We are approaching the one year anniversary when COVID-19 first caused significant disruption to families, including families with separated or divorced parents. Many people suffered job losses and lost income while small business owners, independent contractors and sole proprietorships struggled to keep their businesses alive amid a widespread financial crisis. For those with maintenance or support obligations, this created confusion and uncertainty about how the courts would deal with these unprecedented situations.
Since last year there has been an unusual increase in the number of litigants in family courts who wish to free themselves from their various financial obligations towards their children or ex-spouses. Before the pandemic, in “normal” pre-COVID scenarios, someone who wanted to reduce child support or child benefit had to prove a significant change in their financial circumstances. This subjective legal standard was already confusing for most litigants, as what felt “significant” to one person might seem trivial or insignificant to another. Fortunately, the courts have addressed enough of these cases over the years that more reliable criteria have emerged to guide litigation seeking to lower their obligations. For example, courts routinely refuse relief to litigants whose changed financial circumstances are only temporary. For this reason, unless you can demonstrate that you will not be reinstated in the near future, rushing to court to lower your child’s livelihood the day after you lose your job is not wise. In general, judges want to see that litigants who lose their jobs have consistently and sensibly sought replacement employment before the court considers granting relief. Similarly, for those in areas where unemployment is a regular occurrence, such as union workers, contract workers or seasonal industries, the litigant is expected to budget their paychecks on an annual basis so that there is enough money to support them even in the months in which the employee is unemployed.
The courts also rigorously examine the cause of loss of income for litigants who want to lower their support obligations. Someone who has lost their job because their position has been quit or their employer has been downsized will be less scrutinized than someone who has lost their job for good cause, e.g. B. because he was dismissed for excessive absenteeism or poor performance. In the latter case, many judges will withhold relief and keep that party on the same standard of income as they had in their old job, even if they are unemployed or are now making less money. This is known as “crediting” the income. Courts will also attribute income to individuals who voluntarily choose to change jobs for personal reasons, e.g. B. because they want a shorter way to work or a better work-life balance.
Under this complex and unpredictable legal rubric, people rushed to court during the COVID-19 pandemic. While the courts were reluctant to give permanent relief to litigants who had suffered lower incomes due to COVID at the start of the pandemic, the judges are now showing more leniency and precaution in this regard. For example, while a litigator would have to demonstrate efforts to secure new employment for several months under pre-COVID standards before a judge would consider lowering the support obligation, judges are more likely to grant immediate relief to a litigator who has lost his job COVID. However, this does not mean that a litigator can simply expect their obligation to remain low indefinitely. Instead, some judges grant temporary relief – such as temporary cuts in support – for a month or two, and then ask the parties to meet for a status update. During the status update, the courts will investigate the litigator’s efforts to get reemployment in light of the COVID-19 landscape. When a litigant can demonstrate that he has made good faith efforts to find new employment and has been unsuccessful, the courts often extend the reduced assistance for longer periods of time. Notwithstanding any short-term cuts in support granted by the court, child child support and child support payments in New Jersey and Pennsylvania will always be reviewed based on the recipient’s or debtor’s changed financial circumstances. This means that the beneficiary of the support would be entitled to request an immediate recalculation of his or her child support if a litigant were granted a reduction in support but then found new employment at a later date, rather than on the Court alimony would have to wait to plan status proceedings. If a beneficiary believes that a debtor is not making legitimate attempts to find new employment, the beneficiary can file a motion for the court to analyze the debtor’s efforts.
The above could make it seem that if you lose your job due to COVID-19, you can relax and accumulate unemployment indefinitely, while benefiting from reduced support obligations. This is not necessarily the case. In addition to the routine reassessment of the situation and criticism of the re-employment efforts of a legal dispute, some courts only suspend the enforcement of the original support obligation, but allow any deficits to arise. For example, if a litigator owes $ 1,000 a month in child support and lost his job as a result of the pandemic, a judge could keep the obligation at $ 1,000 a month but allow the litigator to only pay $ 600 a month for a period of time to pay. The unpaid $ 400 per month would be “arrears” and would be paid out to the recipient in the future. In addition, in temporary situations, judges can also review the debtor’s assets, such as savings and retirement accounts, and instruct that support come from those assets rather than income. This type of arrangement allows the court to balance the shares between the recipient of the assistance and the debtor to ensure that the recipient is eventually compensated for the losses. In most situations the recipient and all children suffer when a debtor pays less support than the recipient owes. Courts often try to create dynamic solutions that promote symmetry between two parties.
Another situation that has recently flooded the courts concerns parents who have experienced changes in their income or employment due to increased childcare obligations. The majority of children now participate in 100% virtual or hybrid school models. For families with younger children in particular, this has resulted in people adjusting their schedules quickly and extensively to ensure that a parent is at home to oversee a child’s “online” parenting. Even parents whose employers allow them to work from home have seen income losses because it is not always possible to combine full-time responsibility for schooling and full-time remote working. If a beneficiary requests the court to increase the debtor’s assistance due to their lower income in this situation, 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 become a janitor would be suspected by the court and not be very successful. Now the courts recognize that having children at home full time when they were in school 6-10 hours a day is the new normal and that adjustments must be made in a spirit of fairness to parents who do so new time of day take on educational responsibility.
COVID-19 has presented the courts with a number of new challenges when it comes to child support and child support. The old applicable legal standards do not always lead to just and equitable results in a COVID-19 environment. While there are no ideal solutions that everyone would like in these situations, the courts do the best they can in the worst of times. If there are any changes in your financial situation due to the COVID-19 pandemic, you should seek assistance from a knowledgeable and reputable family law attorney to assess your unique situation and determine the best remedy for you. Although the path to relief may not always be easy and straightforward, relief may be possible.
Comments are closed.