In re Marriage of Kranz v. Kranz
RURESA order in Pennsylvania did not modify prior Wisconsin child support order and Wisconsin order continued to run.
RURESA order in Pennsylvania did not modify prior Wisconsin child support order and Wisconsin order continued to run.
Trial court properly exercised its discretion in not applying guidelines in modification hearing where parties did not use them at the divorce and the support ordered was sufficient to support the children.
Change in an administrative regulation alone does not constitute a substantial change in circumstances allowing modification of child support.
Legislative changes did not curtail the discretion of the court to set aside DHSS standards. Even though more that 33 months had passed, the child support agreement was still serving the needs of the child and was still fair to the parents.
Child support agreement with a floor violated public policy where the agreement is not time limited and has no opportunity for review.
Trial court cannot modify child support because order should have been based on a serial family payer. The order may have been in error, but it is not an error in calculation.
Where divorce was in Virginia, mother and child now live in Wisconsin, father lives in Delaware, Wisconsin cannot modify child support under UIFSA based on payor’s request.
No reduction in child support was an appropriate exercise of discretion where payer over withheld from his income to avoid paying support and had been receiving a veterans benefit which had not been included in his gross income.
The expiration of 33 months is a rebuttable presumption, but is not conclusive of a substantial change in circumstances. Here, the evidence did not show a substantial change.
Change in placement schedule in and of itself is not a substantial change in circumstances warranting a modification of child support.