A mediation to agree on a modification of child support is scheduled for Monday.... These are always interesting in that the parties have been divorced a while, have a better understanding of how costs really play out and can sensibly talk about real needs.
www.legalsolutionsllc.net
Additionally, the great whammy of "changed circumstances" is thrown into the mix. Parties sometimes do not want to accept that life has moved on and that maybe "she" makes more money than "he" does -- with the result that the child support guidelines would apply differently.
http://www.legalsolutionsllc.net/Articles/The-Custody-Dance.shtml
And children grow older, too. Camps, cars, college ... these are expensive!! It takes open minds and a willingness to negotiate to avoid what can be a really messy visit to court.
Friday, August 13, 2010
Monday, August 9, 2010
Child Support Blog
Not meant to be the end-all analysis, but as I write on my website www.legalsolutionsllc.net, it can be rather confusing.
I have a few (ex)couples recently contact me about child support in the Commonwealth. People seem to want to fight about custody, when the true goal is the amount of child support the parties want to receive or pay. Simply put, that is a dreadful way to approach what is a far more complex situation. I wrote an article I called "The Custody Dance" http://www.legalsolutionsllc.net/Articles/The-Custody-Dance.shtml in which I outlined some of the unintended consequences.
There are so many moving parts to the decision of how custody is to be shaped that a simple desire to "gain an advantage" is shallow and short-sighted. If one part wants to truly disengage and leave the raising of their children to another person -- the Commonwealth's new child support guidelines are designed to compensate for some of the additional costs associated with that.
But rarely is that the case. Parents want to participate in the future of their children, but too often one party is fixated on "having it their way" and that also means having the other party pay for it too. A classic situation is one party not wanting to use the parents or relatives of the other party as daycare or babysitters -- in essence, they want to force the other party into paying for 3rd party babysitting, or a part of it. The reasons are varied ... "not suitable", "inconvenient" ... but often it is really to cut ties with one family and simple dislike. The Courts, however, see this in a more even-handed way: there are two parents, each with the right to participate, and those parties come with their families ... the child's larger family. Note that the Commonwealth looks to the rights and interests of the child, not one parent's likes or dislikes. Absent some serious circumstances such as substance abuse, violence, lack of care or supervision ... just because one parent doesn't like or approve of the other's family doesn't mean he or she can cut the children off from them.
And so, people go to Court, get GALs appointed, spend lots and lots of money, have lawyers spend even more ... only to wind up where they would be if only they were more reasonable. And in the meantime, dirty laundry has been thoroughly aired, reputations damaged, lawyers enriched, friends alienated ... for nothing more than spite.
Mediate. Don't litigate.
I have a few (ex)couples recently contact me about child support in the Commonwealth. People seem to want to fight about custody, when the true goal is the amount of child support the parties want to receive or pay. Simply put, that is a dreadful way to approach what is a far more complex situation. I wrote an article I called "The Custody Dance" http://www.legalsolutionsllc.net/Articles/The-Custody-Dance.shtml in which I outlined some of the unintended consequences.
There are so many moving parts to the decision of how custody is to be shaped that a simple desire to "gain an advantage" is shallow and short-sighted. If one part wants to truly disengage and leave the raising of their children to another person -- the Commonwealth's new child support guidelines are designed to compensate for some of the additional costs associated with that.
But rarely is that the case. Parents want to participate in the future of their children, but too often one party is fixated on "having it their way" and that also means having the other party pay for it too. A classic situation is one party not wanting to use the parents or relatives of the other party as daycare or babysitters -- in essence, they want to force the other party into paying for 3rd party babysitting, or a part of it. The reasons are varied ... "not suitable", "inconvenient" ... but often it is really to cut ties with one family and simple dislike. The Courts, however, see this in a more even-handed way: there are two parents, each with the right to participate, and those parties come with their families ... the child's larger family. Note that the Commonwealth looks to the rights and interests of the child, not one parent's likes or dislikes. Absent some serious circumstances such as substance abuse, violence, lack of care or supervision ... just because one parent doesn't like or approve of the other's family doesn't mean he or she can cut the children off from them.
And so, people go to Court, get GALs appointed, spend lots and lots of money, have lawyers spend even more ... only to wind up where they would be if only they were more reasonable. And in the meantime, dirty laundry has been thoroughly aired, reputations damaged, lawyers enriched, friends alienated ... for nothing more than spite.
Mediate. Don't litigate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)