Rep. Joe Walsh wants ex-wife sanctioned in his back child support case

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.suntimes.com/news/7527250-418/rep-joe-walsh-wants-ex-sanctioned-in-back-child-support-case.html

By Abdon M. Pallasch Political Reporter [e-mail] September 7, 2011 7:26PM

Six days after the Sun-Times reported that Rep. Joe Walsh allegedly owes more than $100,000 in child support for three of his children, the McHenry Republican filed a motion seeking sanctions against his ex-wife.

Walsh’s attorneys sought the sanctions against Laura Walsh because they said she had not complied with their request in February to provide them voluminous documentation of her employment and salary records at pharmaceuticals manufacturer Eli Lilly as well as bank statements, tax returns and expense reports.

At that time, Joe Walsh’s attorneys had scheduled an April interview with Laura Walsh and said they needed the extensive documentation to prepare for it.

Laura Walsh’s attorney, Jack Coladarci, called that request “harassment” and said the issue was why Joe Walsh was not paying $117,000 of back child support and interest. Laura Walsh had no corresponding obligation to pay Joe Walsh any support, and so the extensive requests for documents were inappropriate, Coladarci said.

[Kalidurga]

1. So she provides documentation then...

what? He still owes what he owes. He is still a jack wagon for not paying child support. He is working very hard at making his wife look like a put upon saint, which is weird, because if he wants consideration from the court system you would think he would be trying not to look like a jack wagon.

[jberryhill]

7. Then what?

In most states, the amount and identity of the person receiving child support payments is based on a formula that takes both parties income and other circumstances into account. For that reason, it is normally an ongoing obligation for each party to disclose their income to the other party in the event an adjustment needs to be made.

There is also normally a window of time during which adjustments, if needed, can be ordered retroactively, but that is normally a matter of a couple of months.

Quite obviously, if she has not been disclosing her "voluminous" salary information, and I have no idea how "voluminous" that can be, or if she has arranged her income streams in such a way as to artificially deflate the salary component, then she is subject to sanction by the court.

It would appear that he is seeking information to which he is entitled for the purpose of determining any relevant retroactive adjustments, and in determining the proper amount going forward.

How is it that you believe child support amounts should be calculated in the absence of that information?

[sinkingfeeling]

9. Not in my state. The parent who has custody can make a $ million a year and the

non-custodial parent can be making $13,000 and the non-custodial parent will pay a minimum of $128 a month per child.

[jberryhill]

10. It varies by state

But I gather that by "a minimum of $128" that the figure adjusts upward from there based on relative incomes.

I'd be surprised if there is a state in which the parties' income information is not directly relevant to the support obligation.

[sinkingfeeling]

11. In Arkansas the only salary information that has to be given to the court is that of the

non-custodial parent. And yes, $128 is the minimum amount.

[Marrah_G]

15. My income was never a factor in that my ex husband pays for support.

He pays a portion of their upkeep, I pay the rest.

I believe in most places it doesn't matter what the custodial parent is making, the non- custodial has a responsibility to contribute.

[malaise]

2. Fugg that deadbeat dad

posing as a decent human being

[Raschel]

17. If he doesn't care about his children, he sure doesn't care about us. What a jerk.

[tsuki]

3. He needs to resign. nt

[Raschel]

18. +100 Can't stand deadbeat parents.

[Warpy]

4. Her employment is irrelevant

This is money he owes to his children.

This is a delaying tactic by a bitter little man who thinks because he no longer "owns" his wife and children, they have no claim on him.

Personally, I think men like this need everything doubled every time they pull one of these tricks.

[jberryhill]

8. How are child support payments calculated in your state?

[Warpy]

13. According to the non custodial parent's income

If a janitor ex husband can contribute only fifty bucks a month to an heiress ex wife, he is still expected to contribute that as he owes support to his children. Ditto the secretary ex wife of a CEO with custody.

Like it or not, if you have children, you are duty bound to support them.

[notadmblnd]

5. you can tell this guy really loves his children- NOT

[Raschel]

19. He has paid little or nothing in two or three years. What a puke.

[tsuki]

22. Since the last time she hauled him into court, in 2005. He must

have influence. He'd be in jail here.

[City Lights]

6. This deadbeat Congressman needs to go.

He needs to get his own house in order before he tries to fuck up mine.

:thumbsdown: to the biggest loser in Congress.

Hey Joe! The circus called...they want their clown back.

Go the fuck away!

[KOfan]

12. "Life's been good"

to me soo farrrr. Hehe

[mfcorey1]

14. This makes it official. Walsh is another batsh** crazy rethug.

[Raschel]

20. Ya know, they really are the party of hypocrites. From serial divorcer Big Daddy Rush, to

the in-the-closet-homophobes, the anti-socialists like Bachman who take federal subsidies, the holier than thou Palin who's children are law-breakers and pregnant teens, the deadbeat dad Walsh, all of 'em.

What a bunch of crackpots.

[bullwinkle428]

16. So Walsh truly wants to make a "federal case" out of this? As Mr. Burns

from "The Simpsons" might say, "EXCELLENT"!

[Bluenorthwest]

21. Yet again the President's belief that all Straight Marriages are

Sacraments created by the hand of God, seems to look fairly insane in the bold light of day. I mean, the Laura and Joe are 'Sanctified by God'? Really? Do any of you actually hold that belief? Seriously?