Columnist Sandy Thompson: Child support hike devastates man

Sandy Thompson

Saturday, Feb. 3, 2001 | 11:02 a.m.

Sandy Thompson is vice president/associate editor of the Las Vegas Sun. She can be reached at 259-4025 or e-mail at thompson@lasvegassun.com

SHOULD lifestyle and a disparity in income be major factors in determining child support payments?

A Las Vegas man thinks so, and is appealing a Family Court order that increased his monthly support payments.

For the children's sake, we will refer to the man only by his first name. According to a mediated divorce settlement, Ray was to pay $600 a month in support to his ex-wife for their three children. His salary is about $41,000 a year. His ex-wife's salary is $61,000. She has primary custody of the children; he has every other weekend with them.

Ray thought the agreement would be binding and indefinite. But according to the court, child support can be reviewed every three years. As a result, Ray's support payments were raised to $900 beginning Jan. 1.

"The increase will devastate me," Ray said. "It will keep me buried in a hole. I'm going to be homeless."

In July, Ray's ex-wife filed a motion to modify the divorce decree and seek the increase in support. Ray, who represented himself in the proceedings, contended the original settlement should be adhered to. Judge Dianne Steel, however, said she was not bound by the couple's decision-making process. She said she could change the child support "regardless of the agreement of the parties."

Ray said he would not have agreed to the divorce settlement if he had known it could not be enforced. He said he received very little of the marital assets, which put him in a huge financial bind. For a time he slept on friends' couches or in his car, he said.

"I need relief ... to recover from the divorce," he told the judge.

Ray contended that according to Nevada statutes, disparity of income and lifestyle should be taken into consideration when setting child support. The judge disagreed, saying the statute does not specify lifestyle as a consideration.

Steel noted that his ex-wife's request was six months before the three-year review, so she ordered the increase to be effective Jan. 1.

According to court videotapes, Ray's ex-wife's attorney acknowledged there was a disparity in income, but pointed out that Ray's overtime earnings had not been factored in, per the divorce settlement.

Ray said he had been paying bills with the overtime earned, but the hours were "inhuman," and he wanted to work normal shifts. He also said that would allow him to spend more time with his children. As it stands, he said, he can not afford to give them things or take them on trips as his ex-wife does.

Ray went back to court in September to ask Steel to reconsider the increase. Despite his request for a review of circumstances and finances to prove his claims and show the monthly disparity in income, which was in dispute, there was no evidentiary hearing. There also was no mention of the needs of the children.

Steel acknowledged that his ex-wife's motion to raise support was premature, which was why she set the increase to begin in January. The judge said she tried to avoid having another hearing on the matter. She told Ray that if he still considered the increase unfair, he should return to court in January and ask for a review. Ray is in the process of gathering material for the review.

Steel said Ray did not give a legal reason why the order should not stand. Because his points were a rehash of those made at the July hearing, the judge ordered him to pay $500 in fees for his ex-wife's attorney.

Ray said he has a close bond with his children and wants to provide for them. He said he had waived certain community property rights in consideration of his financial plight, lifestyle and the needs of his three children in the long run. Ray said he just wants equal footing, to recover financially and eventually gain joint custody of his children.