Court tomorrow need support

[Before you can make things better, you have to stop making them worse...]

Hey everyone.  I have my first court hearing for 'CS support$' upcoming.  I've never been to court (i.e. before a judge) only mediation for custody which has been settled.  The whole affair, including seeing my udBPstbxw, has me feeling very uncomfortable.  All the preparation and work with my attorney has been done.  Just looking for some support from anyone who has experienced this.

[theirdad]

Hey everyone.  I have my first court hearing for 'CS support$' upcoming.  I've never been to court (i.e. before a judge) only mediation for custody which has been settled.  The whole affair, including seeing my udBPstbxw, has me feeling very uncomfortable.  All the preparation and work with my attorney has been done.  Just looking for some support from anyone who has experienced this.

[marbleloser]

This one should be no problem td.You're attorney,and hers, will do most of the talking,probably before the judges bench.If you aren't being accused of anything,there won't be a need for you to testify.

Are you fighting the cs amount or anything?

[Matt]

Yeah, what's the best and worst outcomes that could happen?

And has your attorney described how this will happens - who will say what - how long it will take, etc.?

[Murbay]

I'm sorry theirdad, I will offer my support and also think of you during your case but I cannot advise since I haven't been through the process myself.

From what I know, marbleloser is quite right in the sense that the attorneys will do all the talking and you just need to be present. Which might be a daunting prospect on it's own but stay calm and just look at it as a step forward. Have you briefed your attorney on her behaviours? Does he know what he is up against in case she tries to put anything else on you?

[ForeverDad]

Does your spouse work?  If she does, then she should bring her tax returns to prove income, just like you will have to do.  If she doesn't work, then try to get the court to 'impute' her income based on what she could earn.  It should be at least minimum wage.  These days both parents often work so she can't claim "I can't work because I am a Stay At Home Mother."  Maybe that's the history, but unless you're independently wealthy, you want, no, need, her to get working on generating her own income.  Of course, that goes both ways, what you can ask of her then she can ask of you, but generally fathers are the ones expected to have the deepest pockets.  (As in, go your own way dad, start a new life, come back for visitation if you want, but leave your wallet with us.)

In my case, filed in 2006, final in 2008, my ex has never documented her income to the court.  Court always 'imputes' her earnings (good!) at minimum wage which is somewhere about $15K annually plus or minus (frustratingly low!) because she never produces proof of income (bad!).  Meanwhile, she has accumulated at least 2 and maybe 3 state licenses in her chosen line of work.  I'm back in family court again this summer and if court wants to push for her to keep getting CS then I'm going to press for CS to be dropped until she produces her required tax returns.  Why should I always comply and she never does?  Oh, yeah, don't answer that.

[scraps66]

My experience is sort of like FD's, my ex has had different jobs each of the las four years.  However I am the one that has to file petitions to produce her income.  She's obligated by law to, but has never been reprimanded.  So, over those four years, lots of mistakes have been made with support based on alwasy correcting support going back a year or two.  And this also can rack up arrearages.

My advice, get familiar with the calculations - check them all.  I had taken a hands off approach thinking that my L and court would do all the work correctly.  Not the case.

Make sure that she does have proof of income including that tax return.  Domestic relations is very lax about what infomration they use to calculate support.  They should not use just a pay stub.  This prevents the calculation from accounting for yuor tax withholding, if you are over withholding - like I do - that would give you an erroneously low monthly support obligation and if they catch up with you, you would owe all of the back support.  What I'm saying is, she can play games with her income if she doesn't produce all of her income info. including her tax most recent return.

This should be very tame for you.  Surprised you're in front of a judge and not just a master.  Just learn how to do the calculations yourself to check the numbers every time they are modified.       

[theirdad]

Thank you everyone for your support & thoughts.  My attorney said it should be as marbleloser stated- attorneys doing most if not all the talking.  No accusations I'm aware of.  I am disputing the cs amount.  Everything in terms of incomes etc is well documented on both sides.  My position I feel is reasonable and strong.  Just the reality having to be there, dealing with her and the attorneys etc leaves me feeling uncomfortable. just want it over with

[marbleloser]

Good.If her attorney is smart,he'll leave it at the cs issue and not try to bring in other topics.You don't do that when on the defensive.Since you have documentation as to why cs should be lower,the attorneys might even agree before ever getting in front of the judge.

[theirdad]

Thanks marble loser.   I'm told that is highly probable outcome. 

[Matt]

Good.If her attorney is smart,he'll leave it at the cs issue and not try to bring in other topics.You don't do that when on the defensive.Since you have documentation as to why cs should be lower,the attorneys might even agree before ever getting in front of the judge.

Yes, my reaction too.  Be ready for the attorneys to talk briefly and then put something in front of you.  Be prepared for that and think about what might be acceptable to you - maybe not as good as you hope but better than the status quo.  Keep in mind that the court could rule against you.  But if your lawyer puts something in front of you which isn't acceptable, and if your state's guidelines are on your side, you also have the option to say "No - let's talk to the judge".

Attorneys like to make deals, not always in their clients' interests.  Judge for yourself.

[Waddams]

Attorney's don't like to get in front in the judge in highly contentious cases because sometimes the judge just assumes everyone is acting like an a$$ (and there's usually some truth to that) and blasts everyone accordingly.

I think judges also don't like deciding things they think normal adults should be able to work out on their own and get mad at all involved when they think the case is stupid or frivolous.  And to judges stupid can encompass a great deal of things drug into court that are tainted with BPD drama.

Make your best fight for what you believe best serves you and your family.  Don't be afraid or let the lawyers inspire fear that leads you to accepting something that you will regret later.

[Waddams]

How'd it go?  Hope it turned out good for you.

[theirdad]

Thanks everyone for your advice/support.  My day in court went well. After 4 or so hours of failed negotiations outside the courtroom the judge ultimately settled on a number within the range of what I had planned on settling for.  It is good to have most of the legal stuff done with.  Thanks again.

[ForeverDad]

Judges - and most of the professionals involved too - really want a settlement.  That they hung around for 4+ hours shows just how much they preferred a 'deal'.  Besides feeding hopes that the soon-to-be-ex-spouses will accept things better with a mutual settlement, judges like not having to decide and then one of the litigants make an appeal.  Settlements can't be appealed.

But something we don't want to lose sight of is the general fact that a judge would likely hand down a better decision than what an unreasonable and unreasoning stbEx would consider.

Often the decision whether to accept a poor settlement or let the judge decide hinges on the cost/benefit ratio of whether the added expense of getting the judge's ruling will get a sufficiently better outcome.