This case comes out of Henry County Superior Court, preside over by Judge Arch McGarity. Marlowe v. Marlowe doesn’t break any new ground, but it does serve as a useful reminder of some basics of modification of child support. It also gives some useful insight into Judge McGarity in modifications.
The mother (Ronni) and father (Joe) divorced in 2007, and all these years later Joe sought to lower the support obligation he pays for his three children. Joe was paying $992. In order to get an audience with Judge McGarity, Joe needed to demonstrate a “material change in his income”. Basically, Joe is saying, “Hey Judge McGarity, I make a lot less than I did before, so cut me a break and lower my child support.”
As often happens, Ronni might have been happy with things as they were. But if she has to pay an attorney, the least the attorney can do is look to see if there were arguments in her defense – maybe to raise the support even. Yeah, that’s the ticket!!! And so, Ronni basically responded, “Judge, when we divorced there was no child care, now there is, so we need to account for it. Oh and by the way, Joe could make more money, but he chooses not to. That is not fair!”
Judge McGarity listened, and then decided that the support should be lowered to $771. Unsatisfied, Ronni asked the Georgia Supreme Court to look it over. Here’s what the Supremes had to say about it:
First, Judge McGarity used the wrong number of children to decide the support. He used two not three. You have to understand that by law in Georgia child support is determined by adding the gross monthly incomes of the parents together. Then there is a table at different income levels, and it varies by the number of children. This is a simple error that any one of us can (and have!) made. What puzzles me is why Ronni’s attorney couldn’t have just raised that matter with Judge McGarity by motion for reconsideration in the first thirty days after the Judge signed his order? Anyway, that does not appear to have happened, so the Supremes made quick work of that and told Judge McGarity to fix it.
Second, Judge McGarity – just as Ronni asked – accounted for the child care. Under Georgia law, the Judge has to account for “work related child care” and include it in the child support. That means the parents each pay a portion of it, in proportion to their incomes. It sounds like Ronni was unsatisfied with how the judge calculated it, but the Supremes said he hit the nail on its head. It reminds me of the old adage, “You may get what you want, but will you want what you get?” Ronni didn’t.
Third – and this is the meat of the case – Ronni said the Judge didn’t figure Joe’s income right. You see, Joe had an income back in 2007 of about $2,900, but now it was about $2,100. Ronni said “No no, he could make more. In fact, he has made more since 2007. he was an IT guy, a cop and a ‘technologist’”. Begs the question, “What is a technologist?” doesn’t it?
Anyhow, Joe said, “I made a bit more money before, but I had to leave Georgia to do it. Then I had all these expenses to come back here and see my kids. It wasn’t worth the marginal earning difference!!! I make a little less now, but I am around to see my kids more.”
Judge McGarity had to decide what was best. He could “impute” (means pretend, pretty much) that Joe could make what he made before, or he could go with Joe’s actual income. In fact, the judge could have come up with another number, splitting the baby, in effect. Judge McGarity found Joe’s arguments to be more convincing. Form his decision, we can glean that Judge McGarity felt that Joe’s reduced income coupled with his involvement in his children’s lives carried the day. The decision appears to value family contact over money.
The Supremes remind us once again that all they see is paper and law books. The Supremes never get to see Ronnie and Joe, so they must leave the credibility of Ronni and Joe to Judge McGarity. And when Judge McGarity says that Joe’s arguments were more convincing, the Supremes leave it alone, and that’s exactly what they did.
Funny thing is, when Judge McGarity corrects that small child support calculation error, my calculations indicate that the corrected child support amount is going to be about $100 per month less than it was before this whole thing started!! Now when you think about how much Ronni and Joe paid their attorneys to meet them, learn them, run the numbers, negotiate, maybe even mediate the case, go to a trial and then appeal it to the Georgia Supreme Court, wouldn’t it have been better to have just worked it all out? The money lost could probably have paid for a college degree at Georgia State for one of their children!
So it goes.