People know that children need to be supported regardless of economic times; but what happens when child support orders are punitive to the parent that still has employment?
In 2005 a couple was involved in a long and drawn out divorce with two young children caught in the middle. The mother a college graduate and the father a high school graduate. Child support amounts were set and the parents were to share joint custody and life continued. Years later with the economic collapse, both of the parents became unemployed. The mother decided she needed to go back to school for a few more years using the Washington State Education Assistance Program. The father seeks to find another job in the thriving computer industry. Once the father had a job allowing him to finally pay off the debts he accumulated while unemployed, the mother filed a motion to adjust child support.
Since one parent is on unemployment and the other is gainfully employed the differences in incomes are substantial enough to require, under the Snohomish County court system, that the father give 45% of his net income to the mother for support and child care. The courts ruling is that for the next three years while the mother is going back to school for a nursing certificate, supporting her is in the best interest of the children and the father long term. Noting that while unemployed the mother's fifteen hundred dollars a month of unemployment checks alone do not cover her new vehicle or housing expenses. Not to mention that her remaining debts and obligations that she needs to have paid include credit cards, childcare, food, utilities, internet, schooling, cell phone, and personal expenses; which in total are over four thousand a month.
Many of the financial decisions made by both parents could be construed now as reckless; when the decisions were made to purchase vehicles and homes the economy was sound. Had there been no collapse, things would have continued on happily and neither party would have suffered.
Essentially the father is being ordered to pay the remaining bills and support the mother in the manner to which she has become accustomed to regardless of the welfare and wellbeing of the children or the strain it places on the father. The father has to work forty hours per week to get about half of his income and still support the children while they are with him. The children do need to be supported as they are the most vulnerable in these times of economic crisis, but there should be a point when the right course of action for the children is not to allow decisions of one parent impact the other. Had the father chosen to go to school, instead of seeking employment, he still would have had to give 45% of his unemployment income to the mother, but would not have been able to have a home or food for the children. If the mother were to actually pay her obligations and the obligation to support the children as is demanded by the letter of the Law she would have nothing left for herself, thus begging the questions: If she cannot take care of herself, how can she take care of children, and why should a father be obligated to fully support two households when he only makes enough to take care of his own?
0 comments