Rose v. Rose
Rose v. Rose, No. 2024AP381: WIS. STAT. § 767.59(1r)(e) does not require the payer of child support to exercise placement for a period of sixty consecutive days in order to be eligible for a child support credit.
Poehnelt v. Poehnelt
Change in cost of living is sufficient change of circumstances to modify child support.
Sommer v. Sommer
(1) Personal Injury damage award can be considered in determining modification of child support. (2) Court should look to needs of children and income of parents (best interests of kids inherent in “need” – not a separate category.
In Re Marriage of Tozer v. Tozer
Remarriage and quitting military career are changes in circumstances, but do not warrant modification of support.
In Re Marriage of Strawser v. Strawser
Nunc pro tunc orders are only to correct mechanical mistakes – a court cannot retroactively grant or increase support.
Marriage of Pergolski v. Pergolski
Automatic reduction in child support for every mile mother moves is abuse of discretion – court must find actual fiscal impact.
In Re Marriage of Burger v. Burger
(1) New spouse’s income does not count for child support. (2) Increased age of kids is substantial change in circumstances. (3) Custodial parent’s income is irrelevant in determining need or ability to pay percentage standards – paying parent’s income is sole relevant factor to be considered. (4) Social Security benefits paid to kids when father was disabled do not replace child support, but are a separate benefit. (5) Modification of child support can only be made where there has been a substantial change of circumstances.
Marriage of Peters (Oatman) v. Peters
Failure to visit children by father is not a change of circumstances entitling mother to more child support without a showing of the financial consequences.
Marriage of Long v. Wasielewski
Percentage standards do not apply to post-judgment modification of child support.
In Re Marriage of Honore v. Honore
Stipulation maintaining specified level of child support notwithstanding subsequent reduction in income is enforceable and not contrary to public policy.