Divorce Lawyers New York - Recent Family Law Decisons (45)
RECENT FAMILY LAW DECISIONS (45)
Allowed
Where respondent expressly agreed to remain obligated to pay child support if the children were enrolled as full-time students in high school or college, trial court did not err in entering order increasing child support for adult children 19 and 20 years of age who were attending college, due to inflation and the increased expenses of the children in general, including utilities and food.
Where ex-spouse changed occupations to improve his prospects for the future he was allowed a reduction in child support until the new occupation became lucrative.
Evidence presented regarding a child’s increased food, clothing, baby-sitting, and preschool expenses provided sufficient grounds for the trial court’s modification of father’s child support obligation.
Where there was no evidence to support the conclusion that respondent’s participation in a strike was motivated by a desire to jeopardize his children’s interests or to evade financial responsibility for their support, respondent participated in the strike in “good faith” and was therefore entitled to a reduction in child support reflective of his present ability to pay.
The court’s order increasing support by $85 per month was not an abuse of discretion, where the record was devoid of any evidence of the lifestyle of the child and testimony concerning expenses admittedly involved only guesses.
Where the financial situation of the mother required her to contribute to the children’s support, it was not equitable to require her to bear 82% of the amount of the increase in the cost of raising the children, therefore, since the father’s income and net worth had also increased substantially the child support payment for the father was increased.
The provision of the decree awarding possession of the marital home to the defendant was characterized as a provision for child support, and, therefore, subject to modification, based upon the fact that the children were now residing with the plaintiff, and that their use of the marital home of the parties as a residence was no long required.
The record did not clearly support the amount of the increase which was awarded.
A petition for an increase in child support is allowed if there has been a substantial change in circumstances and the petitioner has provided the opposing party with notice.
Where ex-husband’s income was considerably greater than wife’s and fluctuated a great deal, the modification of child support payments to be self-modifying as a percentage of his income was neither an abuse of the trial court’s discretion nor against the manifest weight of the evidence.
In a modification action, the increased needs of the children required that the father be ordered to increase his child support payments, consistent with his increased earnings; it was clearly apparent that the father could readily afford more than the amount which was ordered by the trial court and that in light of his salary increase, the husband had not been carrying his share of the cost of supporting his own children.
Although some of the costs to which petitioner testified were excessive, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by awarding an increase in child support.
A decree which modified support upon the plaintiff/wife’s remarriage was upheld where there was a substantial basis in this record for the findings of the chancellor, where plaintiff, the adult daughter of the parties, and several other witnesses, corroborated the basis for the findings, and where an attorney who was friendly with both parties testified that defendant admitted the basis for the chancellor’s findings.
