- 4 -
Therefore, that prior order shall continue, and upon
Mr. Cinelli’s report back to the Court, we will then
hopefully come to an agreement on the amount of child
support to be paid, or, if not, we will, of course, set
it down for further proceedings to make that ultimate
determination. But we are not making that
determination today.
* * * * * * *
THE REFEREE: * * * It would seem to me that once
that visitation schedule has been set, it is simply a
matter of calculation between yourselves and your
attorneys as to how to then prorate the amount of
support that’s going to be paid and how to break out of
the present unallocated support, the figure of support
and maintenance. Therefore, you shouldn’t have to
appear in front of the Court so long as there is
cooperation with Mr. Cinelli with regard to setting
forth some reasonable visitation. * * *
There was no further proceeding to fix a specific amount as
to child support.
Ms. McSkimming had remarried by 2000.1 Petitioner
nevertheless paid Ms. McSkimming $400 per week during 2000, for a
total sum of $20,800.2
During the year in issue, petitioner and Ms. McSkimming had
joint custody of their three children. Ms. McSkimming had
physical custody, while petitioner had the right to reasonable
and liberal visitation.
1 Petitioner is uncertain of the year when Ms. McSkimming
remarried, believing that her remarriage occurred sometime from
1996 to 1998.
2 The record indicates that Ms. McSkimming did not include,
in her Federal income tax return for the 2000 taxable year, any
portion of this amount as gross income under secs. 61(a)(8) and
71(a).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011