ILNews

COA finds trial court acted within its discretion when calculating father’s actual income

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A father’s messy financial statements do not prevent a trial court from doing its own calculations and increasing his weekly child support payments, the Indiana Court of Appeals has ruled.

The appeals court rejected the father’s arguments in In Re: The Paternity of Jo.J., J.W.J. v. D.C., 29A05-1209-JP-447, and affirmed the judgment of the trial court.

On May 25, 2012, the trial court held a hearing on the mother’s request for a temporary child support order to be issued pending a final decision on her appeal of the original order which reduced the father’s support obligation.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court asked the mother and father to submit their financial statements. On June 21, 2012, the court issued a formal written order and filed a separate order changing the father’s weekly support obligation to $252.52 per week.

The father appealed. He argued the trial court lacked jurisdiction to issue a temporary support order while the mother’s appeals was still pending. Moreover, he asserted, even if the lower court could temporarily modify child support during the appeal, the specific support amount ordered was not supported by the evidence.

The appeals court found while the mother’s request for modification was premature, the trial court did not issue a final written order temporarily modifying child support until one day after the Indiana Supreme Court denied transfer.

Thus, since these orders recalculating father’s income and support obligation were not issued until after the denial of transfer, the trial court did not err in modifying the father’s child support payments prospectively.

In regard to the $252.52 weekly payments, the COA speculated the trial court arrived at that figure based on the mother’s statement that she needed at least $250 a week to meet her bills.

Pointing to Elbert v. Elbert, 579 N.E. 2d 102, 112 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991), the COA noted trial courts must consider the children’s needs and the parent’s general economic condition when determining the amount of child support.

Consequently, the COA ruled that the trial court did not err when it arrived at a figure that would allow the mother to continue living in her home and providing for the child.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I enrolled America's 1st tax-free Health Savings Account (HSA) so you can trust me. I bet 1/3 of my clients were lawyers because they love tax-free deposits, growth and withdrawals or total tax freedom. Most of the time (always) these clients are uninformed about insurance law. Employer-based health insurance is simple if you read the policy. It says, Employers (lawyers) and employees who are working 30-hours-per-week are ELIGIBLE for insurance. Then I show the lawyer the TERMINATION clause which states: When you are no longer ELIGIBLE! Then I ask a closing question (sales term) to the lawyer which is, "If you have a stroke or cancer and become too sick to work can you keep your health insurance?" If the lawyer had dependent children they needed a "Dependent Conversion Privilege" in case their child got sick or hurt which the lawyers never had. Lawyers are pretty easy sales. Save premium, eliminate taxes and build wealth!

  2. Ok, so cheap laughs made about the Christian Right. hardiharhar ... All kidding aside, it is Mohammad's followers who you should be seeking divine protection from. Allahu Akbar But progressives are in denial about that, even as Europe crumbles.

  3. Father's rights? What about a mothers rights? A child's rights? Taking a child from the custody of the mother for political reasons! A miscarriage of justice! What about the welfare of the child? Has anyone considered parent alienation, the father can't erase the mother from the child's life. This child loves the mother and the home in Wisconsin, friends, school and family. It is apparent the father hates his ex-wife more than he loves his child! I hope there will be a Guardian Ad Litem, who will spend time with and get to know the child, BEFORE being brainwashed by the father. This is not just a child! A little person with rights and real needs, a stable home and a parent that cares enough to let this child at least finish the school year, where she is happy and comfortable! Where is the justice?

  4. "The commission will review applications and interview qualified candidates in March and April." Riiiiiight. Would that be the same vaulted process that brought us this result done by "qualified candidates"? http://www.theindianalawyer.com/justices-deny-transfer-to-child-custody-case/PARAMS/article/42774 Perhaps a lottery system more like the draft would be better? And let us not limit it to Indiana attorneys so as to give the untainted a fighting chance?

  5. Steal a little, and they put you in jail. Steal a lot, and they make you king. Bob Dylan ala Samuel Johnson. I had a very similar experience trying to hold due process trampling bureaucrats responsible under the law. Consider this quote and commentary:"'When the president does it, that means it is not illegal,' [Richard] Nixon told his interviewer. Those words were largely seen by the American public -- which continued to hold the ex-president in low esteem -- as a symbol of his unbowed arrogance. Most citizens still wanted to believe that no American citizen, not even the president, is above the law." BWHaahaaahaaa!!!! http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/When-the-president-does-it-that-means-it-is-not-illegal.html

ADVERTISEMENT