Here is my story. I am and have been a NCP since 1989 and have been
fighting the Domestic Relations constantly. I paid my child support
diligently from 1989 until 1997. In 1997 my new wife I married in 1997 had
been diagnosed with spinal cord cancer. We had one daughter together
who was four years old at the time. I was working in a well-paid
government job
and my ex received her court order support amount on time for 10 years until I
lost my government job with the Postal Service, not once, but twice. The
first time I lost it it was in part due to my wife's illness and a back injury I
sustained. I was not able to attend the Postal Service's Doctor's
appointment as my wife also worked there and was not home and our small daughter
had the flu. (They (the USPS) gave me a one hour notice and then drove to
my home and attempted to force me into their vehicle to attend this appointment
leaving my small daughter at home. When they came to my home, we have two
small family labs and they did bark at the Supervisors.
The Postal Service then created this story that "my dogs attacked
them". They fired me after I went and passed the Physical they sent
me to to return to work. I filed a grievance with the American Postal
Workers Union and was awarded my job back without back pay as the time that I
was waiting for my case to get to the top of the argument arbitrator list was 13
months and they gave me a 13 months suspension!
When using the arbitrator process you have no other recourse. The
arbitrator ordered me to be returned to work immediately. It took the
Postal Service 9 weeks to inform me to return to work and they sent me a
certified letter on a Friday (which I wasn't home to get) to be at work that
Monday. Essentially, I was given 4 hours to be at home and pick up the
notice of return to work. When I didn't show up to work because I was not
properly notified, I was again fired for being AWOL!
Beat that one. I filed yet another grievance and the arbitrator did not
give me my job back as he stated, "I should have remained home waiting for
the return notice, that by the way took 9 weeks.
I was finishing my college degree to become a teacher which I did finish and
am a certified
teacher. Now the worst part, in 1997, the Domestic Relations has decided
that I purposely lost my job with the intent to reduce my support, you know, the
support that I had diligently paid with no problem for the past 10 years.
Then in June of 1999, my wife became permanently disabled with her spinal cord
cancer and I was again disallowed the reduction as I utilized the Nurturing
Parent Doctrine and say that I was needed part time to care for my children as
my wife was not able to on certain days with her medications she has to take
every day for the rest of her life. I was denied that by trial court and
appeal (Pro-Se) to the Superior Court of Pa.
I had an excellent case that in no way could have been denied. My wife
testified to her cancer and health and we thought we were going to prevail.
We covered every single point. At last, we get the decision from Superior
Court after 5 months of waiting and there answer was that I wasn't entitled to
reduce my earning capacity as I didn't show that I had no other alternative
child care. I did testify that my mother-in-law who had cared for the kids
while her daughter was real sick but was no longer able to as she had returned
to work. Superior Court of PA stated "I merely stated that she wasn't
able to care for the children and never really testified that I physically asked
her. I then requested a reconsider and was denied it by Superior Court.
I am now in the Pro-Se process of requesting Petition for
Allowance of Appeal based on the fact that child support Rule No. 1910-16-2 d
(1) is unconstitutional in that it allows the custodial parent (male or female)
to remain at home and not contribute anything towards the support of the
children in their custody, but Rule 1910 forces the non-custodial parent to make
the highest amount of income at all time and for almost no reason at all can
never lower that earning capacity unless he is dead.
I even doubt that would be considered!!!!!!The system just sucks. I am
clinging to the
hope of bringing attention to that Rule. Really, the custodial parent can
just leave their job, although, it is well-settled law that both parents are
EQUALLY responsible to contribute to the support of their children, Rule 1910
does not make the custodial parent accountable as to whether they want to work
or not. It is just not fair. If the non-custodial parent has to
reduce his income for some serious family health condition or is needed at home
or wants to change jobs to a job that makes less money, or for any matter, just
wants to remain home with the children of their second family, they must be
accountable, such as contempt hearings, jail time, loss of drivers licenses,
loss of business license, humiliation, lock down of car and then the dead beat
(parent) syndrome.
How many custodial parents (mostly mothers) do you know that have remarried
and have made the unilateral choice to remain at home with children of their
second family and contribute nothing towards the support of the children for
which their ex is forced to pay for. They simply can just quit their job
or not work at all and no one knows, but because the ncp as court-ordered
support, it is quickly known. Basically the cp can just decide what amount
of support her child needs and ultimately rely on the $ 600 to $ 1,000 per
months she is receiving for the ncp share.
Tell me what you think and wish me luck with Supreme Court. I am
working on the brief now. Rule 1910 16 2 d 1 creates a separate class
between non custodial and custodial parents and give the custodial parent a
choice of whether they "need" to contribute to the support
of their children and gives no choice whatsoever to the NCP.
Sincerely,
Rule 1910 16 2 d (1)
P.S. I just found out 2 weeks ago I have a heart disease and have request
another hearing being held on October 1 because I can't continue at the Postal
Service earning capacity as it was arduous work. I'm curious as to what
will be done. I guess they expect money even if you can't work.
You may post as you wish. I'll keep you posted as to the Supreme Court
Ruling on Rul 1910 16 2 d (1) and to the new DR hearing on 10/1/01
