Andrews v. Andrews

Andrews v. Andrews: The court modifies father's child support obligation despite evidence he voluntarily quit his job without considering his obligation.

By Diana Shepherd, CDFA®Updated: May 04, 2020

Andrews v. Andrews: Trial court modifies the father’s child support obligation despite evidence that he voluntarily quit his job without considering his obligation.

By Laura Morgan, Family Lawyer

Father seeking reduction in child support acted in bad faith, as would prevent reduction, by quitting his job as an engineer to form a church without considering how his greatly reduced income would effect his ability to meet his child support obligation. Mother appeals arguing that trial court erred in modifying father’s child support obligation despite evidence that he voluntarily quit his job without giving consideration to how he would meet his child support obligation required by the parties’ consent order.

Andrews v. Andrews

Laura Morgan is a Family Law Consultant. Laura is available for consultation, brief writing and research on family law issues throughout the country. She can be reached through her Web site.

Reprint with permission

Related Articles

Reasons Why People Don’t Pay Child Support

One of the goals of a mediator is to help parents keep the children’s best interests in mind when making decisions. One of the biggest decisions that affect the children in a divorce is the amount of child support that must be paid. The laws in the state of Illinois, for instance, calculate child support according to a straight percentage of the spouse’s “true net” income. The percentage increases depending on the number of children that are involved. However, each state has its own methods for deciding how child support is calculated.

Houston Father Jailed for Late Child Support Payment due to Clerical Errors

Clifford Hall, a divorced father of an 11-year-old son is going to jail for 6 months because he was late with his child support payment due to clerical errors, even though he paid up in full and then some as soon as he found out about it.

Using QDROs to Collect Child Support & Child Support Arrearages

In the case of child support, the actual amount assigned to the alternate payee in a QDRO should be “grossed-up” to reflect the fact that, for 401(k) plans, the plan administrator is required to withhold 20% for income tax purposes. That is, the court must either order the plan to make a direct distribution to the custodial spouse net of taxes or the amount awarded should be increased 20% to account for the withholding taxes. This is so the custodial spouse does not end up paying taxes on child support that normally wouldn’t be taxable to them.

Categories:

Published on: January 12, 2012

About the Author

Diana Shepherd, CDFA®

Diana Shepherd has over 30 years of experience as a marketing, branding, SEO, copywriting, editing, and publishing expert. As Content Director for Family Lawyer Magazine, Divorce Magazine, and Divorce Marketing Group, she oversees all corporate content development and frequently creates SEO-friendly videos, podcasts, and copy for family law and financial firms. The Co-Founder of Divorce Magazine and Divorce Marketing Group, Diana is an award-winning editor, published author, and a nationally recognized expert on divorce, remarriage, finance, and stepfamily issues. She has written hundreds of articles geared towards both family law professionals and divorcing people, and she has both performed and taught on-page SEO for 20+ years. Diana spent eight years as the Marketing Director for the Institute for Divorce Financial Analysts® (IDFA®), and she has been a Certified Divorce Financial Analyst® since 2006. While at IDFA, she wrote, designed, and published The IDFA Marketing Guide, and she also created seminars for CDFA professionals to present to family lawyers (approved for CLE), as well as to separated and divorcing individuals. She has represented both DMG and IDFA at industry conferences and events across North America, and she has given marketing as well as divorce financial seminars at many of those conferences.

Andrews v. Andrews