Impact of COVID-19 on Child Support and Support Obligations – What We Learned in 2020 | Flaster Greenberg PC

We are approaching the one year anniversary that COVID-19 began to significantly disrupt families, including families with separated or divorced parents. Many people suffered job losses and reduced incomes as small business owners, independent contractors and sole proprietors struggled to keep their businesses afloat amid a widespread financial crisis. For those with child support or alimony obligations, this created confusion and uncertainty about how the courts would handle these unprecedented situations.

Since last year, family courts have seen an unusual increase in the number of litigants seeking relief from their various financial obligations to their children or ex-spouses. Before the pandemic, someone who wanted to reduce alimony or child support would have to demonstrate a significant change in their financial situation during “normal” pre-COVID scenarios. This subjective legal standard was already confusing for most litigants, as what felt “significant” to one might seem trivial or insignificant to another. Fortunately, the courts have dealt with enough of these cases over the years to create more reliable criteria to guide litigants wishing to reduce their obligations. For example, courts routinely deny legal protection to litigants whose changed financial situation is temporary. For this reason it is not advisable to go to court the day after losing your job to try to get your child support reduced unless you can prove that you will not be hired again in the near future. In general, judges want to see that litigants losing their jobs have made ongoing, meaningful attempts to find alternative employment before the court considers exoneration. Similarly, individuals in areas where intermittent bouts of unemployment are common, such as B. Union employees, contract workers or seasonal workers, that the litigant budget his paychecks on an annual basis so that there is enough money to pay support even in the months that the worker is unemployed.

Courts are also examining the cause of shortfalls in litigation parties who want to reduce their maintenance obligations. Someone who has lost their job because their position has been terminated or their employer has been downsized will be subject to less scrutiny than someone who has lost their job for an important reason, e.g. B. Being fired for excessive absenteeism or poor performance. In the latter case, many judges will refuse exoneration, requiring the party to earn the same standard of income as at their old job, even if they are unemployed or now earning less money. This is known as “crediting” the income. The courts will also attribute income to people who voluntarily choose to change jobs for personal reasons, such as B. because they want a shorter commute or a better work-life balance.

Under this complex and unpredictable legal rubric, people have rushed to court during the COVID-19 pandemic. While courts were reluctant to grant permanent relief to litigants who suffered loss of income due to COVID at the beginning of the pandemic, judges are now showing more forbearance and accommodation in this regard. For example, while under pre-COVID standards a litigant would need to demonstrate several months of effort to find new employment before a judge would consider reducing a maintenance obligation, judges are more likely to grant immediate exoneration to a litigant who has lost his job COVID. However, this does not mean that a litigant can simply expect their obligation to remain low indefinitely. Instead, some judges grant restraining orders for a month or two – such as During the status update, the courts will examine litigant’s reinstatement efforts in light of the COVID-19 landscape. If a litigant can show that they have made a good faith effort to find new employment and have been unsuccessful, courts often extend reduced assistance for longer periods. Notwithstanding any short-term reductions in child support granted by the court, in both New Jersey and Pennsylvania, child support and child support payments are always subject to review based on the changed financial circumstances of the recipient or the debtor. That is, if a beneficiary was granted a reduction in alimony but takes up new employment at a later date, the alimony recipient would be entitled to request an immediate recalculation of his or her alimony or child support and would not have to wait for alimony to be paid in court, a status proceeding to schedule. In addition, if a breadwinner believes that a debtor is not making legitimate attempts to find new employment, the breadwinner may request that the court review the debtor’s efforts more closely.

The above might make it seem like if you lose your job due to COVID-19, you can relax and collect unemployment indefinitely while enjoying reduced maintenance obligations. This is not necessarily the case. In addition to routinely reassessing the situation and criticizing a litigant’s efforts to reinstate, some courts only suspend enforcement of the original maintenance obligation, but allow deficits to arise. For example, if a litigant owes $1,000 a month in child support and loses his job as a result of the pandemic, a judge could leave the obligation at $1,000 a month but allow the litigant to pay only $600 a month for a period of time. The unpaid $400 per month would accumulate as what is known as “arrears” and would eventually be paid to the recipient in the future. In addition, in temporary situations, judges can also seize the debtor’s assets, such as B. Savings and retirement accounts, review and order that the support be paid out of those assets instead of paying the support out of income. These types of agreements allow the court to even out the shares between the recipient of the assistance and the debtor, ensuring that the recipient will eventually be compensated for the losses. Because if a debtor pays less maintenance than the recipient is owed, in most cases the recipient and any children also suffer. Courts often try to create dynamic solutions that promote symmetry between two parties.

Another situation that has swamped the courts lately involves parents who have suffered changes in their income or employment due to increased childcare responsibilities. The majority of children now participate in 100% virtual or hybrid school models. Especially for families with younger children, this has led people to quickly and extensively adjust their schedules to ensure a parent is home to oversee a child’s “online” education. Even parents whose employers allow them to work from home have lost income because it’s not always possible to balance full-time homeschooling duties and full-time remote work. If a breadwinner in this situation applies to the court for an increase in alimony from the breadwinner because of their lower income, the courts tend to be more hospitable, although the decision to stop work is technically voluntary. In a pre-COVID environment, a litigator who unexpectedly stopped working because he suddenly decided he wanted to be a janitor would be suspected by the court and not very successful. Now the courts are recognizing that having children at home full-time when they would otherwise be at school 6-10 hours a day is the new normal, and that in the spirit of fairness to the parent adopting this new time of day, Adjustments must be made educational responsibility.

COVID-19 has presented the courts with a new set of challenges when it comes to alimony and child support issues. The old legal norms in force do not always produce just and equitable outcomes in a COVID-19 environment. While there are no ideal solutions in these situations that would please everyone, in the worst of times the courts do their best. If your financial circumstances change as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, it is best to consult with a knowledgeable and reputable family law attorney to assess your unique situation and determine the best remedy for you. Although the path to relief is not always easy and straightforward, relief can be possible.