Tag Archives: Child Support

In re the Parental Responsibilities of L.K.Y. and J.R.Y., and Concerning Karen Elizabeth Peabody, and Angela Francis Young, n/k/a Evan Young, 2013COA108 (July 3, 2013)

“I’m for gay marriage, because I’m for gay divorce.”- Melissa Etheridge. Following the dissolution of a California domestic partnership, the same-sex parents of twins, who had moved to Colorado, sought a declaration of custodial rights and child support. The parent claiming support (Young) was in the military and received a stipend for off-base living. The magistrate did not deduct the stipend from her gross salary calculations because it qualifies as money that reduces Young’s personal living expense. If deducted, Peabody’s support obligation would be reduced by reducing the needs of the children. Peabody appealed. The court of appeals agreed, holding it was a proper under CRS 14-10-115 to not deduct the stipend because the stipend was not a resource of the children. Therefore, the total award of child support was higher than it would have been without the stipend.

http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_of_Appeals/Opinion/2013/12CA1674-PD.pdf

http://www.cobar.org/opinions/opinion.cfm?opinionid=9025&courtid=1

Leave a comment

Filed under Family Law

[Re-post] In Re the Marriage of Jane Doe v. Charles B. Bruce, Jr., 2013COA43 (March 28, 2013)

“I’m an excellent housekeeper. Every time I get a divorce, I keep the house.” – Zsa Zsa Gabor. In this divorce case, Husband is ordered to make monthly payments of $5,000 in child support and $12,000 in maintenance (Obligations). He fails to pay, accumulates $101,486 in arrearages and has his law license suspended. The trial court permits Wife to collect from his retirement account pursuant to a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO) under 29 U.S.C. 1056 (ERISA). A QDRO allows a former spouse to obtain benefits owed to a participant in a retirement plan, and can be used to enforce payment of support and maintenance obligations. Under CRS 13-54-102, however, a retirement plan is not subject to such orders. The court of appeals held that Colorado’s law conflicts with ERISA, a Federal law, and is preempted. Husband’s retirement contributions could be taken to meet his Obligations.

[Please see comments regarding links]

1 Comment

Filed under Family Law, Trusts & Estates