Thursday, September 18, 2008

Opposition to AngryMom’s child support motion

My ex-wife has made a motion for increased support payments, to be heard on Monday. I filed this in response:
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, as Case H 032525. 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. In re Marriage of AngryDad. 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.
Cmr Joseph refused to recuse himself this week, so I doubt that he will recuse himself next week either. But he is really acting outside his authority if he rules on this motion.

No comments: