In a story that cannot escape from the headlines, Mel Gibson has been ordered to pay an increased amount of child support to Oksana Grigorieva. Previously, he had been required to pay $5,000 monthly to Ms. Grigorieva for the needs of their daughter, Lucia. Now he’ll need to pay $20,000 each month.
Ms. Grigorieva argued the previous amount of $5,000 was insufficient, because eleven-month-old Lucia required extensive security around the clock. Grigorieva apparently requested as much $60,000 per month. In this case, the family court judge did not give her everything she requested, but $20,000 is no small sum. If this was a Wisconsin child support case and not one coming from Hollywood, one would have to ask: Can a father be ordered to pay as much as $20,000 per month for only one child?
The state of Wisconsin has established a formula for determining the amount of child support to be paid. The most important factors are the gross income and assets of both parents. When it comes to couples who have a large disparity in net worth or earning power, large child support awards like the awards in the Gibson case are very possible.
It is important to note that family law judges have a significant amount of discretion when it comes to fixing an amount for child support. Judges can order a greater amount than the fixed percentage, or a lesser amount. The most important factor in this type of decision is the best interests of the child, and the state of Wisconsin has established procedures for judges to depart from the guidelines. Because judges have significant power in deciding how much support is to be paid, it is important to be fully prepared at child support hearings.
St. Petersburg Times: Oksana Grigorieva gets $20k in child support per month from Mel Gibson; Joshua Gillin, 10/1/2010
Prolonged divorce action can negatively affect children
Although some Wisconsin couples recognize the potential for divorce at the outset of their marriages, many imagine that their relationships will last indefinitely. Difficulties can lead to the consideration of filing for divorce, but many couples will still endeavor to reconcile their differences. Even if the action begins, some will continue to try to work things out, prolonging the action in hopes of resolving their differences. However, it is important to be aware of the impact of such activity on one’s children.
As divorce action begins, a parent’s move out of the home may signal a serious change in life. The transition can be more painful if the matter carries on for an extended period of time. A parent might deal with emotional conflict over the divorce based on advice from friends and family or because of their belief system. Some deal with guilt over the decision and the potential consequences for the family. However, the uncertainty that is created because of a delay in concluding the matter could cause a child to remain unfocused, worried and insecure.
In a particularly stressful parental relationship, it is important to transition into a co-parenting role that will promote a sense of love and security for the children. This could require some counseling to address the emotional challenges related to the deterioration of the marriage. Sound decisions are important for providing the children with stability, and a comprehensive parenting plan can provide a framework for addressing any disputes or concerns.
In some cases, one parent might find the need to request changes in a parenting plan. If a parent decides to relocate because of a new marriage or job change, for example, it may be necessary to seek a modification. However, minor changes to holiday schedules or vacation visitation periods might be addressed in the initial plan as negotiated by their respective attorneys.
Vacations and parenting plans after divorce
When Wisconsin schools let out for the summer, people will be thinking about trips to the lake and other excursions. For divorced parents, vacation planning means informing the other parent. A parenting plan developed during the divorce process should provide clear terms intended to limit conflicts.
A vacation presents an excellent opportunity for parents to maintain a relationship with their children. Many parenting plans have a provision requiring that at least 60 days’ notice be given for a proposed trip. This allows the other parent to make vacation plans that do not overlap and create a dispute about who gets the children. By providing sufficient notice and adopting a reasonable attitude, both parents can demonstrate for their children a willingness to cooperate. This accommodating approach could aid children in accepting the divorce and in forming positive relationships with both parents.
If a parent is initiating a divorce when children are still very young, the need to think about the school years and summer vacation remains necessary. The parenting plan should include language about how to share custody during school breaks. As the children get older, their wants and needs will change, and thus it is important that the plan allows flexibility in this regard
Parents who are facing the end of their marriage are often concerned about how their relationship with their children will be affected. Through the negotiation of a comprehensive plan, a family law attorney can help a divorcing parent to ensure that such relationship will remain sound and intact.
Fathers’ rights after divorce
Many divorced parents in Wisconsin actively try to work together to ensure the well-being of their children. They understand the importance of children having positive relationships with both parents. This usually goes beyond honoring visitation agreements. It also requires both parents to not undermine each other’s parental authority as well as a willingness to be flexible about how much time a child spends with each of them.
In some cases, however, parents without physical custody may begin to feel left out of their child’s life. In most divorces, the father ends up being the non-custodial parent, and some dads may feel as if their relationship is being “managed” by the children’s mother. In some cases, this sort of issue can be easily resolved with frank and open communication between the parents.
Unfortunately, there are instances in which the mother may not be receptive to such feedback. She may seek to further restrict communications between the child and the father. In addition, the mother may be unreasonable about commonplace issues such as changing visitation schedules or even allowing the noncustodial parent to be involved with decisions regarding the child’s education and health care despite the fact that there is joint legal custody.
Child custody disputes can be damaging to all involved. Family law attorneys will tell their clients that the most important consideration is the best interests of the child, yet many parents think that these disputes are more like battles, with a winner and a loser. In these types of situations, the alternative of mediation may be a better way to seek a resolution than protracted litigation.
Could it Happen in Wisconsin? Gibson to pay $20k in Child Support
In a story that cannot escape from the headlines, Mel Gibson has been ordered to pay an increased amount of child support to Oksana Grigorieva. Previously, he had been required to pay $5,000 monthly to Ms. Grigorieva for the needs of their daughter, Lucia. Now he’ll need to pay $20,000 each month.
Ms. Grigorieva argued the previous amount of $5,000 was insufficient, because eleven-month-old Lucia required extensive security around the clock. Grigorieva apparently requested as much $60,000 per month. In this case, the family court judge did not give her everything she requested, but $20,000 is no small sum. If this was a Wisconsin child support case and not one coming from Hollywood, one would have to ask: Can a father be ordered to pay as much as $20,000 per month for only one child?
The state of Wisconsin has established a formula for determining the amount of child support to be paid. The most important factors are the gross income and assets of both parents. When it comes to couples who have a large disparity in net worth or earning power, large child support awards like the awards in the Gibson case are very possible.
It is important to note that family law judges have a significant amount of discretion when it comes to fixing an amount for child support. Judges can order a greater amount than the fixed percentage, or a lesser amount. The most important factor in this type of decision is the best interests of the child, and the state of Wisconsin has established procedures for judges to depart from the guidelines. Because judges have significant power in deciding how much support is to be paid, it is important to be fully prepared at child support hearings.
St. Petersburg Times: Oksana Grigorieva gets $20k in child support per month from Mel Gibson; Joshua Gillin, 10/1/2010
Mel Gibson Ordered to pay Child Support Bill
Last month, we wrote about Mel Gibson’s hefty child support bill of $20,000 per month for his 1-year-old daughter. Recently, Mel Gibson and his ex-girlfriend Oksana Grigorieva were back in court arguing over several things, including that $20,000 per month bill, child custody, and visitation.
Gibson has already been paying $6,000 per month for the house Grigorieva shares with her mother. Since being ordered to pay the $20,000 monthly, Gibson has withheld payments while he tried to determine if he could deduct the $6,000 housing payment from the $20,000 child support payment.
Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Scott Gordon denied Gibson’s request that the housing payment be deducted from the child support payment, and ordered Gibson to pay $60,000 in back support.
The matter of child custody and visitation remain unresolved at present. Both Gibson and Grigorieva are seeking custody of their daughter. But, not only does Grigorieva want full custody of the baby, she has requested that the court deny Gibson visitation, alleging he is a danger to the child. Judge Gordon declined to make any decision on this request at this point in the proceedings.
Due to past allegations of abuse and heightened media attention to this case, Gibson is concerned about the potential of more private details and personal information coming to the attention of the media. Because of that concern, he requested a gag order, which would preclude both parties from speaking about the case with the media. Judge Gordon refused to issue a gag order, and Grigorieva taped an hour-long interview with Larry King shortly thereafter. However, Judge Gordon did order the parties’ depositions sealed from public access.
Although the issue of child support is resolved for now, the ultimate issues of child custody and visitation remain to be decided. The next hearing in the Gibson-Grigorieva case is scheduled for next Monday and we will keep you posted when new information is available.
Source: CBS News: Mel Gibson and Oksana Grigorieva Together Again for Closed-Door Custody Hearing; Caroline Black, 11/11/2010
Case Ruling: Change in Child Support Requires Court Approval
It is not often that a child support case makes it all the way to a state’s Supreme Court, but recently the New Hampshire Supreme court issued a noteworthy opinion on modification of child support obligations. While the law governing in child support differs slightly from state to state, child support works much in the same way in New Hampshire as it does here in Wisconsin.
Generally, child support payments are determined by child support guidelines established by the state. The guidelines look to a variety of factors, but they focus heavily on parental income.
The New Hampshire case involved a father of a four-year-old girl who had lost his job with a pool company. He had been paying $57 dollars per week two years ago, but a private agreement between the father and the girl’s mother lowered the amount he paid to $50 per month.
The state Division of Child Support Services sent him a bill for past due support last summer after his ex-wife applied for food stamps. The father challenged the bill, but lost in trial court. He appealed the ruling to the New Hampshire Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court ruled that the father is responsible for about $5,000 in back child support payments.
The justices ruled that a private agreement between parents had no effect on a court ordered amount of child support, because the state established child support guidelines that are designed to protect the interests of children when calculating child support payments and court orders for child support are meant to enforce those guidelines. Because child support orders come from a court of law, those orders create an obligation that cannot be altered by a private agreement between two parties. The court found that the parents in this case created a child support arrangement that did not follow the state’s guidelines.
If they had sought a modification of child support payments based on the father’s loss of income, one would likely have been granted. However, the modification would have needed to be monitored by a court that would have taken the child support guidelines into consideration. If you have a question about modifying child support payments, an experienced family law attorney can help inform you of your legal rights and options.
Source: Boston.com, “Court must approve change in child support amount,” Lynne Tuohy, 12/22/2010
Wisconsin Researchers Study Divorce’s Impact on College Education
Divorce can have long-term financial consequences for both the spouses and the children of divorce. Recently, researchers from the University of Wisconsin and Rice University compared how much divorced parents contributed to the college education with the amount contributed by parents who remained married. They found that divorce significantly influences how much parents are able to contribute to their children’s college education.
The study published in the December issue of the Journal of Family Issues analyzed a sample of 2,400 parent and student interviews from the National Postsecondary Student Aid Study. It analyzed the financial contributions made to a college education by three groups of parents: parents who were married, divorced parents, and parents who had divorced and remarried.
According to the study, married parents contributed about eight percent of their income to their children’s college education and met 77 percent of their children’s college-related financial needs. Divorced parents, on average, contributed about 6 percent of their income and met only 42 percent of their children’s financial needs. Remarried parents contributed 5 percent of their income and met 53 percent of their children’s needs.
The researchers pointed out that the income of divorced parents was substantially lower on average than parents who remain married. Furthermore, parents who remarried had similar incomes to parents who never divorced. However, remarried parents contributed a small percentage of their income to their children’s college education. The researchers believe that remarried parents contribute less than parents who remained married due to additional obligations, such as the costs of contributing to a second family.
This study is one of the first of its kind in that it analyzed the way divorce effects the way a parent can contribute to college education. From a family law perspective, it highlights an often-overlooked aspect of divorce. Who pays for the college education for the kids?
Many divorcing couples do not reach an agreement on how their children’s higher education will be financed. Although a Wisconsin court typically cannot extend child support beyond the age of 19, there are options available to provide for higher education. Divorcing parents can elect to include college tuition in their divorce decree or marital settlement agreement.
Sources:
The New York Times, “The Financial Impact of Divorce on College Students,” Jennifer Saranow Schultz, 12/15/2010
Rice University, Journal of Family Issues, “Contributions to College Costs by Married, Divorced, and Remarried Parents,” Ruth Lopez Turley and Matthew Desmond, 12/2010
Wisconsin high court to decide important child support question
Typically, child support orders can be modified when there has been a significant change in circumstances. An involuntary loss of income or an increase in income are among the most common changes in circumstances that warrant modifying a child support order.
In some child support agreements, parents have tried to set a maximum amount that can be paid. However, these “ceiling” amounts have been declared unenforceable in Wisconsin when there has been a change in circumstances because the agreements would be against public policy. Now, a case is on the way to the Wisconsin Supreme Court on whether minimum payments, or floors, spelled out in child support agreements are also unenforceable.
The case is called May v. May. After a divorce, Michael May agreed to pay his ex-wife, Suzanne May, no less than $1,203 per month in child support for no less than 33 months. This agreement established a floor amount. However, after 17 months, Michael May requested a reduction in the amount of his child support payment because of an involuntary loss of employment.
Suzanne opposed the request and argued the agreement should be enforced because a floor amount would not be against public policy. The trial court agreed with Suzanne and enforced the agreement. Michael appealed the case to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals District IV. The appeals court, confronted with a child support question for which there is not a clear answer, certified the question to the Wisconsin Supreme Court for clarification. In cases involving a conflict or lack of clarity in legal authority, certified appeals are a method for receiving clarification from a higher court before resolving the issue at hand.
Source: State Bar of Wisconsin, “Case may clarify the enforceability of child support agreements that set minimum payments,” Joe Forward, 1/11/2011
Supreme Court to address right to an attorney in support cases
This month, the Supreme Court heard both sides of the argument in a case that could have an important impact on Wisconsin child support cases. The case centers on the issue of whether poor parents should be provided an attorney in child support enforcement cases. Proponents of providing parents with attorneys in these cases note that jail time is a real possibility in these hearings, and while attorneys are provided by the state in criminal cases, they are not provided in child support enforcement cases.
During a hearing on the issue, the Justices of the Supreme Court appeared to be wary of creating a bright-line rule that would require states to provide attorneys in child support enforcement cases. Nearly every possible ruling seemed to have practical or procedural problems. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy indicated that he believes is no absolute right to provide parents with lawyers during their child support cases.
Kennedy said that it is difficult to issue a blanket ruling since there are so many child support hearings around the U.S. that all have different circumstances. However, he argued that in some situations it might be necessary.
The current case involves a South Carolina man who was jailed for not making child support payments. The man was also held in civil contempt multiple times as a result of his failure to pay child support.
While civil contempt is used as a measure of coercion and not punishment, the man said that since he was too poor to pay what he owed in child support, his incarceration was turned into pure punishment. He believes that if he had been provided with legal representation during the support cases that he could have avoided jail time.
Some justices expressed concern over the tremendous impact that this ruling could have, as it might also affect alimony cases.
Currently federal laws allow legal representation to be provided only for poor individuals involved in criminal proceedings. However, a majority of states do provide lawyers to individuals in child support cases.
The ultimate question that the Supreme Court will need to address is whether the courts should provide legal representation as a part of due process protections of the U.S. Constitution. A formal decision is expected in June.
Source: The New York Times, “Justices Grapple With Issue of Right to Lawyers in Child Support Cases,” Adam Liptak, 3/23/2011
Child support enforcement proceedings delayed in Wisconsin
Child support payments are vitally important to provide for the well-being of children. When a child support payment is missed, it is usually the child who suffers most.
However, child support enforcement proceedings are mired in prolonged backlogs and delays in some areas of Wisconsin. In Lincoln County, the problem is being felt most acutely. Many residents have to wait through numerous delays as the Child Support Agency struggles with a growing caseload.
In September 2005, there were six Lincoln County caseworkers who managed 1,165 open child support cases. Then, each caseworker managed about 194 cases each. However, budget cutbacks led to the elimination of three caseworker positions. As of early this year, there were 1,622 open child support cases with the three remaining caseworkers managing an increased workload of about 540 cases each.
In the past, it was common for a child support case to be heard within two months after its filing date. Presently, many Lincoln County residents are waiting six months or more for a court hearing. Lincoln County is now in the process of training a fourth caseworker to help with the backlog and delays.
The problem is magnified by the high rate of unemployment in Lincoln County. As of February, the unemployment rate in Lincoln County was 11.8 percent. This causes more parents to fall behind in child support payments and child support payments are being withheld from unemployment benefits.
If you have questions about unpaid child support and child support enforcement, an experienced family law attorney can advise you of your legal rights and options.
Source: Wausau Daily Herald, “Child support cases explode in Lincoln County,” Karina Gonzalez, 4/2/2011