Taking a lower-paying job to "follow Jesus Christ" does not justify paying less in child support

[The Straight Story]

Priestly Dad Better Pray for Some New Revenue


(CN) - Taking a lower-paying job to "follow Jesus Christ" does not justify paying less in child support, a state appeals court ruled.
John and Becky Andrews divorced in 2002 after eight years of marriage. The court said John owed $1,496 a month to support the couple's two children.

At the time, he earned a $105,000 annual salary as an engineer. By 2009, his earnings had increased to $172,000 per year.

But John resigned in March 2010 without a new job lined up, telling his employer that he was going to follow Jesus Christ.

He started the New Beginnings Church in Raleigh and served as the senior pastor with a $52,800 salary.

http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/11/29/41792.htm

[Yupster]

1. Child support is based on income

Shouldn't matter why you have the job.

[xxqqqzme]

3. It matters if you are trying to dodge paying child support..

Hiding assets and income is not uncommon in trying to escape the responsibility of child support.

[Yupster]

19. I read the story

but didn't see any evidence of him hiding assets or income.

Just looks like a guy took a lower paying job.

[uppityperson]

22. With disregard for his prior obligations. Besides, with free room and board, it isn't

actually lower paying than his original job his obligation was based on. Free room and board also rule into factoring child support obligations.

[Yo_Mama]

54. You are making a very unjust assumption, IMO

First, he is not trying to dodge his responsibility - just to get it lowered to something more payable at his current income.

My first reaction upon reading the story was that he was faced with some job requirement that he believed to be very unethical. At that salary, he was pretty high up. That's when these things happen. Writing a letter telling your employer what he did is sort of like saying "I can't do what you demand I do - you are wrong". A lot of times you don't rat someone out, because it would hurt too many other people. The economy was bad then. Maybe misrepresenting some costs would have closed a line and put a lot of people out of work. You don't know. You can't judge him fairly. Nor can I - but I have never known someone to do that without having reached some sort of huge personal crisis, and what he wrote in his letter of resignation is a red flag to me.

I have known several men who had such a dilemma and walked away from good money to adequate incomes for ethical reasons. Not only do I not think that they were dodging their family responsibilities, I think they were fulfilling them.

The reason that I disagree with this court decision is that it seems to be reducing fatherhood to the single duty of making as much money as you can for your kids. Fatherhood entails a lot more. To live in a decent and ethical way - not participating in things that you think are wrong - frequently WILL make you less wealthy, but it makes all of society more prosperous over the long run. And it allows you to look in your children's eyes with honesty when you tell them about hard choices, and the necessity to make them.

I have a friend who has a daughter. The mother and he divorced. They have joint custody. He is a very devoted father and was pretty successful in the mortgage business, but during the run-up in the RE bubble, he would not participate in all the unethical loans (he is in CA). In the fake appraisals. In the funny-money loans. And in the end, that took all the market and he lost his business, because almost no one WANTED the durable, old-fashioned loans any more, and an honest appraisal. He sent many people away, because he didn't want to make a loan that would get them in trouble later, and would cause such economic havoc if everyone did it. Well, he did not win that battle.

He is working now. He lives in a trailer. And his daughter, whom he adores, stays there with him when he has her. But I think he is one of the greatest fathers around, because that child knows she has his love, and because he has talked with her about what happened and why it happened, and about why he's not bitter but why his life had to change so much. She truly respects him, and admires him. I think that child's future would be greatly worsened if he had not made the choice he made to do the right thing.

We cannot talk on DU about all the corruption in our society without allowing persons to dissent and walk away from bad situations. Frequently it will be costly, yet the general content of the discussion on DU is in agreement at the problems that corruption create. Yet no one can see that this man might have done what he did for a reason?

[uppityperson]

10. "the trial court erred in concluding that plaintiff acted 'in good faith, without a disregard for.."

read the story and they explain why it matters. "When I considered leaving (my job), my consideration was following Christ and that was all, my obedience to him", "Thus, the trial court erred in concluding that plaintiff acted 'in good faith, without a disregard for his child support obligation,' and its order is reversed,"

It does matter why you have the job. People take low paying jobs, or go under the table strictly to avoid paying child support sometimes. In this case, based on the father's own reasoning, he changed without considering his prior obligations.

[CarmanK]

15. He gets 52,000 salary and FREE room and board!

He is not following the teachings of CHRIST and the members of his church are fools.

[uppityperson]

17. In which case, it is less than 1/3 of his income. He doesn't get to duck old obligations

without a good reason, and it looks like the court decided this wasn't a good enough reason. Indeed, avoiding prior obligations to Follow The Lord is rather foolish.

[LanternWaste]

39. Seems almost as foolish as leaving a high paying job to

Seems almost as foolish as leaving a high paying job to follow one's dreams...

[treestar]

16. Interesting parallel

People in jail up for parole often find Jesus, but it's considered somewhat suspect. And it may be sincere.

[Yupster]

20. Hopefully he gets this overturned

Just another of so many unfair child support decisions.

At least it sounds like they are his own kids. So many men are paying for kids that aren't even theirs.

[LiberalFighter]

23. It matters if you change your job to avoid support.

Different if the employer reduces hours, wages, etc.

[TwilightGardener]

25. If it's based on income, what would it matter? Dad gets paid less, his kids get less.

That's the way it is in intact families. He is going to have to adjust to living on less than half of what he's been earning, so it's not like he's going to be living the same lifestyle while his kids go without.

[uppityperson]

28. Free room and board bumps his true income way up though.

[Yupster]

29. And no benefits bumps it way down

That's the way it goes.

[TwilightGardener]

30. "Way up"? I doubt that. I lived next door to a parsonage, it was a little

crappy house that probably would rent for $700 a month. I'm sure they could take the value of his housing situation into account, anyway. I just don't see why he is obligated to pay the same amount for the rest of his life no matter what he does. That seems unfair. I also don't see this as a dodge in support--sounds like he's following a calling.

[treestar]

36. There's some variation for the economic conditions

If a person gets laid off, they can get child support changed - even if that happens to the custodial parent, since their income is figured into the formula.

[uppityperson]

49. If only he hadn't said this, had added in that he had factored in his obligations...

" When the court asked John if he considered his child-support obligations when he changed careers, he replied, "When I considered leaving (my job), my consideration was following Christ and that was all, my obedience to him."
(clip)
"While we do not question the sincerity of the plaintiff's religious beliefs, we cannot equate such justification for his actions with good faith as it pertains to his financial obligations for his children," Judge Robert Hunter wrote for the court.

"Thus, the trial court erred in concluding that plaintiff acted 'in good faith, without a disregard for his child support obligation,' and its order is reversed," Hunter added

[TwilightGardener]

50. So? He should keep a job he doesn't want SOLELY because of child support?

That's silly. Besides, it's not like he's going to be paying NOTHING. It's just going to be adjusted downward to match his income. I disagree with the court, sorry.

[uppityperson]

52. Please read this post as it gives a good explanation. Thank you.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2403796&mesg_id=2404443

[Yupster]

27. He didn't change jobs to avoid support

He found religion. It happens.

It would be interesting to see if opinion would be different if this person was a corporate lawyer who quit his high paying job to work for a charity helping the homeless at a much lower pay.

[treestar]

37. It's a family court presumption of some type

They see dodgers, so they think they see it everywhere.

And if they were still married, he could make that change.

[msanthrope]

40. Sorry, but you don't get a pass from the State when you 'get religion.'

He had prior obligations before he made his choice to 'get religion.'

[rethymnon]

2. Yes it does,

We don't tell married parents what jobs they can and can't take.

This seems to be a denial of dad's equal protection. My state's law is that you can impute a higher income if the supporting parent lowered their income for the purpose of reducing their child support obligation.

Maybe the mother was able to prove that in this case? Otherwise, the court seems to be saying that divorced, separated, or never married parents have less freedom to choose their employment opportunities than married parents.

[laundry_queen]

55. The difference being

That generally when the couple is married, they make the decision to sacrifice together.

In my case, I'm the custodial parent and my expenses are at a certain amount each month. If my ex suddenly changed jobs on his own, with no input on my part, because he 'found Jesus' and I got half of what I get now, I'd be screwed. We'd be living with my parents (if they'd even have us, if not we'd be homeless). And it happens more often than you'd think - the breadwinner (females too, I know a few who pay support) will downsize their jobs ('found Jesus' 'ethical reasons' 'the stress was affecting me' <enter excuse here>) to pay less because their ex bought a new car last year and they didn't get one so they're pissed. There was a guy like that in my divorce support group - was SO pissed his ex wife bought a nice new SUV that was top-safety rated. He said he was sick of it and that he was going to go 'pump gas instead - see how she'd like THAT amount of child support'. Many people in the group pointed out to him that his ex drove his kids around all day and that isn't it nice that they are in a safe vehicle? That is why the courts here generally don't lower the amount of support unless there is a darn good reason (lay off, disability). Everyone 'finds Jesus' when it's convenient for them to weasel out of something.

The courts are basically trying to make it a joint decision - they are saying it is unfair that one person in the family can unilaterally lower the standard of living of his family. In a married couple the spouse would either say, "Heck, NO, you keep that job, you're lucky to make that much and we need to save for junior's college!" or they would say, "If you are that stressed out (dedicated to religion, trying to be ethical, etc) I'm sure we can make it work." The court acts like a 'spouse' so to speak, deciding if this person is sincere or just trying to pay less.

[tridim]

4. I'm shocked that a pastor makes $53k starting salary.

Now, back to looking for $10/hr IT jobs that require expertise in every language and technology in compting history.

[octothorpe]

43. heh... It's $10/hr PLUS a bathroom break every 12 hours... It's not that bad.

[uncle ray]

48. he didn't just get hired, he started the church.

he set his own salary and terms of employment, or at least tried to.

[uppityperson]

5. You left out important part of the story....READ THE STORY BEFORE REPLYING please...

When the court asked John if he considered his child-support obligations when he changed careers, he replied, "When I considered leaving (my job), my consideration was following Christ and that was all, my obedience to him."
The court agreed to reduce John's obligation to $873 per month, ruling that there was "no evidence of bad faith" in his decision.
But the North Carolina Court of Appeals used John's statement to reach the opposite conclusion on appeal....

[The Straight Story]

6. Can only use 4 paragraphs, which is why I put in the link ;) But thanks for noting it! (nt)

[James48]

7. pastor at $52K? Ha!

Right there is your evidence.

I know of NO protestant pastors who make $52K a year as a starting salary.

Must be some church.

(P.S.- I agree - child support must be based on current job. Sorry for the kids, but changing careers is ok.)

[SpiralHawk]

9. The Church of Republicon Family Values

sheesh

[Yupster]

21. Oor precher makes lots more than that

She started at $ 78,000. Don't know what she makes now as I rotated off the finance committee.

[lumberjack_jeff]

8. They have a term for this. "Involuntary servitude". n/t

[uppityperson]

11. No. It's called "ducking prior obligations" . Read the whole story in OP. nt

[lumberjack_jeff]

24. If you are legally prohibited from quitting or changing jobs, it's involuntary servitude.

[uppityperson]

26. If you change to avoid prior obligations, or without taking those obligations into consideration,

then you still have those obligations. Having kids takes away freedoms.

[TwilightGardener]

32. Actually, having kids in no way means that you have to earn any

particular set income--I doubt his original child support order stated that he owed them almost $1500 a month NO MATTER WHAT. Intact families certainly don't live this way. People's job situations--and incomes--change all the time.

[zbdent]

12. WWJD?

Who Would Jesus Divorce?

I thought that these types were all about Family Values ...

On the brighter side, he could get a good paying job in Newt's administration as a counselor on "Family Values" ...

[TwilightGardener]

13. If he wants to switch jobs, they should allow him to pay less in support, period.

Looks like they did, and then reversed it in appeal? Either way, he should be allowed to be happy, and his kids will adjust to living with less--or maybe mom should step up and make up the difference. That's what would happen in an intact family.

[treestar]

14. Common problem in child support law

People really do lose freedom by having children.

For example, a women chooses to stay home and care for the small children of her second marriage. She still owes child support, or what income she is capable of is used to calculate the child support the father owes her. Blunts the "choice" somewhat.

[uppityperson]

18. "People really do lose freedom by having children." that is it, in a nutshell.

Next, off to check the Choice forum, see what's new there.

[treestar]

33. It used to be worse

There were "college support" laws. A divorced parent, or even the child, could sue for "college support."

But those were cut down due to the fact the child was over 18 and that it violated Equal Protection, since a married pair did not have any duty to pay for college for their kids. The laws just assumed they always would.

[exboyfil]

38. So if you have a bunch of kids without having any prospects

for a job, you get to skate on your financial responsibilities, but you are in a high stress job when the divorce happens and you plan to ratchet back for your own health, you are obligated to still pay at the prior income level? Imputing an income at your capability to earn a living?

It seems like the adjusted level of payment based on the revised income was close to being right. I don't think following the Lord should be a criteria over any other motivation for changing jobs, but you support should be adjusted based upon your assets and income. Any other approach is akin to slavery and asking more of a certain segment of society than we ask of other members of society.

How much child support is paid by the non-custodial parents of families on TANF/Food Stamps/etc?

I also think an obligation to pay for college for the non-custodial parent is pure garbage as well. Again you are expecting a higher level of obligation on a certain segment of society.

No I am not divorced. I have been married for almost 25 years with two teenage daughters. I put aside a large percentage of my take home income for my childrens' college education, but I do that because I love them. I would resent the state telling me that I must do this.

[treestar]

47. I don't know, ask each state's legal system

I know where I am, the law was that you could not just lower your income voluntarily and I was on the side arguing that was unfair. I think the outcome was "work or be held liable for the amount you would have made." That was the State Court's decision. Now in a bad economy, I can see that being modified somewhat.

The case law said, "the general rule is that a party will be attributed with earning capacity, not actual earnings. The nurturing parent doctrine is an exception."

The Nurturing Parent Doctrine held that factors would be used to see who would be excused: age and maturity of the child, availability of others who might assist the parent, adequacy of available financial resources if the parent remains home and the parent's desire to stay home to nurture the child, and the perception that a parent staying at home is something that serves the child's welfare.

There was also case law to the effect that switching jobs is acceptable, but when one under a duty to pay support voluntarily leaves a good paying position, he/she must firs make provisions for the support of children. A person responsible for support cannot voluntarily terminate employment or reduce income and then use that as a ground for seeking reduction or termination of a child support obligation. The Court may consider evidence establishing the obligor's earning capacity in the local job market or attribute up to one half of the household income to him/her.

[uppityperson]

51. Thank you for the explanation. Sounds like what happened here. eom

[laundry_queen]

56. Here's the thing

When you are in a high stress job and getting that divorce (and making $150,000/yr), IF the person you are divorcing sacrified their career to stay home with the kids and help YOU in YOUR career, then it is totally fair that you must somehow compensate that person for the loss of their career and ability to provide the same standard of living after the divorce. In my situation, I had a good paying job when I quit to raise our kids. My ex climbed the ladder and made quite a bit of money, he never had to skip work because the kids were sick, he never had to worry about being transferred because I could always go (not having a job), he didn't have to worry about child care, laundry, meals, house cleaning, whether the bills were paid or not - and so on. Yet, should he decide to, after the divorce, take a job that paid $50,000/yr and the support is set at a level that puts me into poverty - that's okay? No, I deserve to be compensated monetarily for all of that support and MY lost income over those years.

I'm lucky in that even though my ex looks poor on paper, and if he wanted to could get support lowered drastically, he values his children more than that and is generous with the support, and is helping put me through school so I can re-enter the workforce since it's only fair after what I gave up (I'd be making 6 figures in a bank now had I stayed). I think for the first few years after a divorce there IS an obligation to continue with the same income if at all possible. Once the other spouse is back on their feet, then the courts can revisit and lower it if need be. There are simply too many people trying to game the system here, and apparently it's working.

[Bandit]

31. Something just doesn't seem right about the entire story

I have an employee that makes $34,000. a year and pays $828. a month in child support.. This guy supposedly used to make three to five times more than my employee, yet pays less than half of what my employee pays...I don't understand why there should be such a huge discrepency..:shrug:

[Yupster]

34. Could be more than one kid

or he could be catching up from being behind.

Could also be different states, juristictions or just the divorce decree they agreed upon and the court signed off on.

[treestar]

35. Each state has a formula

And the other parent's income is factored in. They split a total common support amount according to a percentage of their incomes. So if they make equal amounts of money it will be 50/50. But if he makes 80% and she 20% of their combined income, then he pays more in CS than a noncustodial parent who makes a lesser percentage.

[undeterred]

46. Different states have different laws regarding the percentage

of income that can be taken for child support. In Illinois it can be up to 40%. Depends how many children are being supported too, of course.

[LeftyMom]

41. Did Jesus tell him to stiff his kids?

[laundry_queen]

57. +1 nt

[exboyfil]

42. Then you have the case of Desmond Hatchett

21 kids with a minimum wage job
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/27/desmond-hatchett-29-year_n_208393.html

What should he pay in child support and who picks up the rest?

[undeterred]

44. How about taking a lower paying job just to spite your ex?

A lower paying job that is working at a church, but not as a minister. I know someone who did just that to lower the amount of support his ex wife would get. Nice way to treat your kids.

[MADem]

45. He needs to take a second job then, so he can pay his child support to the full extent!

Maybe Pizza Hut needs delivery boys?

[arikara]

53. With free room and board

he can still afford it. If he's following Jesus he still needs to provide for his kids.