- 13 -
There is no doubt that Ms. Thiellesen benefited from receipt
of at least certain of the noncash advance payments. At the
time, Ms. Thiellesen was destitute and her car had been
repossessed. Based on the record, however, we are not convinced
that it is inequitable for Ms. Thiellesen to retain the advance
payments just because she will receive the same amount as future
child support. Up until the decision of the Circuit Court,
petitioner and Ms. Thiellesen had a workable relationship
regarding the best interests of their daughter. At the time,
petitioner intended the advance payments to “help out” Ms.
Thiellesen and to benefit Nicole given Ms. Thiellesen’s financial
situation. But to petitioner’s dismay, the advance payments were
not characterized as tantamount to child support, and he was
further required by State law to continue paying child support.
Thus, the essence of petitioner’s argument is that he now has to
pay double child support. We find petitioner’s argument
unpersuasive.
Although the advance payments were held not to be tantamount
to child support, the intended benefits of the advance payments
were to ensure that Nicole lived in a good environment while in
Ms. Thiellesen’s custody. Specifically, petitioner bought Ms.
Thiellesen a new truck in order for her to provide Nicole with
transportation while in her custody. Under the circumstances, we
find that petitioner made the advance payments as a father
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011