In re Marriage of Krieman v. Goldberg
Child support agreement with a floor violated public policy where the agreement is not time limited and has no opportunity for review.
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.
While a trial court can consider incarceration when as a basis for a request for a modification in child support, the fact of incarceration by itself neither mandates nor prevents modification.
Stipulation making future child support unmodifiable in the event of a change in placement is against public policy and void. However, stipulation forgiving arrearages is not contrary to public policy.
Restrictive child support provisions are against public policy. Further, a substantial change of circumstance occurred when James received placement of one of the children; therefore, the trial court properly entertained the motion to modify child support.
Trial court properly ordered retroactive child support where Husband failed to make proper financial disclosure.