This case certainly supports the stereotype.
Cheryl Kay TERPSTRA, Appellant-Petitioner,
v.
Dale TERPSTRA, Appellee-Defendant.
No. 45A04-9107-CV-244.
"Cheryl Kay Terpstra (Mother) appeals from a judgment for Dale Terpstra (Father), modifying a child support order following their marriage dissolution.
We affirm."
Next time you hear a father complaining about having to pay too much child support and that the children's mother is nothing but a greedy $%#@& it probably won't be Dale Terpstra saying it.
"Mother contends insufficient evidence exists to support the finding Father would have the children 50% of the time. She posits while the modified custody agreement provides Father will have the children 50% of the time, he will actually have the children only 28% of the available overnight time."
The ICSG provide the number of overnights as a presumptive basis of the costs associated with providing support for the children. However, courts are not bound by strict adherence to the Guidelines. "Trial courts must avoid the pitfall of blind adherence to the computation for support without giving careful consideration to the variables which require a flexible application of the guidelines." Talarico v. Smithson (1991), Ind. App., 579 N.E.2d 671, 673." Essentially the mother has the children 72% of overnights but only 50% of the total time. Her arguement that it costs her more to provide sleeping accommodations than other support is without merit and was unpersuasive to the court, rightfully so.
"The modification order stipulated the parties have joint legal and physical custody of their three minor children. Father testified the children would be with him approximately 50% of the time. He presented a calendar which highlighted all the days he would have custody of the children. By Father's calculations, he would have custody of the children over 50% of the days available. He argues during this time food, household goods, clothing, transportation, health care, and recreational expenses will be purchased and consumed."
"In the agreed modification, the trial court stated '[s]ince father has the minor children approximately 50% of the time, the court finds that a deviation from the guidelines is appropriate....' "
Interestingly this was an agreed modification. I guess she started reading the Guidelines in only the manner most favourable to her and then decided to appeal. By the time they reached the end of this appeal it appears the justices may have been a bit annoyed with the complete frivolousness of it which was not based upon any standing in law.
It is important to note in the following paragraph that she has not contributed to the support of the children as agreed.
"Mother's argument ignores the totality of the circumstances in this case. The record reveals because during their marriage Mother and Father agreed to send their children to a Christian school, the original dissolution decree required Mother to pay a portion of that cost. She has never done so. Father paid all tuition and fees to send the oldest child to school and the second oldest to preschool. Father also paid health insurance premiums for the children as well as money directly to the children's dentist and pediatrician. Additionally, Father is responsible for all transportation for the children between the parties' households. He seeks no child support contribution from Mother while the children are with him under the modified order despite increased household expenses."
"Absent an abuse of discretion, we cannot substitute our judgment for that of the trial court. [W]e cannot say the trial court's award is clearly against the logic and effect of the total facts and circumstances before it. The trial court did not abuse its discretion."
Affirmed.
CONOVER - CHEZEM and BAKER, JJ., concur.
Mother also had some other arguments that fell flat on their face. Here is one of those.
"Mother contends the trial court erred when it failed to account for Father's imputed income relating to the automobile provided him through his insurance business.
Father testified he has two vehicles, a business vehicle and a personal vehicle. He runs approximately $250 worth of business expenses for the car used for business through his subchapter S corporation."
I am surprised she didn't argue that the office space he leases for his business could actually be used as living accommodations and ask that this duplicated expenses also be imputed as income. The vehicle was not provided to him as an employment benefit to be used in place of him having and maintaining his own vehicle. The court correctly did not count this as a personal benefit and impute it as income.
Cheryl Kay Terpstra is certainly a loser of a parent who makes even the most caring and supporting mothers look like nothing but greedy baby-makers who see fathers as an ATM. Hopefully her character, dominated by laziness and greed, did not have a significant influence on the children.
All parents should be mindful that the purpose of the Indiana Child Support Guidelines is to provide for the support of the children by BOTH parents. There are times when it will be appropriate to raise or lower a child support payment order which may result in a hardship for either or both parents.
Child support payments are not to be a windfall for the receiving parent nor are they to be punitive towards the paying parent. There are remedies within the judicial system to accommodate parents who feel that the children are not being supported. Proper pleading should be used to address these concerns.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Make a suggestion for me to write about.
Parents who would like to achieve the best outcome for their children in a contested child custody case should visit my website and contact my scheduler to make an appointment to meet with me. Attorneys may request a free consultation to learn how I can maximize their advocacy for their clients.
Connect with me for the latest Indiana child custody related policy considerations, findings, court rulings and discussions. 
No comments:
Post a Comment