[this8384]

An individual was volunteering for at least 8 hours of overtime every week. Once a support order was issued against them, they stopped volunteering for overtime, changed their schedule and cut their hours by at least 10 hours per week. Will the courts reduce the amount of support they are required to pay, or will the courts see it as them trying to get out of paying more support than they have to?

[cdad]

Depends on how the original order was written in the first place. Also if this is a permanent or temporary reduction in hours. A lot of businesses are cutting back these days. It wouldn't be unheard of for a temporary reduction to take place.

[this8384]

Depends on how the original order was written in the first place. Also if this is a permanent or temporary reduction in hours. Alot of businesses are cutting back these days. It wouldnt be unheard of for a temporary reduction to take place.

No, this was a voluntary reduction. The support order was just written this month; the person who has to pay has been working their scheduled 40 hours plus volunteering for overtime since last year.

As soon as the order got written and money started being withheld, they've changed their schedule to reduce their hours - kind of fishy, in my opinion. If the business was doing poorly, why would they have been giving out overtime?

[cdad]

Its not for me to decide what's going on in a given business. I have seen many that have used overtime to fill slots that would otherwise go to new hires. Then cut back without having a lay off. I don't know the stratagy of what's going on.
I was just stating what could happen based upon today's times.

[stinawords]

I could see it getting reduced because you can't force the person to work especially overtime. While it does seem like a strategy to lower support I think it could work. Even people that quit their job for whatever reason are able to get a reduction for whatever time they are unemployed. However, the court may institute other measures to help that person find a job but that isn't the case here. The job is still in place.

[GV70]

I could see it getting reduced because you can't force the person to work especially overtime.

Yup!

[this8384]

I could see it getting reduced because you can't force the person to work especially overtime. While it does seem like a strategy to lower support I think it could work. Even people that quit their job for whatever reason are able to get a reduction for whatever time they are unemployed. However, the court may institue other measures to help that person find a job but that isn't the case here. The job is still in place.

I'm not saying they should be forced to work overtime; that's a personal preference. My point is that the work is available, so much that they've been volunteering for and receiving overtime - suddenly, they have to pay child support so they cut their own hours. Like you pointed out, that would be like someone quitting their job just to get the amount lowered.

I guess I'm just surprised that the court doesn't do more to ensure that children are being reasonably provided for. If a former employer can require a laid-off/fired employee to look for another job, why can't the courts do the same? For example: I know a couple in this state who split up a few years back. The father got laid off over almost two years ago and hasn't even attempted to get another job; the mother receives $26 a week in child support and is feeding off the state to provide for her kids. Wouldn't you think they'd at least pretend they wanted him to get him off his butt and start supporting his son so that the taxpayers don't have to?

[stinawords]

Again you can't force a person to work that is slavery which was outlawed a long time ago. However, for certain things the person has to show attempts at gettting a job. Such as the laid off/fired person. That person can not be forced to look for a job by the old company they are just told that unless they do the old company will not pay any compensation. While I too get frustrated when I see someone sitting on their butt living off my tax money there are only certain things that can be done to encourage that person to find work. Such as what I mentioned before they won't be elegible for benefits unless they are trying to find a job and even working min. wage.

[this8384]

Again you can't force a person to work that is slavery which was outlawed a long time ago. However, for certain things the person has to show attempts at gettting a job. Such as the laid off/fired person. That person can not be forced to look for a job by the old company they are just told that unless they do the old company will not pay any compensation. While I too get frustrated when I see someone sitting on their butt living off of my tax money there are only certain things that can be done to encourage that person to find work. Such as what I mentioned before they won't be elegible for benefits unless they are trying to find a job and even working min. wage.

I think the whole system is just frustrating. In my opinion, your support shouldn't be reduced because of your own actions, like if you cut your own hours or quit your job. But if you got laid off and are actively making an effort to work elsewhere, I'd say that's grounds for a reduction - it wasn't something you chose to do.

I know another woman who has three kids by three different fathers, isn't collecting support from any of them, gets more state assistance than I have hairs on my head, and then to top it all off, sells drugs so that she doesn't have to get a job to pay for all of her partying. If the state would require those fathers to support their children, my tax money wouldn't be paying for all of her tattoos and drinking.

[GV70]

Ms child support guidelines

I. INCOME DEFINITION
B. In individual cases, the court may choose to disregard overtime income or income derived from a second job. However, consideration of such income may be appropriate in certain instances such as those where such income constituted a regular source of income when the family was intact.