Support modifications for pro athletes pending

On behalf of Edwards & Associates posted in Alimony on Tuesday, May 17, 2011

National Football League players were locked out in March. National Basketball League players are expected to join them in June. Players for both groups are at the mercy of ongoing contract negotiations between team owners and players' unions. Right now, neither side is budging and sports agents are becoming edgy.

It's estimated that up to 80 percent of all pro-athletes are paying alimony, child support or both. Many players' financial advisors are reminding their clients that no pay equals no way to pay those bills and are recommending that players ask for support modifications.

Despite high salaries, many players are unprepared if the checks suddenly stop coming. Those who do pay support often have thousands to tens of thousands of dollars deducted each month.

Should an NFL player suddenly stop making an average yearly salary of $1.8 million, financial times could quickly become tough for all those dependent on that money.

When the ball teams don't pay the bills, players must pay and that includes health insurance. The NFL trade association says that could run about $2,000 each month for many. When those costs are multiplied by court-ordered health care costs for children or exes and the costs can run double, triple or more.

When a spouse or parent has a child support or alimony obligation, that obligation was initially calculated by looking at his income. When a parent or ex-spouse suffers an involuntary loss of income, those support obligations can quickly become too much to afford. Simply failing to pay child support or alimony can result in a contempt hearing and the possibility of jail time.

When a person suffers an involuntary loss of income, experienced family law attorneys understand the importance of requesting a downward modification from a family law judge. A successful request for a modification can reduce child support and alimony payments and eliminate the possibility of a contempt hearing.

Source: Bloomberg, "NFL Players Poised to Cut Alimony, Making Wives Industry Dispute Victim," Scott Soshnick, 5/9/20114

Supreme Court to decide right to counsel in child support cases

On behalf of Edwards & Associates posted in Child Support on Wednesday, March 30, 2011

In the past, we have written about the problems many poor parents face when confronted with a contempt hearing for non-payment of child support. Although, jail time is a very possible outcome in these hearings, lawyers are not provided in child support contempt hearings as they are in criminal cases that involve the threat of incarceration. Is there a constitutional right to an attorney in child support contempt hearings? A case addressing this issue is now in the process of being decided in the U.S. Supreme Court.

The case in question involves a man who had been jailed for more than one year after he failed to make child support payments. The man stated that he did not have the money to pay his child support. He believes that if he had received a court-mandated attorney then he would have avoided jail time.

Last week, the justices of the Supreme Court heard arguments on whether there is a constitutional right to legal representation during child support enforcement cases involving the possibility of jail time. Currently, the law requires that only individuals involved in criminal court cases be provided with legal representation.

Some justices felt that it is difficult to mandate a blanket ruling to cover thousands of future child support hearings. Justice Anthony Kennedy stated that creating a law that requires court-appointed lawyers during child support cases would completely alter current domestic relations court proceedings.

Attorneys against the right to counsel in child support cases expressed their concerns over requiring states to provide attorneys in child support cases. They argued that requiring states to provide legal representation might deter the states from punishing parents who fail to make child support payments.

Others have stated that there are generally no lawyers present during a child support hearing and that requiring legal representation could disrupt the effectiveness of the proceedings.

Justice Scalia mentioned that he was frustrated with the proposal to require legal representation since it dismissed any other procedures that could satisfy due process and provide both sides with a fair hearing in child support cases.

Now that oral arguments have concluded in this case, the nine Justices of the Supreme Court will make a decision in the matter over the course of the next few months. A formal decision will be released in June.

Source: The New York Times, "Justices Grapple With Issue of Right to Lawyers in Child Support Cases," Adam Liptak, 3/23/2011

Tags: child support, child support enforcement, contempt, right to counsel

Comments: Leave a comment