Litigation

Child Support

Where both parents are “voluntarily impoverished,” hypothetical monthly child support expenses should not be awarded to the wife with the assumption that she will obtain full-time employment in the future. Shenk v. Shenk, No. 2349, September Term 2003, Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, October 28, 2004, as amended Nov. 23, 2004.

The parties had three children. The husband was previously employed by an Internet company earning $90,000 per year, and was currently employed as a waiter earning $30,000 per year. The wife worked part-time for her father's company, earning $1500 per month, but had the potential to earn $45,000 per year. After a child support hearing, the wife was awarded child support expenses, eg, the cost of child care, that were not actual or needed at the time, but on the assumption that she would be returning to work full-time. The appellate court reversed. It held that it was improper of the trial court to make an award of child care costs that were not needed at the time the award was made. It held that such an award improperly placed a burden on the husband to return to court for an adjustment of child support if the wife did not actually return to work.

Child Support

Where both parents are “voluntarily impoverished,” hypothetical monthly child support expenses should not be awarded to the wife with the assumption that she will obtain full-time employment in the future. Shenk v. Shenk, No. 2349, September Term 2003, Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, October 28, 2004, as amended Nov. 23, 2004.

The parties had three children. The husband was previously employed by an Internet company earning $90,000 per year, and was currently employed as a waiter earning $30,000 per year. The wife worked part-time for her father's company, earning $1500 per month, but had the potential to earn $45,000 per year. After a child support hearing, the wife was awarded child support expenses, eg, the cost of child care, that were not actual or needed at the time, but on the assumption that she would be returning to work full-time. The appellate court reversed. It held that it was improper of the trial court to make an award of child care costs that were not needed at the time the award was made. It held that such an award improperly placed a burden on the husband to return to court for an adjustment of child support if the wife did not actually return to work.