In this case, the trial court goes to great lengths to express its’ disgust with the mother and her affairs. However, the best interest of the children is the overriding concern, and the court ultimately decided to leave the children with her. (This case had a 6-day hearing over a two month period!)

Here’s the link…
Valentine v. Valentine

The Court of Appeal gave clear direction today on how to determine child support for a self employed payor. Here’s the Court’s finding:

“…we are of the opinion that in order to properly determine the
income of a self-employed child-support payor, a trial court must first consider the past two
years of tax returns, and quarterly estimates for the current year, allowing depreciation as a
deduction if it reflects the actual decrease in value of an asset. Then, if the trial court believes
that the tax returns are unreliable, the trial court must make specific findings to support that
determination. After doing so, the trial court can then proceed to determine a child-support
payor’s income by using a net worth method.”

Here’s the link…
Wright v. Wright

Note: I’m a little concerned about the word “unreliable” in this opinion. Almost sounds like you have to show that the tax return was somehow prepared improperly. I think what the court is intending to say is that if the court does not believe the tax returns are providing a true indication of the payor’s income then the court can look to other evidence.

In a nutshell, if you consistently deny the noncustodial parent his/her visitation, and then you move halfway across the country with the children without permission of the court, don’t be surprised if you lose custody of your children.

Note: An interesting fact in earlier proceedings between these parties early in this opinion. Note that the trial judge in 2004 found the mother in contempt for failing to comply with court ordered visitation. The punishment? Community service! First time I’ve seen that one in a domestic case. Maybe not a bad idea.

Here’s the link…
Harris v. Harris

Custodial parent wants to move from Arkansas to South Dakota to take a job with better income and also to be closer to his ailing parents. Noncustodial parent objects and a hearing is held. The trial court found, and the Court of Appeals upheld, that the custodial parent had sufficient reasons for moving and allowed the move. One of the factors mentioned in addition to the two above is that the custodial parent had other family members in South Dakota that would be involved in the child’s life (boating and other leisure activities were cited).

A very good discussion of how trial courts review a relocation request and the factors involved under the seminal case (Hollandsworth):
Mathews v. Schumacher