Connecticut Supreme Court Rules That Increase In Income Justifies Increase in Child Support

baserace · 2016-05-11T07:27:49+00:00

And reductions in income?

2016-05-11T14:06:35+00:00

Of course, the giant blind eye turned towards the misuse of child support intended for the child as income for the mother is the hinge on this ruling. I do not think many men would be totally against a ruling that actually saw the money go towards the children but it typically doesn't. My ex hasn't had to work a full time job as an adult, and she is 43. I have 17 years of me subsidizing her life and not my child's.

lostapwbm · 2016-05-11T07:19:53+00:00

Although an increase in income, by itself, isn’t enough to justify an increase in a divorced person’s alimony obligation, it can lead to an increase in child-support payments.

That is the essence of a state Supreme Court decision issued Monday in the closely watched case of Maria F. McKeon, a successful Hebron lawyer who worked part-time while caring for her three children, against her ex-husband, William P. Lennon, an even better-paid Electric Boat executive. McKeon is a former chairwoman of the Hebron Board of Education.

After the couple’s 2007 divorce, McKeon filed motions for increases in her husband’s child-support payments in 2008 and 2010, citing in the second motion her increased expenses and decreased net income as well as her ex-husband’s increased income. A trial judge denied both motions and actually reduced Lennon’s child-support payments after one of the couple’s children turned 18.

...

The decision, written by Justice Peter T. Zarella for a unanimous six-justice panel of the seven-member court, emphasized the difference between alimony and child support.

Zarella quoted the high court’s 2014 decision on alimony, which said there is “little, if any, legal or logical support ... for the proposition that a legitimate purpose of alimony is to allow the supported spouse’s standard of living to match the supporting spouse’s standard of living after the divorce, when the supported spouse is no longer contributing to the supporting spouse’s income earning efforts.”

In contrast, Connecticut’s child-support guidelines are based on the “income shares” model, which “considers the income of both parents and ‘presumes that the child should receive the same proportion of parental income as he or she would have received if the parents lived together,’” Zarella wrote, quoting from the preamble to the child-support guidelines.

“This means that, unlike when considering a request for the modification of an alimony order, the trial court may consider a substantial increase in the supporting spouse’s income, standing alone, as sufficient justification for granting a motion to modify a child-support order to ensure that the child receives the same proportion of parental income that he or she would have received if the parents had remained together,” Zarella concluded.

locks_are_paranoid · 2016-05-11T17:58:52+00:00

Even if the money was actually spent on the child, this ruling still means that children of rich parents get more than children of poor parents. If the money truly went toward the child, than everyone paying child support should have to pay the same minimum amount. Its ludicrous that anyone actually believes that child support is actually spent on the child.

Title	Connecticut Supreme Court Rules That Increase In Income Justifies Increase in Child Support
Author	lostapwbm
Upvotes	18
Comments	8
Date	May 11, 2016 7:15 AM UTC (10 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/4itrzy/connecticut_supreme_court_rules_that_increase_in/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/connecticut-supreme-court-rules-that-increase-in.949837 https://theredarchive.com/post/949837

Comments