Where to start?
The conflict; If your "friend's" attorney did not ask the judge to recuse herself, that is on your friend. In addition, the attorney's can ask, but it is the judge ( herself) that makes the determination on whether she can be fair. For all you know she hated the uncle. Maybe they never met.

Yes, I just answerde theis "income stream " question. If you firend's wife is contributing to the household expenses, that leaves more disposable income for the payor ( in this case father), and income stream that relives the payor of living expenses, can be factored into the CS.

Evidently, it was the father that asked for a modification ( lowering of the child support based on his hours being cut) his attorney should have warned him not to open that can of worms. Evidently, he was unable to convince the court he could not find other employment or work another job to make up the hours, which is what he would have had to do , had they still been married and the children had the exact same needs.
Also, it appeared like the judge upheld an existing clause in the original order that he was to pay the uninsured portion of the medical bills. You claim they were reimbursed. Obviously, the court wasn't persuaded.
How would the father have acess to the spouse's medical coverage statements to prove they were reimbursed?
Regardless, evidence like this has tto follow the best evidence rule, whichhe would have to obtain a statement fromthe insurance company and have someone ( insurance company) subpeoned to testify to those facts. She presented the bills, to counter that fact, would take more than his "say so".

I am not sure what help you think your friend needs? View it like this, if they were still married and the children had all those same needs, what would he do?



And these issues were settled in the original hearings, where verybody had an opportunity to be heard, have attorneys represent them, etc. The courts are loathe to re-0visit these cases over and over , because someone has a different job or a new familiy ( all choices) The chidlrens needs have not changed, and the courts act on the best interest of the children , not the parents. It is not the children's fault the parents couldn't get along.

Someone once mentioned we should make it hard to get divorced. I replied we do, it is called child support and spousal support.
It sounds as if I am very unsympathetic; that is not the case. I am merely telling you the mindset of the legislature and the courts , when it comes to forcing parents to be repsonsible for the children they create. I know many married men with intact families , that after all the expenses are out of their pay, are lucky to have lunch money left for the week. Kids cost money. When I was in law school and my son was little , I ate tuna, sometimes ate only one meal a day, so he could have balanced meal and all the stuff a kid needs. Kids should not suffer so parents can get on with their lives.

So for clarification, it is legal to use the new spouse's income in determining child support?
If that's the case, why get married especially if you happen to be a woman who has her own business, making great money. And the question I ask, "Is it Legal?", or is it just done that way?

I will try again , if you new partner has contributed to the living expenses ( whether she makes 6 an hour or is amillionaire) that reduce your need to contribute to your living expenses; the courts figure you have more DISPOSABLE income to go towards child support.
I am not being cruel or flip; but the courts could care less if you re-marry or not, or who you marry.
Their focus is on providing the child with the support necessary to not be raised in poverty.
They are not DIRECTLY using your new partner's iincome towards the calulation, they are using it to reduce the amount YOU NEED to live on.
The reason they count a married partners and not a roommates or even mother (if you live with mother) is because they are not legally obligated for your debt or care. A married partner is.
The stautes have defintions of both income how it is adjusted, what expenses are allowed and for waht an by whom.

So yes, it is "legal"; courts rarely do illegal acts, ( I have no idea what you mean by "done that way"; do you mean some off-the-hip made up stuff that attorney just shrug their shoulders at and let courts make up law as they go along?...no)
I assume you had counsel; did you ask him/her about this process and about the judge recusing herself? That is what you paid him for, to provide representation and advice and guide your the treacherous child support waters

First let me explain that this is not for me. My husband and I went thru the x-wife and child support issue 12 years ago and I'm sure that many things have changed.
The other part of this is that if you had explained the new spouse question the first time from the courts point of view, like you did here, I would not have asked to ask for clarification. But then I thought that was what you were here for. After all this particular question was in your career field.
Your right, stop being so flip. If I were a client sitting in front of you paying for your time would you treat me like I was an inconvenience for asking additional questions?

No good deed ever goes unpunished; from what viewpoint did you think the explanantion was from if not from the courts point of view? In the first answer , I said:

quote ":It sounds as if I am very unsympathetic; that is not the case. I am merely telling you the mindset of the legislature and the courts "

and "Yes, I just answerde theis "income stream " question. If you firend's wife is contributing to the household expenses, that leaves more disposable income for the payor ( in this case father), and income stream that relives the payor of living expenses, can be factored into the CS. "

This: from the courts prespective and stated that the income stream factor.

Looked clear to me!

Then:
"But then I thought that was what you were here for."
I guess since you do not have to pay $300.00 an hour , then you feel free to be abusive to someone that volunteers their time and expertise.

Shame on you, now you know whay more attorneys don't bother to answer questions for free, evidently, if you don't have to pay out the nose, you don't the think person or their advice has any value, and from your anonymity , you can be rude to someone rather than show any gratitude.

FYI : Flip ( Flippant):showing inappropriate levity
I do not see any levity in my answer or any lack of seriousness

and to show you how little you know about lawyer /educators; when I say" I will try again" that is because evidently it was my fault for failing to explain in a manner that was clear. I didn't say , "what part of this did you not understand" or place any blame on you.

If you have bothered to read any of my other answers I often opost many many clarifications to further questions. But it was easier to to be rude.

I understood your explanation the second time along with it being the courts point of view,
so I apologize for the second part of my question to you the last e-mail.
I never suggested that the information you were giving me had no value. That was never my intention nor had it crossed my mind. I just needed a clearer definition of what you were talking talking about.
And your right, you have given of your time and it is appreciated. I also understand your a professional in your field and obviously one that I wish had been representing my friend.
Perhaps he wouldn't be in this mess if he had had an attorney who willing to defend inform and defend him.
Thanks for the lesson.

No problem; there is usally a failure to communicate , both because of the format and because of the Legal language"; that is up to the professional in their discipline to create understanding not the buirden of the asker. People often have no idea what is important and what isn't. As on TV when the lawyers ask: tell me everything no matter how unimportant it may be to you.
A good lawyer looks out for his client; a really good lawyer looks out for his client 20 years down the road. WE seem like such negative peopel whenwe do that , but thatis our job, to figure out what will go wrong, and fix it before it happenes. we have to be devils advocates.

it jut took a few men, to quit their jobs and live off "new ives" for the courts and the legislature to start looking at that income stream. a few bad apples.
I am NOT saying your husband did that at all, just explaining how these "fixes" come about.
My former spouse had a former spouse and CS; I woke up one morning to find a state lien on my home I had before marriage( even though the CS was current) I had it removed but the courts strive to find that path that will ensure the child are supported until majority,
now many state are "encouraging " life insurance on the part of the payor.
I appeciate your graciousness.

Thank you for the vote; and perhaps your attorney will also suggest keeping separate accounts in case of garnishment or other actions. I do know how it feels yoto be the "innocent spouse" in these situations. I was very angry also.

Thanks so much for asking this question your my hero! Gotta love Indiana courts!