Child Support Modification Dispute

Summary

The non-custodial parent filed a motion to modify child support, citing the twins emancipation. Illinois law requires support for college expenses until age 23. The user can object by highlighting the delay in payments, the significant income disparity, and the legal obligation to support college expenses. The user should also address irrelevant statements made by the opposing attorney and emphasize the financial strain caused by delayed payments. Consulting a local attorney is advisable for personalized advice.

Full Conversation

Alisa

Hello Alisa, nice to meet you. How can I assist you with your legal issue today?

I have a question for example the non-custodial parent through his attorney and Chicago Illinois cook county files a motion to modify child support claiming circumstances has risen pursuant to our twin sons being 18 years old and graduating high school so he is stating in his motion to modify that on November *, * in order for child support was ordered in the amount of $* per month to be paid biweekly beginning December *, * however I did not start receiving those monthly child support payments until April *, * due to the fact that he miss lead the court by providing his ex employers information on his attorneys pretrial memorandum for wage withholding when I did start receiving the child support payments on April *, * in the amount of $*.* when it is supposed to be $*.* Motion also states based on the above child support should be recalculated and modified based on the parties one remaining minor child retroactive to the date Of him attempting to deprive are twins of a college education

Hello Alisa, based on your situation, some key points under Illinois law are:
- Child support modifications can be made if there's a significant change in circumstances.
- Misleading the court can be grounds for contempt.
- Retroactive modifications are typically to the date of filing the motion, not necessarily to the date of the change in circumstances.
You should consult with a local attorney for specific advice.

So my question is how do I phrase in my objection to his motion despite the court ordering child support to begin on December *, * the first child support payments were not received until April *, *

You might phrase your objection as follows:
"I object to the motion to modify child support. Despite court's order for payments to commence on December *, *, the first payment wasn't received until April *, *. This delay was due to misleading information provided by the non-custodial parent involving former employer details for wage withholding."

How would I say it’s a pre-trial was held on November *, * the order was made based on false information the payment schedule was to begin on December *, * I received one child support payment in the amount of $*.* on December *, * because I contacted his attorney and did not receive any child support payments at all until April *, * which endangered the children’s well-being as there is a 16 day gap as I receive $* per month from SSI disability and the children’s snap benefits on the 17th of each month which forced me to hold off on paying bills to make sure the kids have money to survive

You could say: "A pre-trial occurred on November *, *, and the order was founded upon inaccurate information. Payments were scheduled to start on December *, *. I only received one payment of $*.* on December *, * after contacting his attorney. No further payments were received until April *, *, creating a *-day gap. As I receive SSI disability and SNAP benefits for the children on the 17th of each month, this forced me to delay bill payments to ensure the children's survival."

It also claims for states in his motion that a substantial change in circumstances has arisen pursuing to * ILCS5/* since the order for support was entered which warrants a modification of existing support order that upon information and belief the parties to eldest children both born in September * who are both at the age of * and will graduate high school based on above child support should be re-calculated and modified based on the parties one remaining child retroactive to the date of the emancipation of our twins

You could state: "The motion unjustly claims a substantial change in circumstances under * ILCS5/*, suggesting child support should be recalculated due to our twins' emancipation. However, the irregularity and delay of payments have had a severe impact on the welfare of all children involved."

But Illinois law statute states despite the boys being * and graduating high school he is still legally obligated to cover a college expenses and told her *

You could say: "Under Illinois law, despite our twins turning * and graduating high school, the non-custodial parent is still obligated to contribute towards their college expenses until they turn *. This obligation should be considered in any modification of the existing support order."

So how do I respond to the part where it says based on the above child support should be re-calculated and modified based on the parties one remaining minor child retroactive to the date of the emancipation of the two boys

You could respond with: "Illinois law requires the non-custodial parent to support children until age * for college expenses. Thus, recalculating child support based only on the youngest child, and making it retroactive to the twins' emancipation, is not in line with these obligations."

It also states that the parties to Elda’s children emancipating concentrates a substantial change in the circumstances that warrants modification of child support

You might respond: "While our elder children's emancipation is a change in circumstance, Illinois law mandates continued support for college expenses until age *. This factor should be accounted for in any modification of child support."

The noncustodial parent filed this through his attorney for the fact that I’ve provided copies of our twin sons financial aid award letters and monthly breakdown of what their monthly tuition will be at concordia University he retaliated in response to that was extremely threatening and abusive emails and then filed the motion to modify child support it’s an attempt to deprive them of a college education

You could say: "The noncustodial parent's motion is retaliatory and an attempt to deprive our twins of their right to a college education. His actions are abusive and contrary to Illinois law that requires parents to support children's college expenses until age *."

I also noticed a pattern by the non-custodial parent’s attorney she will list the exact same misleading statements one through * and every single motion that are irreverent to anything stated in my emotions and then she will start listing the irreverent statements what is that called

This is often referred to as a "Gish Gallop." It's a tactic where one party overwhelms the other with numerous arguments, regardless of their relevance or accuracy. It can be a challenge to respond to each point, so focus on the most important issues.

And what can I do about that

You could address this in your response by stating: "The non-custodial parent's attorney consistently includes irrelevant and misleading statements. I request the court to disregard these and focus on the key issues at hand." It's also advisable to get legal assistance to navigate this strategy.

So can I list the irreverent issues at hand first and then reply to the email ruffling baseless statements

Yes, you can list the irrelevant issues first to clarify what is off-topic. Then, respond to the email by addressing the baseless statements, always focusing on the key points of your case. It's recommended to have legal assistance to ensure your responses are effective and precise.

What it be all right if I would write something like the respondents claim of substantial change in circumstances due to the boys turning * and graduating from high school is not valid this Event was foreseeable and does not constitute a substantial change that warrants a modification of child support order as per * ILCS5/* A2

Yes, that's a valid point to make. You're arguing that the boys' age and graduation were predictable, and therefore don't meet the standard of a "substantial change in circumstances" under * ILCS5/* (A)(*). It's a sound argument to include in your response.

I also wrote under Illinois law specifically * ILC55/* the court has the authority to order either or both parents to contribute to the educational expenses of the children even after they have reached the age of majority and graduated from high school

That's correct, Alisa. You could say: "Under Illinois law, specifically * ILC55/*, the court has the authority to require both parents to contribute to our children's educational expenses post-high school graduation. This obligation should be considered in any modification of support."

I also wrote the respondent has a monthly income exceeding mine his monthly income is $*,* per month while my monthly income is only $* given this significant this disparity in income it is a quarter of a ball that in the best interest of the children for their father to fully cover the boys college expenses as per * ILCS5/*

You could state: "Given the significant income disparity, with the respondent earning $*,* per month while I earn $*, it's equitable and in the children's best interest that he fully cover the boys' college expenses, as outlined in * ILCS5/*."

I also stated the respondents motion to modify and terminate child support is without merit given the clear provisions of Illinois law under * ILCS5/* and the significant this party in income between the parties

You could say: "The respondent's motion to modify and terminate child support lacks merit given the clear provisions under Illinois law, specifically * ILCS5/*, and the significant income disparity between the parties." It's a strong statement that emphasizes your position.

How would I say a pre-trial occurred on November *, * and the order was founded upon an accurate information this also led to a delay in child support payments payments were scheduled to start on December *, * I only received one payment of $*.* on December *, * after contacting his attorney no further payments were received until April *, * as I receive only $* from SSI that are used for car payment insurance storage and phone bill I was forced

You could state: "A pre-trial took place on November *, *, where the order was based on inaccurate information, leading to a delay in child support payments. Scheduled to start on December *, *, I only received one payment of $*.* on December *, * following communication with his attorney. Subsequent payments didn't start until April *, *. Given my limited income from SSI, this caused financial strain."

This forced me to delay bill payments to ensure the childrens survival

You can phrase it as: "The delay in support payments compelled me to postpone bill payments, putting a strain on my financial resources and endangering the children's wellbeing. It was crucial to prioritize their survival over other financial obligations."

I need to know how to state I only receive $* on the first of every month from SSI disability which go to car payment storage phone bill call insurance leaving nothing for the children as their snap benefits don’t come in till the 17th of each month

You can phrase it as: "My sole income is $* monthly SSI disability payments, used for car payments, storage, phone bills, and insurance, leaving nothing for the children. Their SNAP benefits arrive on the 17th each month, creating a financial gap detrimental to their wellbeing."

How would I state that the delay caused a danger to the children survival

You could state: "The delay in child support payments created a hazardous environment for my children's survival. Due to limited income resources, the holdup in receiving support payments put their wellbeing in immediate jeopardy."

So can I put a paragraph stating a pre-trial occurred on November *, * and the order was founded upon intentional in accurate information which also caused a delay in child support payments as I only received one payment on December *, * of $*.* after contacting his attorney no further payments were received until April *, * three months and two weeks that delay in child support payments endangered the children survival as I only receive $* from SSI disability that are used for the car payment the car insurance cell phone bills and storage living nothing for the children as their snap benefits do not come in until the 17th of each month

You could write: "The pre-trial on November *, *, was based on intentionally inaccurate information, causing a delay in child support payments. Only one payment of $*.* was received on December *, *, after contacting his attorney, with no further payments until April *, *. This delay, lasting over three months, endangered the children's wellbeing as my sole income of $* from SSI is allocated to car payments, insurance, phone bills, and storage, leaving no funds for the children. Their SNAP benefits aren't available until the 17th of each month."

Yes, you can phrase it as: "A pre-trial occurred on November *, *, where the order was based on intentionally inaccurate information, causing a delay in child support payments. I only received one payment of $*.* on December *, *, after contacting his attorney. No further payments were received until April *, *. This delay of over three months endangered the children's wellbeing as my sole income of $* from SSI disability is used for car payments, insurance, cell phone bills, and storage, leaving nothing for the children. Their SNAP benefits arrive only on the 17th of each month, forcing me to delay bill payments to ensure the children's survival."

How do I reply to their statement in their motion where it says based on the above child support should be re-calculated and modified based on the parties one remaining minor child retroactive to The date of emancipation of the two boys

You could respond: "Per Illinois law, despite the twins' emancipation, the non-custodial parent is still obligated to support their college expenses until age *. Thus, recalculating child support solely based on the youngest child and making it retroactive to the twins' emancipation is inconsistent with these obligations."

What’s a better way to shut them down

To counter their motion effectively, consider these steps:
*. Emphasize the respondent's obligation to support the twins' college expenses until they're *, as per Illinois law.
*. Highlight the significant income disparity.
*. Mention the detrimental effects on your children due to delayed payments.
*. Consult with a local attorney to ensure you're effectively addressing all points.

I want to know what should I reply for that statement in their motion based on the above child support should be very calculated and modified based on the parties one remaining child retroactive to the date of emancipation of the boys

You could respond: "The motion's proposal to recalculate child support based solely on our remaining minor child, retroactive to the twins' emancipation, is contrary to Illinois law, which requires support for college expenses until age *. This oversight in the proposed modification should be rectified."

What other way can I respond

You could also say: "It's inappropriate to recalculate child support based solely on our youngest child and make it retroactive to the twins' emancipation. Under Illinois law, the non-custodial parent has a duty to support the twins' college expenses until they turn *. This obligation must be considered."

Another way to reply to the statement

You could respond: "The motion's suggestion of recalculating child support based only on our youngest child, and retroactively to the twins' emancipation, overlooks Illinois law's requirement of supporting the twins' college expenses until age *. Such a recalibration disregards this crucial obligation."

What’s more

You could also respond: "Proposing to recalculate child support based solely on our youngest child and making it retroactive to the twins' emancipation, neglects the non-custodial parent's duty under Illinois law to support the twins' college expenses until they're *. Hence, this proposal is at odds with the law."

I want to respond to that question simply but makes a loud impact on the noncustodial parent on his attorney

You could say: "Recalculating child support based solely on our youngest child, retroactive to the twins' emancipation, ignores Illinois law, which obligates support for college expenses until age *. This proposed modification is inconsistent with legal requirements."

Do I cite the Illinois statute for college expenses in my abjection

Yes, citing the specific Illinois statute (* ILCS */*) in your objection reinforces your argument. You could say, "Per * ILCS */* of Illinois law, the non-custodial parent has an obligation to support the twins' college expenses until age *, which the proposed modification overlooks."

How is his attorney filing such emotions especially being an attorney and knowing the laws

Attorneys might file such motions based on their interpretation of the law or their client's instructions. It's essential to respond appropriately and consult a legal professional to ensure your rights are protected under Illinois law.

So in the part where it says where is for Eyes a pro se petitioner what should I write

In the section where it asks for the pro se petitioner, you should write your name and contact information. As a pro se litigant, you're representing yourself in the case. Make sure to include your current address and phone number for court communications.

And there motion and says weather for the respondent praise that this honorable Court enter the following orders granting the respondent motion to modify child support modifying child support based on the parties remaining child retroactive to the ambassador version of the boys so what should I write in my

You can write: "I object to the motion to modify the child support order. The proposed modification is based on an inaccurate understanding of the obligations under Illinois law, specifically * ILCS */*, which requires support for college expenses until age *, not solely based on the youngest child."

Child Support Modification Dispute

Summary

Full Conversation

Related Chats