Sunday, August 24, 2008

Opposition to support motion

Here is my opposition to my ex-wife's motion begging for more money:
Opposition to AngryMom’s child support motion

This court has no jurisdiction to hear an issue under appeal
AngryMom is seeking to modify the Jan. 11, 2008 child support order. That order has been appealed to the Sixth District. Info about the appeal is on the web at If AngryMom has some disagreement with the order, then she should tell it to the court that actually has jurisdiction over the order. This court cannot act on an order while it is being reviewed by a higher court.

Comm. Joseph cannot hear this motion
If this court considers the merits of AngryMom’s motion, then Commissioner Irwin H. Joseph must disqualify himself under CCP 170.1 and 170.6. He has ruled on this very issue, and has had that ruling reversed on appeal once already. He is likely to get reversed again in the pending appeal. I should not have to get him reversed a third time on the same issue.

There is no change since the last order
AngryMom does not claim that there has been any change to the facts, laws, or circumstances since the Jan. 11, 2008 order. She got what she asked for on that date. She does not claim that the Jan. order was mistaken. Therefore, she has no cause for seeking a new order.

AngryMom's request is based on conflicting facts
AngryMom asks for an increase in child support payments based on two things: applying guideline to her having 100% custody of our kids, and and requesting a guideline deviation under FC 4057(b)(5)(B). But that section only applies to “Cases in which both parents have substantially equal time-sharing of the children". It cannot be used to modify a guideline based on one parent having sole custody.

AngryMom's motion has no merit whatsoever. It should be denied.
The crazy thing about her motion is that she is asking for extra money because she has the kids full time, AND extra money because I do not have mortgage. But if the kids are not even with me, what is the possible relevance of my housing situation? Her motion makes no sense.

A comment suggests that she might have some other justification for requesting a guideline deviation. But family courts are not supposed to deviate from guideline, unless there are some exceptional circumstances. She does not give any argument that any circumstances are exceptional, or that there is some unusual justification for extra money.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

FC4057 says the guideline formula is presumed to be correct {4057(a)} but the presumtion can be rebutted {4057(b)if certain factors are present. FC4057(b)(5)(B)says that if two parents have substantially equal timeshare and one parent has substantially different housing costs, that factor may be used to rebut the presumption that the formula gives the correct support amount.
So it appears the Mom is seeking to modify support based on 100% timeshare and if she cites 4057(b)(5)(B) she is alleging that there is a disparity between her housing cost and yours are such as to make the guideine amount unjust.
You are correct in that any diparity in relative housing costs would appear irrelevant if the children are never at your house.
However, Mom may be simply asserting FC4057(b)(5) and arguing that special circumstance are present that make guideline support unjust or inappropiate.
That section does not limit special circumstance to those enumerated in FC4057(b)(5)A,B, and C, and FC4057 requests for support calculations other than guideline can be considered in circumstance where one parent has a 100% timeshare.