- 9 -
issue. As to the other child, James, who was less than 13 years
of age during the 3 years in question, petitioners presented no
documentary evidence to establish the amounts they paid each year
for his care while petitioners pursued gainful employment.
Petitioner testified she paid approximately $50 per week, for 50
weeks each year, for his care. These payments were in cash, and
petitioner produced no receipts to substantiate these payments.
The Court recognizes that petitioners were both gainfully
employed during the years at issue; however, the Court is
skeptical that petitioners incurred payments for the care of
James, or, if any payments were incurred, that such payments
would have been for 50 weeks each year. Petitioner was a
schoolteacher, and while petitioner was at school teaching, her
child was also at school, and, more than likely, the two returned
home on or about the same time each day. Moreover,
schoolteachers generally have 3 months each summer when they are
not required to report to work. For these time periods, the
Court cannot conclude that child care expenses were incurred.
And, finally, petitioners had another dependent child, Tanya, who
was over 18 years of age in 1989. Tanya may well have provided
some of the child care responsibilities for James on those
occasions where petitioners were unable to care for James. The
Court, therefore, holds for respondent on this issue and,
moreover, declines to make any allowance for child care expenses
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011