Archive for June, 2018

Is Spousal Support Affected If My Ex Quits Their Jobs?

Thursday, June 21st, 2018

If the spouse who has been ordered to pay child support experiences a significant reduction in their income, like through a demotion or a loss of work, it is not always enough to reduce child support. This type of circumstance, however, can impact spousal support. Regardless, there have been many instances where the loss of work is the result of the supporter quitting or voluntarily leaving, which in some cases is used as a ploy to get a reduction in support requirements.

As made clear in the Federal Child Support Guidelines, the court may attribute income to a spouse, regardless if income is being earned or not. With regard to imputing income, one of the circumstances considered when a court is planning to award spousal support are if the spouse is intentionally underemployed or unemployed, other than instances where the underemployment or unemployment is required by the needs of a child of the marriage or any child under the age of majority, or due to reasonable educational or health needs of the spouse. Moreover, the courts really don’t like when a parent tries to evade support obligations, especially child support.

In the end, quitting your job is a deliberate choice, and not an unfortunate circumstance, and so most judges are going to be very unwilling to significantly lower or even end spousal support obligations. Some courts will even impute income based on how much the payer could realistically earn had they still been employed. This means that those receiving payments should not be overly worried if their ex quits their job, and that those paying spousal support should strongly reconsider quitting their job in an attempt to avoid spousal support.  

Which Parent Is More Likely to Be Granted Sole Custody?

Tuesday, June 19th, 2018

The question of whether a mother or father is more likely to get full, sole custody of their child is an interesting one. In the late 1800’s, a legal principle in family common law, known as the Tender Years doctrine, was commonly called upon to argue that the mother should have custody of the child. The idea behind the doctrine is that in the “tender years” of the child, a colloquial term referring to childhood and adolescence, it would be cruel to create any space between a mother and her young child, and that a child in these tender years needs all of the love and affection that only a mother can give. Granted, it was not written into the law, and it served more as an assumed presumption, one that was adopted by some courts in the U.S. from a custody law that was passed by British Parliament in the mid-1800’s. Still, it persisted in child custody battles for over one hundred years.

However, as time went on, the courts stopped recognizing the presumption, and actually went back and started reversing decisions that were heavily based on the tender years presumption, and the courts began ruling based on rather gender-neutral respects. That is why in most of the country, the court determine custody with the best interests of the child as the primary factor, where the presumption is that the primary caretaker is going to be the best parent to handle the primary responsibilities and custody of their small child.

However, there is a bit of similarity in these two determinants. In many instances, granting the mother sole custody is in the best interests of the child, either because the father is not a fit parent in his own right, or because the father moved significantly far, to the point that it would do more harm than good to relocate the child. But, keep in mind that, if the roles were reversed, these same reasons could be behind the rationale behind why a court would grant the father sole custody.