judge
believes Steve got away with not having to pay $10,000 for the equitable
distribution award, that would be considered a valid justification.
The court also set a review hearing for May 23, 2005, at which time she
said
she wanted to hear evidence concerning what efforts or progress Steve had
made in obtaining a higher paying job. Although we will have to come well
prepared with proof that Steve has been diligent about his attempts to
find
better employment, it is highly unlikely that he will have located a job
that pays more then $33,0000 a year so I do not think it is likely
(although I cannot guarantee) that the court will increase the support
award
at that time.
Additionally, the contempt hearing against Steve was also continue
|
| |
| |
|
