The amount a parent has to pay to support their child should never be tied to the amount either parent earns. I feel It is irrelevant. Especially if there is a situation where there is shared custody. Why is the state forcing people to spend money when a parent does not have to. Did the state force the parent to spend the money while the parents were together? Why should it be done after they split up? Why should expenses rise when income rises?
We should be teaching children how to live modestly and not to obsess over material possessions. Instead it seems as if we are teaching each generation to live paycheck to paycheck. It is truly a tragic situation and needs to be changed immediately.
Court ordered child support and the guidelines are outdated and make no sense in a modern two earner economy.
NEW YORK (Reuters) – A father who has custody of his child the majority of the year was not obligated to make support payments to the child’s mother, despite the vast disparity in their incomes, a divided New York state appeals court ruled Thursday.
The Appellate Division, First Department, found that the Child Support Standards Act of 1989 precluded mother Mara Rubin from receiving child support payments from Anthony Della Salla, the father of her 9-year-old son.
Rubin has no income other than $5,000 a month in pendente lite child support payments from Della Salla, and an additional $1,000 in child support payments from the father of her daughter, the ruling said. Della Salla has roughly $20 million in assets, the ruling said.
The Child Support Standards Act sets out a uniform formula for determining child support payments. The law says that “the court shall order the non-custodial parent to pay” his or her share of that amount.
Based on the “plain language of the Child Support Standards Act, its legislative history, and its interpretation by the Court of Appeals, a custodial parent who has the child a majority of the time cannot be directed to pay child support to a non-custodial parent,” Justice Rosalyn Richter wrote for the majority.
The ruling reversed a 2012 order from Supreme Court Justice Ellen Gesmer in Manhattan.
According to the First Department ruling, Rubin and Della Salla had a son in 2003, although they never married or lived together. When their relationship ended four years later, Rubin had primary custody of the child under an informal arrangement, the ruling said.
In 2009, Rubin sought sole legal and residential custody, as well as child support payments. Della Salla also asked for primary custody. In 2011, the court granted Della Salla primary custody during the school year and Rubin primary custody during the summer, according to the ruling.
After the custody ruling, Della Salla moved for summary judgment on the child support claim, saying he was the custodial parent and, under the Child Support Standards Act, only non-custodial parents can be ordered to pay child support.
Rubin did not dispute the language of the law, but said that an order denying her child support payments would be “unjust and inappropriate” because of the disparity in income and the fact that she had custody for part of the year, the ruling said.
Gesmer denied Della Salla’s motion, and said the two had “parallel legal custody.” Given the difference in their financial situations, she said she had the discretion to order Della Salla to make support payments because Rubin needed the money to help pay her rent.
Della Salla appealed, and the First Department held that Gesmer had erred. The court pointed out that Della Salla had custody of the child approximately 56 percent of the time.
The panel cited a 1998 Court of Appeals case, Bast v. Rossoff, which found that support cases involving shared custody should be decided by applying the same legal factors as those in other cases that do not, including payment of support by the non-custodial parent.
“Even if we sympathize with the mother’s difficulties in covering the cost of housing in New York City, under the current CSSA, we cannot provide a remedy by giving her child support when she is not, in reality, the custodial parent,” Richter wrote.
Read more HERE