Court affirms reduction of support ordered in another state

  • Print
Listen to this story

Subscriber Benefit

As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
This audio file is brought to you by
0:00
0:00
Loading audio file, please wait.
  • 0.25
  • 0.50
  • 0.75
  • 1.00
  • 1.25
  • 1.50
  • 1.75
  • 2.00

A court order reducing a father’s child support obligation from that set by a Pennsylvania court was affirmed Monday by the Indiana Court of Appeals.

Appellants argued in In the Matter of the Support of B.J.R.: B.J.R., by next friend, R.J.C. v. C.J.R., Sr., 49A02-1206-RS-454, that a modification of support order should be reversed on several grounds. The appeal questioned whether the court had jurisdiction because the Pennsylvania order was supplied after the initial filing and could not be authenticated; and whether the father’s income and parenting time had been properly calculated.

In May 2012, Marion Superior Judge Louis Rosenberg ordered C.J.R. Sr.’s support payments reduced from $1,912 per month as stipulated in the 2000 Pennsylvania order to $927 per month.

The appellate court found no error or abuse of discretion.

Judge James S. Kirsch wrote for the unanimous panel that sufficient evidence was presented for the trial court to establish that either the father’s circumstances had changed so substantially as to make continuing terms unreasonable, or that the original order differed by more than 20 percent from what would be ordered under Indiana’s child support guidelines.

 

Please enable JavaScript to view this content.

{{ articles_remaining }}
Free {{ article_text }} Remaining
{{ articles_remaining }}
Free {{ article_text }} Remaining Article limit resets on
{{ count_down }}