Wingard v. Paris

10 Citing cases

  1. Eubanks v. Rabon

    281 Ga. 708 (Ga. 2007)   Cited 7 times

    Thus, although the trial court found in the course of considering the financial status of the parties that Rabon's income had increased by 112%, it did not apply the guidelines to Eubanks's claim for modification. "[C]hild support guidelines apply not only to initial determinations of child support, but also to modification actions, and'" . . . must be considered by any court setting child support." [Cit.]'" Wingard v. Paris, 270 Ga. 439, 440 ( 511 SE2d 167) (1999). The trial court's failure to apply the child support guidelines to Eubanks's counterclaim constitutes another basis for reversal of the judgment below.

  2. Wetherington v. Wetherington

    291 Ga. 722 (Ga. 2012)   Cited 9 times
    Reversing child support award because "the trial court erred [by] failing to determine whether there had been a change in [h]usband's financial circumstances since the original child support award that would warrant a modification of child support pursuant to OCGA § 19-6-15"

    We have explained that “[t]he showing of a change in [the parent's] financial status or a change in the needs of the child ... is a threshold requirement” in a modification action. Wingard v. Paris, 270 Ga. 439, 439, 511 S.E.2d 167 (1999). If the trial court determines that there has been such a change, the court must then enter a “written order specifying the basis for the modification ... and shall include all of the information set forth in paragraph (2) of subsection (c) of this Code section,” OCGA § 19–6–15(k)(4), which includes application of the statutory child support guidelines. In addition, OCGA § 19–6–15(c)(1) provides,

  3. Spurlock v. Department of Human Resources

    286 Ga. 512 (Ga. 2010)   Cited 22 times
    Reversing and remanding —also for failure to make the statutorily required findings—a high-income deviation of $274.30 above a presumptive obligation of $725.44, which resulted in a total obligation of 138 percent of the presumptive obligation

    This Court routinely exercises its divorce and alimony jurisdiction when actions for modification of child support previously awarded in a divorce decree are brought by a parent pursuant to OCGA § 19-6-19. See Jones v. Jones, supra; Moccia v. Moccia, 277 Ga. 571-572 (1) ( 592 SE2d 664) (2004); Wilson v. Wilson, 270 Ga. 479 ( 512 SE2d 255) (1999); Wingard v. Paris, 270 Ga. 439 ( 511 SE2d 167) (1999); Robertson v. Robertson, 266 Ga. 516, 518 (1) ( 467 SE2d 556) (1996). Likewise, this Court has repeatedly exercised jurisdiction in cases involving DHR's review pursuant to OCGA § 19-11-12 of child support awards originally established in a divorce decree.

  4. Moccia v. Moccia

    592 S.E.2d 664 (Ga. 2004)   Cited 9 times
    Affirming denial of motion to reduce child support where the evidence did not “demand” a finding in favor of the party requesting modification

    ]" (Emphasis in original.) Wingard v. Paris, 270 Ga. 439 ( 511 S.E.2d 167) (1999). Here, the divorce decree established that, as evidenced by Father's earning capacity, rather than his current income, a level of support of $1,000 per month was appropriate.

  5. In Interest of R. F

    673 S.E.2d 108 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 3 times

    4. Nor do we find any merit in the mother's claim that the juvenile court erred in refusing to modify the amount of child support she is required to pay. Under OCGA § 19-6-15 (k) (1), a parent is not entitled to a modification of a child support award unless she can first show "a substantial change in either [the] parent's income and financial status or the needs of the child." See also Wingard v. Paris, 270 Ga. 439 ( 511 SE2d 167) (1999) ("The showing of a change in financial status or a change in the needs of the child . . . is a threshold requirement. [Cit.]") (emphasis in original).

  6. Gowins v. Gary

    288 Ga. App. 409 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 6 times
    Noting that we will uphold the factual findings underlying a support modification if they are supported by "any evidence"

    See Ga. L. 2006, p. 583, § 10 (b). See Wingard v. Paris, 270 Ga. 439 ( 511 SE2d 167) (1999). (Punctuation omitted.)

  7. Ward v. Georgia Department of Human Resources

    241 Ga. App. 298 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 2 times

    Id. at 70 (4). See OCGA § 19-6-19 (a); Wingard v. Paris, 270 Ga. 439 ( 511 S.E.2d 167) (1999). In addition to the self-initiated remedy available under § 19-6-19, however, a custodial parent may apply to DHR for child support enforcement services.

  8. Park-Poaps v. Poaps

    351 Ga. App. 856 (Ga. Ct. App. 2019)   Cited 22 times
    Reversing trial court's award of pro rata costs for child's extracurricular activities because court failed to make required findings to support deviation from guidelines, and remanding for further proceedings

    "After the trial court finds satisfactory proof of a change in financial status, it must reconsider the amount of child support under the guidelines of OCGA § 19-6-15 (b)." Wingard v. Paris , 270 Ga. 439, 440, 511 S.E.2d 167 (1999). See OCGA § 19-6-15 (k) (4).

  9. Selvage v. Franklin

    350 Ga. App. 353 (Ga. Ct. App. 2019)   Cited 5 times
    Vacating portion of order related to visitation and remanding the case with instructions for the trial court to enter an order providing findings of fact and conclusions of law" because the father was entitled to requested findings of facts under OCGA §§ 19-9-3, 9-11-52

    "After the trial court finds satisfactory proof of a change in financial status, it must reconsider the amount of child support under the guidelines of OCGA § 19-6-15 (b)." Wingard v. Paris , 270 Ga. 439, 440, 511 S.E.2d 167 (1999). See also Wetherington , 291 Ga. at 725 (2) (a), 732 S.E.2d 433.

  10. Moore v. Moore

    815 S.E.2d 242 (Ga. Ct. App. 2018)   Cited 3 times

    Wetherington v. Wetherington , 291 Ga. 722, 725 (2) (a), 732 S.E.2d 433 (2012). See Wingard v. Paris , 270 Ga. 439, 439, 511 S.E.2d 167 (1999) (accord).Appellee’s petition asked that she be awarded "permanent child support in compliance with Georgia Statutory Guidelines."