Could it Happen in Wisconsin? Gibson to pay $20k in Child Support

In a story that cannot escape from the headlines, Mel Gibson has been ordered to pay an increased amount of child support to Oksana Grigorieva. Previously, he had been required to pay $5,000 monthly to Ms. Grigorieva for the needs of their daughter, Lucia. Now he’ll need to pay $20,000 each month.

Ms. Grigorieva argued the previous amount of $5,000 was insufficient, because eleven-month-old Lucia required extensive security around the clock. Grigorieva apparently requested as much $60,000 per month. In this case, the family court judge did not give her everything she requested, but $20,000 is no small sum. If this was a Wisconsin child support case and not one coming from Hollywood, one would have to ask: Can a father be ordered to pay as much as $20,000 per month for only one child?

The state of Wisconsin has established a formula for determining the amount of child support to be paid. The most important factors are the gross income and assets of both parents. When it comes to couples who have a large disparity in net worth or earning power, large child support awards like the awards in the Gibson case are very possible.

It is important to note that family law judges have a significant amount of discretion when it comes to fixing an amount for child support. Judges can order a greater amount than the fixed percentage, or a lesser amount. The most important factor in this type of decision is the best interests of the child, and the state of Wisconsin has established procedures for judges to depart from the guidelines. Because judges have significant power in deciding how much support is to be paid, it is important to be fully prepared at child support hearings.

St. Petersburg Times: Oksana Grigorieva gets $20k in child support per month from Mel Gibson; Joshua Gillin, 10/1/2010

Mel Gibson Ordered to pay Child Support Bill

Last month, we wrote about Mel Gibson’s hefty child support bill of $20,000 per month for his 1-year-old daughter. Recently, Mel Gibson and his ex-girlfriend Oksana Grigorieva were back in court arguing over several things, including that $20,000 per month bill, child custody, and visitation.

Gibson has already been paying $6,000 per month for the house Grigorieva shares with her mother. Since being ordered to pay the $20,000 monthly, Gibson has withheld payments while he tried to determine if he could deduct the $6,000 housing payment from the $20,000 child support payment.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Scott Gordon denied Gibson’s request that the housing payment be deducted from the child support payment, and ordered Gibson to pay $60,000 in back support.

The matter of child custody and visitation remain unresolved at present. Both Gibson and Grigorieva are seeking custody of their daughter. But, not only does Grigorieva want full custody of the baby, she has requested that the court deny Gibson visitation, alleging he is a danger to the child. Judge Gordon declined to make any decision on this request at this point in the proceedings.

Due to past allegations of abuse and heightened media attention to this case, Gibson is concerned about the potential of more private details and personal information coming to the attention of the media. Because of that concern, he requested a gag order, which would preclude both parties from speaking about the case with the media. Judge Gordon refused to issue a gag order, and Grigorieva taped an hour-long interview with Larry King shortly thereafter. However, Judge Gordon did order the parties’ depositions sealed from public access.

Although the issue of child support is resolved for now, the ultimate issues of child custody and visitation remain to be decided. The next hearing in the Gibson-Grigorieva case is scheduled for next Monday and we will keep you posted when new information is available.

Source: CBS News: Mel Gibson and Oksana Grigorieva Together Again for Closed-Door Custody Hearing; Caroline Black, 11/11/2010

Case Ruling: Change in Child Support Requires Court Approval

It is not often that a child support case makes it all the way to a state’s Supreme Court, but recently the New Hampshire Supreme court issued a noteworthy opinion on modification of child support obligations. While the law governing in child support differs slightly from state to state, child support works much in the same way in New Hampshire as it does here in Wisconsin.

Generally, child support payments are determined by child support guidelines established by the state. The guidelines look to a variety of factors, but they focus heavily on parental income.

The New Hampshire case involved a father of a four-year-old girl who had lost his job with a pool company. He had been paying $57 dollars per week two years ago, but a private agreement between the father and the girl’s mother lowered the amount he paid to $50 per month.

The state Division of Child Support Services sent him a bill for past due support last summer after his ex-wife applied for food stamps. The father challenged the bill, but lost in trial court. He appealed the ruling to the New Hampshire Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court ruled that the father is responsible for about $5,000 in back child support payments.

The justices ruled that a private agreement between parents had no effect on a court ordered amount of child support, because the state established child support guidelines that are designed to protect the interests of children when calculating child support payments and court orders for child support are meant to enforce those guidelines. Because child support orders come from a court of law, those orders create an obligation that cannot be altered by a private agreement between two parties. The court found that the parents in this case created a child support arrangement that did not follow the state’s guidelines.

If they had sought a modification of child support payments based on the father’s loss of income, one would likely have been granted. However, the modification would have needed to be monitored by a court that would have taken the child support guidelines into consideration. If you have a question about modifying child support payments, an experienced family law attorney can help inform you of your legal rights and options.

Source: Boston.com, “Court must approve change in child support amount,” Lynne Tuohy, 12/22/2010

Wisconsin Researchers Study Divorce’s Impact on College Education

Divorce can have long-term financial consequences for both the spouses and the children of divorce. Recently, researchers from the University of Wisconsin and Rice University compared how much divorced parents contributed to the college education with the amount contributed by parents who remained married. They found that divorce significantly influences how much parents are able to contribute to their children’s college education.

The study published in the December issue of the Journal of Family Issues analyzed a sample of 2,400 parent and student interviews from the National Postsecondary Student Aid Study. It analyzed the financial contributions made to a college education by three groups of parents: parents who were married, divorced parents, and parents who had divorced and remarried.

According to the study, married parents contributed about eight percent of their income to their children’s college education and met 77 percent of their children’s college-related financial needs. Divorced parents, on average, contributed about 6 percent of their income and met only 42 percent of their children’s financial needs. Remarried parents contributed 5 percent of their income and met 53 percent of their children’s needs.

The researchers pointed out that the income of divorced parents was substantially lower on average than parents who remain married. Furthermore, parents who remarried had similar incomes to parents who never divorced. However, remarried parents contributed a small percentage of their income to their children’s college education. The researchers believe that remarried parents contribute less than parents who remained married due to additional obligations, such as the costs of contributing to a second family.

This study is one of the first of its kind in that it analyzed the way divorce effects the way a parent can contribute to college education. From a family law perspective, it highlights an often-overlooked aspect of divorce. Who pays for the college education for the kids?

Many divorcing couples do not reach an agreement on how their children’s higher education will be financed. Although a Wisconsin court typically cannot extend child support beyond the age of 19, there are options available to provide for higher education. Divorcing parents can elect to include college tuition in their divorce decree or marital settlement agreement.

Sources:

The New York Times, “The Financial Impact of Divorce on College Students,” Jennifer Saranow Schultz, 12/15/2010

Rice University, Journal of Family Issues, “Contributions to College Costs by Married, Divorced, and Remarried Parents,” Ruth Lopez Turley and Matthew Desmond, 12/2010

Wisconsin high court to decide important child support question

Typically, child support orders can be modified when there has been a significant change in circumstances. An involuntary loss of income or an increase in income are among the most common changes in circumstances that warrant modifying a child support order.

In some child support agreements, parents have tried to set a maximum amount that can be paid. However, these “ceiling” amounts have been declared unenforceable in Wisconsin when there has been a change in circumstances because the agreements would be against public policy. Now, a case is on the way to the Wisconsin Supreme Court on whether minimum payments, or floors, spelled out in child support agreements are also unenforceable.

The case is called May v. May. After a divorce, Michael May agreed to pay his ex-wife, Suzanne May, no less than $1,203 per month in child support for no less than 33 months. This agreement established a floor amount. However, after 17 months, Michael May requested a reduction in the amount of his child support payment because of an involuntary loss of employment.

Suzanne opposed the request and argued the agreement should be enforced because a floor amount would not be against public policy. The trial court agreed with Suzanne and enforced the agreement. Michael appealed the case to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals District IV. The appeals court, confronted with a child support question for which there is not a clear answer, certified the question to the Wisconsin Supreme Court for clarification. In cases involving a conflict or lack of clarity in legal authority, certified appeals are a method for receiving clarification from a higher court before resolving the issue at hand.

Source: State Bar of Wisconsin, “Case may clarify the enforceability of child support agreements that set minimum payments,” Joe Forward, 1/11/2011

Supreme Court to address right to an attorney in support cases

This month, the Supreme Court heard both sides of the argument in a case that could have an important impact on Wisconsin child support cases. The case centers on the issue of whether poor parents should be provided an attorney in child support enforcement cases. Proponents of providing parents with attorneys in these cases note that jail time is a real possibility in these hearings, and while attorneys are provided by the state in criminal cases, they are not provided in child support enforcement cases.

During a hearing on the issue, the Justices of the Supreme Court appeared to be wary of creating a bright-line rule that would require states to provide attorneys in child support enforcement cases. Nearly every possible ruling seemed to have practical or procedural problems. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy indicated that he believes is no absolute right to provide parents with lawyers during their child support cases.

Kennedy said that it is difficult to issue a blanket ruling since there are so many child support hearings around the U.S. that all have different circumstances. However, he argued that in some situations it might be necessary.

The current case involves a South Carolina man who was jailed for not making child support payments. The man was also held in civil contempt multiple times as a result of his failure to pay child support.

While civil contempt is used as a measure of coercion and not punishment, the man said that since he was too poor to pay what he owed in child support, his incarceration was turned into pure punishment. He believes that if he had been provided with legal representation during the support cases that he could have avoided jail time.

Some justices expressed concern over the tremendous impact that this ruling could have, as it might also affect alimony cases.

Currently federal laws allow legal representation to be provided only for poor individuals involved in criminal proceedings. However, a majority of states do provide lawyers to individuals in child support cases.

The ultimate question that the Supreme Court will need to address is whether the courts should provide legal representation as a part of due process protections of the U.S. Constitution. A formal decision is expected in June.

Source: The New York Times, “Justices Grapple With Issue of Right to Lawyers in Child Support Cases,” Adam Liptak, 3/23/2011

Child support enforcement proceedings delayed in Wisconsin

Child support payments are vitally important to provide for the well-being of children. When a child support payment is missed, it is usually the child who suffers most.

However, child support enforcement proceedings are mired in prolonged backlogs and delays in some areas of Wisconsin. In Lincoln County, the problem is being felt most acutely. Many residents have to wait through numerous delays as the Child Support Agency struggles with a growing caseload.

In September 2005, there were six Lincoln County caseworkers who managed 1,165 open child support cases. Then, each caseworker managed about 194 cases each. However, budget cutbacks led to the elimination of three caseworker positions. As of early this year, there were 1,622 open child support cases with the three remaining caseworkers managing an increased workload of about 540 cases each.

In the past, it was common for a child support case to be heard within two months after its filing date. Presently, many Lincoln County residents are waiting six months or more for a court hearing. Lincoln County is now in the process of training a fourth caseworker to help with the backlog and delays.

The problem is magnified by the high rate of unemployment in Lincoln County. As of February, the unemployment rate in Lincoln County was 11.8 percent. This causes more parents to fall behind in child support payments and child support payments are being withheld from unemployment benefits.

If you have questions about unpaid child support and child support enforcement, an experienced family law attorney can advise you of your legal rights and options.

Source: Wausau Daily Herald, “Child support cases explode in Lincoln County,” Karina Gonzalez, 4/2/2011

Married couples now lead fewer than half of Milwaukee households

Just as the face of the American family has changed, the way family law affects Wisconsin families has changed over the years. Just over 20 years ago, more than 60 percent of family households in Milwaukee were occupied by married couples.

In 2000, 55 percent of family homes in Milwaukee were occupied by a married couple. Today, only 49.5 percent of family homes are occupied by married people. Now, single parents lead the majority of family households in Milwaukee, according to the latest U.S. Census figures. The latest statistics say that women running households without husbands are four times more common than men without wives.

Roberta Coles, the chair of Marquette University social and cultural sciences department, says the trend is no surprise in a society where marriage has lost some of its charm. Coles also blames the economy. In some cases, Coles says, couples want to be married but just can’t afford it.

Even without the commitment of marriage, people are still in plenty of relationships and they are still having children. Some couples are waiting for the right financial moment to tie the knot, while others are completing education and career goals before marrying.

With poverty prevalent in Milwaukee, Coles says it’s likely that brides and grooms will continue to wait to walk down the aisle. The Marquette University chair said that poverty reduces the likelihood of marriage and increases cohabitation.

It is important to note that an increase in the number of children born to single parents has a significant impact on family law in Wisconsin. While a drop in marriage rates is likely to produce a drop in divorce rates, an increase in the rate of children born to single parents will make different types of family court proceedings more important. Without a divorce case that decides family issues, child support and child custody cases will be needed to determine both parents’ rights and obligations towards their children.

Source: Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “Married couples dip below half of Milwaukee family households,” Georgia Pabst and Ben Poston, 5/11/2011

Wisconsin man pleads guilty to child support charges

It is no secret that the recession has been particularly hard on Wisconsin. In troubled economic times, court ordered child support takes on added importance. Parents depend on child support to provide the basis necessities, including food, clothing, and daycare, for their kids. When child support payments are missed, children suffer.

Recently, a Wisconsin man pleaded guilty to charges that he failed to pay legal child support. The 35-year-old Watertown man was initially ordered to pay $189 per month for the support of his child beginning December 1, 2000. However, prosecutors alleged he had not made any payments since October 2009. Since that time, the total amount of child support in arrearage amounted to $21,444.15.

As a result of his guilty plea, the man faces a maximum sentence of two years in prison, a $250,000 fine and restitution in the amount of child support he owes.

In tough economic times, child support payments become more important to the receiving parent and child. However, tough economic times can also make child support more difficult to afford for the parent who is under a legal obligation to make monthly payments.

When a child support issue reaches a criminal court, it is very possible for both of the parents and the child to be worse off as a result. If a paying spouse is imprisoned, his or her ability to make child support payments will be harmed. Before the situation is escalated to a criminal prosecution, it is important to remember that parents on both sides of the equation have legal remedies available.

The paying parent can request a downward modification if he or she can show that changed circumstances have harmed his or her ability to pay. The receiving parent has child support enforcement remedies as well. These remedies include income withholding, withholding income tax returns, property seizures, property liens and court-ordered punishment to encourage payment.

Source: Justice.gov, “Wisconsin Man Pleads Guilty to Failure to Pay Legal Child Support,” 5/17/2011

Should child support awards account for growing expenses?

Child support is typically awarded to the parent who does not have primary custody of a couple’s children. Child support is supposed to represent the amount of money that will be necessary to pay for the expenses related to caring for the child. Such expenses include the cost of housing, food and clothing.

Typically, once a child support award is set, then the amount stays the same, regardless of additional expenses that arise subsequent to a divorce. Unfortunately, circumstances often change after divorce, so it is important to consider the future when determining child support arrangements.

Failing to recognize that small children will one day turn into teenagers who will require additional money to feed them and meet their financial needs can leave the child and custodial parent with inadequate funds, or in the alternative, with the child support bearing parent spending more money than was required by the court.

In many cases, parents may simply agree to divide additional expenses that were not originally contemplated, such as those for sports or tuition. When things do not go smoothly, however, one or both parents, may petition the court to attempt to modify the court order. Child support modifications can be particularly helpful when circumstances have changed such that the original award is no longer appropriate.

Things tend to get even more confusing when a parent remarries. New step-parents may not understand the terms of the child support arrangement or the way additional expenses had historically been handled between the divorced parents.

Clear communication among adults can go a long way in helping to meet the financial needs of children. Respecting that Wisconsin child support awards are necessary for the children’s welfare, and that as kids turn into teenagers they cost more, can put a child support award in its proper perspective.

Source: The Pioneer Press, “Ex-Etiquette: Discuss money issues with parents, not kids,” Jann Blackstone-Ford and Sharyl Jupe, 29 June 2011