Spread the love

I did not include the order from the support magistrate dismissing my March 30, 2017 motion to dismiss, because this same dismissal is referenced as being dismissed, in the September 26, 2017 order denying my objections to the support order, which itself was taken from the proceedings which my March 30, 2017 motion to dismiss was filed in.

3_30_17_mtd

order_3_30_17

A court can’t order a person to start making more money. An unemployed person can have the support obligation of $25 per week imposed, and this effectively mitigates the fact that this unemployed person has a child with which they are responsible for. For any amount greater than $25 per month for that same unemployed person, the court must find an “imputed” income, meaning that the court has found that a person’s income is now considered higher than it actually is for the purposes of levying a child support order. This would all be be just fine and perfectly legal, except that this is how the law that gives a court power to impute income reads:

Family Court Act section 413(1)(b)(5)(v):
an amount imputed as income based upon the parent’s former
resources or income, if the court determines that a parent has reduced
resources or income in order to reduce or avoid the parent’s obligation
for child support;

…Which means an attempt to defraud the other party of child support, which cannot be considered as something that I’ve done.

Another thing, this “more substantial income”, that is being used by Onondaga County to impute my income for child support, is the job that I held at Best Buy. The problem with using this to impute child support, is that there was a hearing by the New York State department of labor, which found specifically that I was entitled to collect unemployment. This means that I can show that I was fired in a such a way that was no fault of my own, and therefor, could not be considered to have been a purposeful act of myself, taken to reduce my child support obligation.

This was on record with the court, with the collection of unemployment shown on my income tax records, and the only job in my work history that the unemployment could have been from, was my job at Best Buy. Also, and most significantly, there was no evidence ever entered throughout the proceeding that I had “reduced resources or income in order to reduce or avoid the parent’s obligation for child support”, whatsoever.

9 comments

  1. naturally like your website but you need to take a look at the spelling on several of your posts.
    A number of them are rife with spelling issues and I in finding it very
    bothersome to tell the truth nevertheless I will definitely come again again.

    1. Yes I’m aware that I am a poor speller. If you don’t mind, would you care to point them out to me I would really appreciate it? I may even start a post for spelling errors as I’m sure it will get lots of use…

  2. Can u tell us more about you’re sweet-ass ’89 Camaro. What’s she run prolly like a 4.2? Im a classic car collector myself is why i ask. Got a ’84 Buick LeSabre that still runs like a dream.

  3. make a post about you’re sweet 89 camaro. Whats it run prolly a 4.2? Im a classic car guy myself too. Got an 84 Buick LeSabre and lemme say it still runs like a champ.

    1. It’s an RS with the t-top and V8. There’s a story behind it but I don’t have time to post about it now; I eventually will.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.