With the advancement of technology, the legal sphere has been slower to catch up, but there has been some precedent set to settle disputes that arise.

The recent case of Sieglein v. Schmidt dealt with one such example, recently weighed in on by the Maryland Court of Appeals. The case had to do with establishing paternity when a woman who was married to a man who’d had a vasectomy became pregnant via in vitro fertilization (IVF). This is a type of assisted reproductive technology that involves manually combining the sperm and egg in a laboratory dish and then implanting that embryo into the uterus. more

State law provides that when a child is conceived by artificial insemination to a married woman with the consent of her husband, that child is deemed the legitimate child of them both for all purposes. Further, consent of the husband is presumed unless established otherwise.

The father sought to establish that he was not the “father” because the child had no genetic connection to either himself or his wife. He also challenged the court’s interpretation of the legal phrase “voluntary impoverishment.”

According to court records in Sieglein, Husband and Wife were married in 2008. Prior to their marriage, Husband had one biological child, an adult from a previous relationship, as did the wife. She desired another child, but Husband refused to have his vasectomy reversed. However, he did go with her to a reproductive clinic and he also supported the process of obtaining medical assistance to conceive a child. Both parties signed consent forms indicating they approved of IVF treatments, with the documents stating they had been fully advised of IVF’s purpose, risk, and benefits. The records – again, signed by both parties – indicated the decision was made free from pressure or coercion.

Wife gave birth to a son in 2012, with the birth certificate listing both parties as parents.

Shortly after the child was born, the parties separated. Wife filed a complaint for a limited divorce on grounds of “cruelty and vicious conduct” toward her and her children. She requested child support. Husband denied her allegations, and also denied that he was the father of the child.

A circuit judge held a hearing and determined Husband was the legal father of the child and was therefore obligated to pay child support. Although the man brought evidence demonstrating that he didn’t want to be a parent, that does not rebut the presumption of consent to the IVF treatment or consent to create the child. Not only did Husband sign all the IVF treatment forms, he also remained in the marital home with his wife through the pregnancy, and his name is on the birth certificate.

At a subsequent hearing, the wife presented a protective order issued by another court, ordering her husband to cease harassment and contact and also that he stay away from her place of employment. Further, the court determined that the husband, who was unemployed, had “voluntarily impoverished” himself, meaning he was not off the hook for child support payments.

The wife was awarded sole legal and physical custody of the child and Husband was ordered to pay $1,050 in monthly support, plus $7,000 in arrears.

The appeals court, and later the state high court, affirmed the child support amount – finding the father was in fact the legal parent of the child and had chosen not to work in order to avoid paying the boy’s child support payments.

Indiana Family Law Attorney Burton A. Padove handles divorce and child custody matters throughout northern Indiana, including Gary and Hammond.

Additional Resources:

Sieglein v. Schmidt, May 20, 2016, Maryland Court of Appeals

More Blog Entries:

Luttrell v. Cucco – Same-Sex Couple Cohabitation Affects Spousal Support Payments, May 11, 2016, Indiana Family Law Attorney Blog

• Salaries and wages
• Income from overtime and second jobs
• Investment and interest income
• Pension income
• Trust or estate income
• Annuities
• Capital gains
• Social Security benefits
• Veterans’ benefits
• Military personnel fringe benefits
• National Reserve and drill pay
• Workers’ compensation
• Unemployment
• Disability insurance benefits
• Prizes and gifts (including gambling and lottery winnings)
• Income of a new spouse
• Alimony received from another
• Real estate income

more

As our Gary, Indiana child support lawyers can explain, this kind of analysis can lead to unexpected results. It’s imperative to have strong legal representation to ensure your rights and financial future are protected. This is especially important because once the amount is set, obtaining a reversal or modification can be very difficult.

Although there are child support guidelines set for each state, judges have the option to deviate from those guidelines in certain circumstances. This was the case in the Nebraska Supreme Court case of Stekr v. Beecham. Here, it was a non-income real estate property that prompted the court to deviate. The moving party, the father, appealed this decision, but the state supreme court affirmed.

According to court records, the couple in question divorced in 2001 and at that time, the court granted custody of the couple’s daughter to her mother. Father, meanwhile, was ordered to pay $985 monthly in child support. That obligation was raised to $1,800 in 2007.

Three years later, father filed a motion to modify child support, asserting his income had decreased. The court referred the case to a referee (an attorney appointed by judges to act as a judicial hearing officer in certain cases).

At the hearing, father testified that he worked trading and selling bonds and mortgage-backed securities, and had done so since the early 1990s. For about five years, he worked for a large firm, and had the opportunity to earn substantial commissions. One years, his gross income was $130,000. The following year, it was $330,000. The year after that, it was nearly $350,000.

But then, he was laid off. He later found another job with an annual salary of $60,000, and was given a bonus of 5 percent.

He is also the sole shareholder of a small asset management company that has a single asset: A “spec home.” He built it back in 2007, and the goal was to flip it and make money. However, the real estate market collapsed around the same time, so selling proved difficult.

Originally, he listed the house for $950,000. Then he dropped it to $825,000 and, as of the hearing, it was down to less than $800,000. The mortgage on the property was $690,000, and he’d personally made those payments since the house was finished – about $2,400 to $2,600 monthly. No one had ever lived in or rented the home.

Husband also owns two other homes.

Meanwhile, mother lives in Nebraska with her new husband and is a stay-at-home parent.

At the hearing, the referee pointed out that the father was paying monthly mortgages on the home, and pointed out that “the money is coming from somewhere,” and that if he has access to that money, it should be spent on the child.

Father countered it was derived mostly from savings, which were depleted.

Ultimately, the referee recommended the court dismiss father’s complaint for child support modification. Although noting he could be entitle to a modification under the normal guidelines, the referee argued the case was outside the normal financial framework because of father’s real estate holdings. The state supreme court affirmed.

Indiana Family Law Attorney Burton A. Padove handles divorce and child custody matters throughout northern Indiana, including Gary and Hammond.

Additional Resources:

Stekr v. Beecham, Sept. 25, 2015, Nebraska Supreme Court

More Blog Entries:

Adultery Site Ashley Madison Hack Reveals Indiana Government Emails, Sept. 9, 2015, Gary Divorce Lawyer Blog