I work in personal injury law for plaintiffs, so it’s typically us vs the insurance companies. In child support cases, if one parent has full custody and is demanding support from the other parent, what points would attorneys for the non-custodial parent explore? Do you find reasons not to pay, or are you there to ensure the non-custodial parent pays a fair amount? What if the non-custodial parent refuses to pay? Hope this makes sense. Thanks for what you do.
In Michigan, child support is based on a calculation involving both parents’ income, overnights, and other factors. There are deviation factors that courts can use to adjust the support amount.
One angle is to argue the non-custodial parent isn’t capable of earning much, so shouldn’t be liable for a high amount. You can also argue the custodial parent could earn more based on their qualifications and job experience.
Does it matter if the mother hid the pregnancy and the child for 2 years? That seems unfair and should have some weight in court.
No, he won’t owe back child support but will owe going forward. He might get a gradual visitation plan since there’s no existing relationship.
Thanks, everyone! I appreciate your insights. I often wonder how people end up not receiving child support.
In my jurisdiction, non-payment isn’t an option. There’s usually a minimum support amount, and judges can impute income for those who don’t work.
I don’t see it differently than criminal defense. You ensure the payee upholds their burden of proof for support calculations.
Child support is typically prescriptive with a calculator based on income and overnights. The argument often revolves around the accuracy of the inputs.
Strong arguments are usually income-based, showing that high support could impact the non-custodial parent’s ability to maintain housing and spend time with the child.