lumigan tramadol tadalafil

Are the Child Support Obligations Assigned to High Earners Confiscatory?

2007-04-30
By

One of my most articulate readers feels that the child support obligations for high income earners is excessive or confiscatory. He writes:

“In a high-income child support case, the South Dakota Supreme Court ruled on April 25, 2007 that the maximum guideline for payments should not be exceeded through extrapolation.

“The state’s child support table currently stops at $10,000 of net income monthly while the father earns $23,292. The mother requested that the child support formula be applied to the father’s entire net income. The court ruled for the father, saying that without proof that the extra money is for the child’s actual needs, child support should not be increased above the $10,000 net income maximum.

“The case of McKittrick v. McKittrick can be accessed at www.sdjudicial.com. Click Supreme Court, Opinions.”

The McKittrick case is discussed in the AP article below.

Court: $3,000 Child Support Not Justified
Associated Press
Friday, April 27, 2007

By: Joe Kafka

PIERRE — The current maximum guideline for child-support payments should not be exceeded unless it can be shown that a child’s actual needs and standard of living require it, the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

The decision comes in a Hughes County divorce case in which Lonnie McKittrick makes roughly 10 times as much as his ex-wife, Wanda McKittrick.

Lonnie McKittrick, whose gross income is $377,000 a year, is the insurance manager in Fischer, Rounds and Associates, the insurance and real estate firm partially owned by Gov. Mike Rounds.

McKittrick’s former wife earns about $38,000 annually from Oahe Child Development Center. She also works part-time at Mesaba Aviation.

The couple married in 1988 and divorced in 2004. They have one child, Parker, 14, and the mother has custody.

The boy’s father agreed at the time of the divorce to pay $1,000 in monthly child support, $1,000 in monthly alimony for 15 years and most of the child’s extracurricular activity expenses. A college fund also was established by the father.

Wanda McKittrick requested increased child support last year after disputes over payment of travel and lodging expenses to attend one of Parker’s out-of-town athletic events and expenses that had to do with their son’s dog.

After reviewing their incomes, a child-support referee for the court system decided that the father should provide $3,006 in monthly payments for the care of his son. After taxes and a $927 monthly retirement deposit, the man’s net take-home pay is $20,868 monthly.

Although the state child-support guidelines have a top net income standard of $10,000 monthly, the referee decided that the father’s support payments should be based on a calculation of more than twice the standard income ceiling. Circuit Judge Max Gors agreed, and McKittrick filed an appeal with the state Supreme Court.

McKittrick’s child-support should not have been increased by extrapolating his income beyond the $10,000 monthly standard without proof that the extra money is needed for his son’s actual needs and standard of living, the justices said in their unanimous decision.

When the state Child Support Commission recommended the $10,000 monthly income ceiling in 1997 for calculating payments owed by noncustodial parents, the panel said economic studies had found that the percentage of income spent on rearing children decreases as income increases.

The commission, which meets every four years, therefore concluded that support payments based on income of more than $10,000 a month should be based on need
and standard of living, the justices noted.

“The commission reviewed the schedule in 2000 and 2005 but recommended no change to the upper level of the schedule,” wrote Justice Judith Meierhenry.

“Studies show that the needs of a child do not increase at the same rate that family income increases once the monthly net income reached $10,000,” she continued.

Wanda McKittrick presented no evidence to show that her son’s needs are not being met or standard of living has changed, the high court stated.

In fact, both parents agreed there had been no diminishment in their son’s lifestyle since the divorce, the justices added, reversing the father’s $3,006 monthly support payments.

Parental-Alienation-Awareness.com
Stop Parental Alienation–a terrible form of Child Abuse. Eight states have now officially recognized Parental Alienation Awareness Day. To learn more, go to Parental-Alienation-Awareness.com.
313 views
Didn't make Oprah's Book Club. And Ronnie doesn't care. Man up. Buy the book now on Amazon.com. Or listen to Ronnie tell a story at escaping-from-reality.com.


  • Thomas

    Hi Dittohd – actually the case as printed misses some other stuff. I am acutely aware of this case since the same magistrate handled the Combs case as handled mine. Agreed about the 21K per month as ridiculous, however, it was a win for Combs. The appelate court as I understood, gave him an opportunity to question the 21K of demonstrated expenses (and he likely could have had many dismissed) however, the court would only entertain this if he provided full disclosure of his income – something Combs is loothe to do. So he accepted the significant reduction (35K down to 28K then finally to 21K of “demonstrated: expenses).

    Anyway – glad you had some interest – the Gina P case is also quite interesting.

    Both of these make very powerful statements: The Expenses of the Children, in high income cases, MUST be taken into account when making a child support award.

    Chat Soon

    Tom

  • Dittohd

    Whoops!

    Hi Thomas,

    I just read the Sean Combs case that you gave (I hadn’t read it before) but really find it impossible to believe that this woman could come up with $21K per month in child support expenses.

    Something is seriously, seriously wrong if a woman can get away with this BS. And it has to be BS. I wonder what the bill would have come to if Sean Combs’ child support requirement was figured based on my formula above.

  • Dittohd

    Hi wheresmy40,

    >But I think you know that and were being rhetorical.

    Rhetorical? I was dead serious. And yes, I’m well aware of the federal support money sent to the states to collect child support.

    I strongly believe that requiring a 50/50 responsibility for child support is the only real way we can reign in this uncontrolled child support industry that figures child support requirements based on a percentage of a man’s income instead of actual child support costs. I also feel that men should only be responsible for 50% of child support basics which can be figured as the same for everyone for specific numbers of children, regardless of income. I feel that by figuring child support based on income percentages, the number of children a man can have is effectively limited, regardless of his income. For women, if they have each of their children by different men, there is no limit to the number of children and amount of money they can collect in child support. And what a bonanza if each guy is rich! Wow!

    Hi Thomas,

    >There are a growing number of cases which are saying “wait – what are the actual expenses of the child?

    I’ve never heard this before. Do you remember where you saw this? In fact, I’ve never seen anywhere where any mother has had to prove her actual expenses to justify continued support levels after the divorce decree was initially set in stone.

  • red pill

    Men earn the money and have to assumed to be at fault for they are the only ones extortable at popular rates. All else is sophistry so forget logic. Until officers of the court can expect to become wind-chimes after applying byzantine illogic and institutionalized misandry nothing will change and nobody will listen. We all know where political power is derived from, the threat of violence….

  • http://www.antipeonage.0catch.com Roger Knight

    Duh.

    Of course it is also a crime of peonage.

    In Troxel v. Granville, in 2000, the Supreme Court found that “as long as a child is adequately supported, the government ordinarily has no interest that justifies interfereing with the parent’s fundamental rights to make decisions as to the custody, control, and education of her children.”

    Try pleading that. Because the US Supremes usually deny certiorari, the lower courts know they are a paper tiger on anything other than abortion.

  • Thomas

    While not optimum, in fact far from it, case law is limiting these financial rapists from extorting high child support “awards”. The trick is getting the lower courts and often even your “advocates” (lawyers) to recognize that. There are a growing number of cases which are saying “wait – what are the actual expenses of the child? You can’t just willy nilly apply 17% to gross income – that is not what the guidelines state!”

    Granted the guidelines are a mess – however, what is really screwing this up is the lower courts abuse of their discretion aimed at a Mom based ideology – and it is working.

    If you have a case – you need to absolutely ensure that you and your attorney are fully aware of the precedents which are now demanding an accounting of the child’s actual expenses. And you need to ensure that your advocate believes in these since many just ignore them to continue an unwritten code of behavior. In the end, you may need to appeal.

    In the end these cases have to be cited, cited, and cited again, in order to redirect an out of control ideology in determining child support. Of course my suggestion is only one aspect of the battle – many more are needed and on many different fronts as we see from the actions of Sacks, Baskerville, McCormick, Rudov, etc. etc.

    But we as individuals should be blatantly aware of every last store of ammunition no matter how small and then apply it with full force.

  • wheresmy40

    dittohd: thanks for your response.

    If you are suggesting that the court demand an accounting of on what child support is spent, well…. then the gig would be up. They know much if not most of support money is not spent on children. Support guidelines are kept artificially high so as to maximize kickbacks, uh…federal incentives to the states. But I think you know that and were being rhetorical.

    My theory, according to my forensic accounting of my case is just what I outlined above. The cseb creates phony arrearages so as to go after assets. I was wondering to what entity I can report this abuse where I may find some relief. I’m sure this is not an isolated occurrence and affects many non-custodials.

    It seems the cowards that use their office and title at the child support collection of nazis bureau are above the law and have immunity from civil and criminal prosecution. But if I am correct, what we have here (don’t laugh….I know this is not a revelation) is wholesale government corruption.

    If you or anyone else can direct me to somebody in authority or to any related cases it would be a help. I really don’t think I’ll move this mountain, but I have a lot of time on my hands to shovel some of this bu!!shit.

    Of course it would be easier if those cowards would show themselves. I could have a personal chat to square things up. But I am not holding out for that.

    Thanks again.

  • jackal1994

    Once again we see a buearucracy run by a plutocracy (government by elites) in which they don’t have to live by the rules they force on everybody else.

    If these child support guidelines are SOOOOO GREAT! why don’t the elites have to live by them? The Social Security tax maxes out at $100,000. I say no maximums on any tax ~OR~ child support! Maybe if these d*ckheads have to suffer through the same rules, the rules will get changed.

    Their shouldn’t be any professional courtesy/leniency for families of senators or governors or judges either (in matters of criminal or civil court).

    Let these elitists find out what they’re doing to the people!

  • roger

    Very Reasonable approach Dittohd.
    I know of one wench that produced two bastard children that netted her 1450$ per month.
    So she bought a house. Mortgage cost? 1450$ per month.

    Have kids, get free housing.

  • Dittohd

    To: Wheresmy40,

    >Any advice on a solution?

    Sure, solutions are easy. It’s getting them instituted that’s the hard part. I think that child support should be equal (50/50) for both sexes, discounting mortgage, rent, house upkeep expenses and parent expenses. For example, for a non-custodial parent to be required to pay $1000 per month child support, the custodial parent must be able to prove that they are spending $2000 per month in supporting the child, not including their mortgage, rent, housing upkeep, utilities, and parent maintenance costs. The only time home upkeep expenses can be considered would be for those expenses over and above what that parent would be spending if they had no children. And those base costs must be based on the living accommodations the two parents were living in before they had children.

  • Dittohd

    mruffolo,

    Glenn Sacks a feminist? Apparently you know nothing about all the work he’s done, the articles he’s written in the past, the interviews he’s done in the media and the very successful campaigns he’s spearheaded in support of our movement. He has a lot of connections and a large following who can go into action on a moment’s notice.

    I admit he’s soft in support of women sometimes, but Glenn is no feminist. Not even close. I would suggest you go to his website and read his past articles, or as many as you have time for. It’s doubtful you’d have time for the whole collection as been supporting this movement for a long time.

    Long live Glenn Sacks!

  • mruffolo

    Readers have feminist fatigue.

    Circulation Falls at Many Papers

    Many of the nation’s newspapers continued to post circulation declines, reflecting the industry’s continuing battle to hold onto readers migrating to the Internet and other media, according to the latest figures from the Audit Bureau of Circulations.

    http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB117794322255886957-MDbucolIu_Dq074nc14qWrtEYLA_20080430.html

    Television and Hollywood are also experiencing no growth.
    Collectively people are slowly turning away from the overheard “man bad, woman good” message.

    For example, I stop attending my church’s sermons because I was tired of the same.

    This feminist blogger’s message is no different.

  • Thomas

    This is a great article. I have mentioned to Glenn and many others about the importance of slowly evolving precedents in child support court cases. It is absolutely critical that these be publicized and used by Fathers (and some Mothers) in defending more just obligations. A few excellent cases for New York:

    Gina P. v Stephen S. (2006)
    http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2006/2006_07284.htm

    Additionally, the Support Magistrate failed to articulate, as required by the Child Support Standards Act (CSSA), why it deemed 10% of the combined parental income exceeding $80,000 to be an appropriate award (Granade-Bastuck v Bastuck, 249 AD2d 444, 446 [1998] [court erred in failing to make express findings of actual needs of child with respect to combined income exceeding $80,000]; Manno v Manno, 224 AD2d 395, 396-397 [1996] [same]). The CSSA contains a formula for the calculation of child support (Family Ct Act §§ 513, 413). It requires that 17% of the first $80,000 in combined parental income be awarded when there is one child (Family Ct Act § 413 [1] [b] [3] [i]). As to the combined parental income exceeding $80,000 the court has discretion. It may award an amount equal to the statutory percentage (here 17%), or determine an appropriate award based upon the factors set out in Family Court Act § 413 (1) (f) (Family Ct Act § 413 [1] [c] [3]). If the court determines not to apply the statutory percentage to the parties’ income exceeding $80,000, then it is required to articulate the basis for its deviation. In cases such as this one, where a combined parental income is well in excess of $80,000, it is proper to consider and base the award upon the child’s ” ‘actual reasonable needs’ ” (Anonymous v Anonymous, 222 AD2d 305, 306 [1995], quoting Harmon v Harmon, 173 AD2d 98, 111 [1992]).

    Sean Puffy Combs (2006)
    http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2005/2005_02660.htm

    the Support Magistrate erred in basing the award in part on the amount of child support the father paid for his other child by a different woman, particularly where no evidence was presented as to that child’s expenses, resources, and needs. To this end, in high income cases, the appropriate determination under Family Court Act § 413 (1) (f) for an award of child support on parental income in excess of $80,000 should be based on the child’s actual needs and the amount that is required for the child to live an appropriate lifestyle, rather than the wealth of one or both parties (see Anonymous v Anonymous, 286 AD2d 585 [2001]).

    These cases are not publicized enough – all parents facing issues with child support issues – particularly in New York, must be aware of these cases. I have submitted them on several occasions to http://www.supportguidelines.com but I have not seen the Gina P case posted there yet.

    I think it would be great if these as well as many others were publicized so that they could be used more fully. In my case, I interviewed many lawyers – none mentioned these to me – either because of their one ideology or because of incompetence. I also fired 2 attorneys – neither was aware of these important precedents and instead tried to defend my position with “wet noodles.”

  • wheresmy40

    Question: Did McKittrick pay the increased support during his appeal? If not, will the arrearage be forgiven? If so, will he be credited or will the amount be refunded?

    My reason for asking is that it seems in New York State, the child support enforcement bureau sends quarterly account statements showing an obligation amount 50% higher than the court-ordered amount and then when challenged lowers the obligation but keeps the arrearage on the record. This “arrearage” can now be used to levy tax returns, bank accounts, etc.

    I’m still checking into this. Has anyone here experienced the same or similar in NYS or elsewhere? Any advice on a solution?







Right.

Man up.

Buy the book now on Amazon.com. Or listen to Ronnie tell a story at escaping-from-reality.com.

Search

RSS Amy Alkon

RSS Donna Laframboise