(a) The total support obligation shall be presumed to be the amount of child support needed.
Upon request of a party, the court shall consider the following factors in respect
to both parents. If, after consideration of these factors, the court finds that application
of the guidelines is unfair to the child or to any of the parties, the court may adjust
the amount of child support:
(1) The financial resources of the child.
(2) The financial resources of the custodial parent.
(3) The standard of living the child would have enjoyed had the marital relationship not
been discontinued.
(4) The physical and emotional condition of the child.
(5) The educational needs of the child.
(6) The financial resources and needs of the noncustodial parent.
(7) Inflation.
(8) The costs of meeting the educational needs of either parent, if the costs are incurred
for the purpose of increasing the earning capacity of the parent.
(9) Extraordinary travel and other travel-related expenses incurred in exercising the
right to parent-child contact.
(10) Any other factors the court finds relevant.
(b) If the parties agree, the court may include in the child support order an additional
amount designated for the purpose of providing for postsecondary education. (Added 1985, No. 180 (Adj. Sess.), § 7, eff. April 1, 1987; amended 1989, No. 220 (Adj. Sess.), § 22; 1995, No. 59, § 6.)
LaMothe v. LeBlanc, 2013 VT 21 (Vt. 2013). · cites it 9דThe suggestion that even if the magistrate’s initial guidelines calculation was substantially wrong, its purported decision to deviate insulates that calculation from review is puzzling. The guidelines calculation is presumed to reflect the amount of child support needed, 15 V.”
Ainsworth v. Ainsworth, 574 A.2d 772 (Vt. 1990). · cites it 8דAs discussed below, the trial court did not give detailed reasons for its conclusion or discuss the factors set forth in 15 V.S.A. § 659 for establishing a support order where it found an order based on the guidelines would be inequitable.”
Adamson v. Dodge, 816 A.2d 455 (Vt. 2002). · cites it 3דHe claims that the court may award support that is not based on the support guidelines only after consideration of the factors established in 15 V.S.A. § 659(a) and must *317 give an explanation of why these factors justify the deviation from the guidelines.”
Harris v. Harris, 714 A.2d 626 (Vt. 1998). · cites it 4דHere, the magistrate considered mother's income as required, see 15 V.S.A. § 659(a)(2) (financial resources of custodial parent), and determined that the children were receiving a fair share of her income because she is the custodial parent and is maintaining a home for them.”
Tetreault v. Coon, 708 A.2d 571 (Vt. 1998). · cites it 4דIn response to the motion, father requested that the magistrate deviate from the child-support guidelines pursuant to 15 V.S.A. § 659(a) and set a support amount lower than the guidelines would require.”
Hunt v. Hunt, 648 A.2d 843 (Vt. 1994). · cites it 2ד15 V.S.A. § 659(a) (1989) (emphasis added).”
Smith v. Stewart, 684 A.2d 265 (Vt. 1996). · cites it 2ד§ 656(d), the family court had discretion to consider an award above the maximum guideline amount based on the factors in 15 V.S.A. § 659(a). See C.D., 160 Vt. at 500 , 631 A.”
Drummond v. State, 714 A.2d 163 (Md. 1998). “123(b)(3) (West 1996); Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 15, § 659 (a)(1) (1989 & 1997 Supp.”
Milligan v. Milligan, 613 A.2d 1281 (Vt. 1992). “” The court found its authority to order a post-majority education allotment in 15 V.S.A. § 659(b), which provides that “[i]f the parties agree, the court may include in the child support order an additional amount designated for the purpose of providing for postsecondary…”
Grimes v. Grimes, 621 A.2d 211 (Vt. 1992). “” 15 V.S.A. § 659(a) (current version of the statute substitutes the term “unfair” for “inequitable”); Ainsworth v.”
Coyle v. Coyle, 2007 VT 21 (Vt. 2007). “NOTES [*] Mother argues that the family court's decision was not based on a jurisdictional question at all but rather on considerations of fairness to the children and parties under 15 V.S.A. § 659. Mother's contention is based on the court's summarizing statement that the…”
Adamson v. Dodge, 816 A.2d 455 (Vt. 2002). “He claims that the court may award support that is not based on the support guidelines only after consideration of the factors established in 15 V.S.A. § 659(a) and must *317 give an explanation of why these factors justify the deviation from the guidelines.”
Tetreault v. Coon, 708 A.2d 571 (Vt. 1998). “In response to the motion, father requested that the magistrate deviate from the child-support guidelines pursuant to 15 V.S.A. § 659(a) and set a support amount lower than the guidelines would require.”
LaMothe v. LeBlanc, 2013 VT 21 (Vt. 2013). “The suggestion that even if the magistrate’s initial guidelines calculation was substantially wrong, its purported decision to deviate insulates that calculation from review is puzzling. The guidelines calculation is presumed to reflect the amount of child support needed, 15 V.”
Ainsworth v. Ainsworth, 574 A.2d 772 (Vt. 1990). “As discussed below, the trial court did not give detailed reasons for its conclusion or discuss the factors set forth in 15 V.S.A. § 659 for establishing a support order where it found an order based on the guidelines would be inequitable.”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 15, § 659(a)(1) — 1 case
Ainsworth v. Ainsworth, 574 A.2d 772 (Vt. 1990). “As discussed below, the trial court did not give detailed reasons for its conclusion or discuss the factors set forth in 15 V.S.A. § 659 for establishing a support order where it found an order based on the guidelines would be inequitable.”
Harris v. Harris, 714 A.2d 626 (Vt. 1998). “Here, the magistrate considered mother's income as required, see 15 V.S.A. § 659(a)(2) (financial resources of custodial parent), and determined that the children were receiving a fair share of her income because she is the custodial parent and is maintaining a home for them.”
Adamson v. Dodge, 816 A.2d 455 (Vt. 2002). “He claims that the court may award support that is not based on the support guidelines only after consideration of the factors established in 15 V.S.A. § 659(a) and must *317 give an explanation of why these factors justify the deviation from the guidelines.”
Ainsworth v. Ainsworth, 574 A.2d 772 (Vt. 1990). “As discussed below, the trial court did not give detailed reasons for its conclusion or discuss the factors set forth in 15 V.S.A. § 659 for establishing a support order where it found an order based on the guidelines would be inequitable.”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 15, § 659(b) — 2 cases
Milligan v. Milligan, 613 A.2d 1281 (Vt. 1992). “” The court found its authority to order a post-majority education allotment in 15 V.S.A. § 659(b), which provides that “[i]f the parties agree, the court may include in the child support order an additional amount designated for the purpose of providing for postsecondary…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.