Maryland Child Support Laws - October 2020 Changes

Published on
November 5, 2020
Written by
Angel Murphy, Esq.
Category
Videos

Listen up! In the past, in order to establish joint custody for child support purposes, you needed a whopping 128 overnights per year. Yes, you heard that right! But hold on tight because everything has changed. The new law has reduced the requirement from 128 to just 92 overnights per year. Now, that's a drastic difference that will undoubtedly impact child support cases.

But what does this mean for you? If you've recently been served with child support papers and your case was filed after October 1, 2020, this new law applies directly to your situation. However, if your case was filed before October 1, unfortunately, this change won't affect you. It is important to note that submitting a modification after October 1 could potentially impact the court's decision. However, to successfully change the existing child support order, you must prove a significant and substantial change in circumstances that warrants the modification.

Now, let's talk about the importance of establishing custody. If you're the recipient of a child support case, I strongly encourage you to file for custody. Why? Getting a court order for custody not only gives you undeniable evidence of your overnight arrangements, but also gives you the ability to advocate for a fair joint custody schedule with confidence, and potentially reduce your child support obligations.It's all about having that solid legal backing to support your case.

Don't forget, the calculation of child support considers several important factors, including gross income, expenses for childcare, coverage for health insurance, and exceptional medical expenses surpassing $100 per month or year. The number of overnights you have plays a significant role in determining the child support amount. So, it's crucial to understand the impact of these changes and be prepared to make your case using the new guidelines.

‍

Allow The Murphy Law Firm to work in your favor! Contact my office today!

☎️ 240-493-9116

🌐 www.amurphylegal.com

➡️ https://Bookme.name/amurphylegal//

‍

Angel Murphy

Personable. Passionate. Persistent.

The Murphy Law Firm, Trial Strategy Meeting, The Murphy Law Firm Initial Consultation, The Murphy Law Firm Intake, Intake Process, Angel Murphy, Attorney Angel Murphy, Esq, amurphylegal, divorce attorney, family law, maryland family law, maryland divorce attorney, maryland family attorney

Subscribe to our newsletter

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.

Articles & Resources

March 4, 2024

Rudnick v. Rudnick (2023) & Unconscionability in Maryland Prenuptial Agreements

In Rudnick v. Rudnick (2023), a prenuptial agreement signed in 1992 became the subject of dispute during the couple's divorce in 2019. The agreement, which prohibited the division of assets or alimony, was initially considered fair but was deemed unconscionable at the time of enforcement. Massachusetts law, where the case arose, applied an unconscionability analysis at the time of enforcement. The courts ruled in favor of the wife, highlighting the importance of skilled legal representation well-versed in relevant state laws.

April 1, 2024

Carrington v. Richards (2017) & the Role of Participation in Custody Modification

In Carrington v. Richards (2017), a custody battle turned tragic due to the mother's failure to participate in court proceedings. Initially seeking full custody of their son, the father was awarded sole custody when the mother failed to appear at the final hearing. Despite subsequent attempts to overturn the decision, the mother's non-compliance with court orders and absence from proceedings hindered her case. Ultimately, the father's custody was affirmed, but the case took a devastating turn when the mother shot and wounded the father. This case underscores the importance of active participation in custody proceedings and the serious consequences of non-compliance.

March 29, 2024

Wiles v. Wiles (2017) & Modifying Alimony to Obtain a Longer Payment Period

In Wiles v. Wiles (2017), a divorced couple faced a dispute over alimony modification. Initially granted alimony for a limited duration, the ex-wife sought to extend the payments indefinitely and increase the monthly amount. Despite the ex-husband's opposition, the trial court granted the modification based on the ex-wife's claim of a change in circumstances. On appeal, the appellate division upheld the decision, emphasizing the need for a "material" change in circumstances to justify altering the alimony award, which would otherwise result in a harsh or inequitable outcome.

March 22, 2024

Hernandez v. Matiendo (2017) & the Impact of Previous Litigation on Visitation Modification

In family law, while the concept of "double jeopardy" may not apply, courts generally avoid relitigating settled issues without a change in circumstances. This principle was highlighted in the case of Hernandez v. Matiendo (2017), where a mother sought to modify a visitation order established in a Puerto Rican court. Despite her claims of sexual abuse, the Maryland court upheld the original order, emphasizing that the issue had already been litigated in Puerto Rico.

March 25, 2024

Mullen v. Robbins (2017) & How Settlement Agreements Impact Alimony Modification

In the case of Mullen v. Robbins (2017), a high-earning physician learned the importance of careful contract language when dealing with private agreements during divorce. Despite reaching a private agreement on alimony, the ex-wife sought modification in court citing a change in circumstances due to health issues. The trial court ruled in her favor, emphasizing the need for a "material change in circumstances" to modify private agreements. The appellate division upheld the ruling, highlighting the importance of precise contract language in determining modifiability.