CASE LAW

• “Any deviation from the presumptive amount must be supported by written findings of the trial Judge specifying why the application of the guideline amount would be unjust or inappropriate.”  See - *Richardson, 12 Va. App. at 21, 401 S.E.2d at 896.

• In any proceeding determining child support, there is a rebuttable presumption that the amount determined through application of the statutory child support guidelines is the correct amount.    See - *Code §§ 20-108.1(B) and -108.2(A).  

• “This amount is computed by considering the gross income of both parents and the number of children involved. No additions or subtractions to gross income may be made before the initial figure is computed.”   See - *Richardson v. Richardson, 12 Va. App. 18, 21, 401 S.E.2d 894, 896 (1991).

• “a conclusory written statement of [the circuit court's] findings" is not sufficient to justify deviating from the presumptive guideline amount.  Id.  If the circuit court fails to provide sufficient explanation for any deviation it decides to make, its actions will be deemed error.”  See - *Pharo v. Pharo, 19 Va. App. 236, 450 S.E.2d 183 (1994).

• ‘Supreme Court urged trial courts to enter written findings on the record in all child support cases, with one justice specially concurring on the point”. 2242 U.S.C. § 667(b)(2); 45 C.F.R. § 302.56(g); e.g., Hepburn v. Hepburn, 659 So. 2d 653 (Ala. Civ. App. 1995); In re Marriage of English, 757 P.2d 1130 (Colo. Ct. App. 1988); Castro v. Castro, 31 Conn. App. 761, 627 A.2d 452 (1993); Dalton v. Clanton, 559 A.2d 1197 (Del. 1989); Wood v. Wood, 632 So. 2d 720 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994); People ex rel. Browing v. Melton, 180111. App. 3d 519, 536 N.E.2d 133 (1989); Beardsley v. Heazlitt, 654 N.E.2d 1178 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995); Manila v. Bower, 634 N.E.2d 537 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994); In re Marriage of McDermott, 827 N.W.2d 671 (Iowa 2013)

• [T]o rebut the presumption of correctness of the guidelines, a trial court must make written findings of enough detail and exactness to allow for effective appellate review of the findings.  Specifically, these findings must identify the factors that justified deviation from the guidelines, and explain why and to what extent the factors justified the adjustment.  See - *Richardson, 12 Va. App. at 22, 401 S.E.2d at 897; see also Solomond v. Ball, 22 Va. App. 385, 391, 470 S.E.2d 157, 159-60 (1996); Pharo v. Pharo, 19 Va. App. 236, 238, 450 S.E.2d 183, 184 (1994).  See also Farley v. Liskey, 12 Va.App. 1, 4, 401 S.E.2d 897, 899 (1991).

• Under normal circumstances, a party seeking modification of an existing child support obligation needs show there has been a material or substantial change in circumstances which justifies the change.  This discourages people from flooding the courthouse with requests to modify the current amount unless something which would drive the support amount (income, health insurance, daycare, etc.) has changed considerably.  However, existing Virginia case law suggests that the imposition of new guidelines, even with nothing else, justifies changing the support amount, where the change in amount is significant.  (See Milligan v. Milligan, 12 Va. App. 982 (1991), see also Slonka v. Pennline, 17 Va. App. 662 (1994) and Head v. Head, 24 Va. App. 166, 176, 480 S.E.2d 780 (1997).

• “Only if [circuit courts] follow the statutory requirements will Virginia child support awards conform to the federal and state legislative mandates designed to create uniformity in support awards between parents and children similarly situated.  [Circuit courts] must make the requisite specific written findings, not solely for the purposes of appellate review, but, more important, to enable . . . judges in future hearings to decide whether and how to increase, decrease, or terminate support.  Only by having specific written findings will . . . judges in subsequent proceedings be able to make informed decisions on how a change in circumstances may justify modification or may justify continued deviation from the guidelines.”  See -  *Hiner  v. Hadeed, 15 Va. App. 575, 581-82, 425 S.E.2d 811, 815 (1993) (internal citations omitted).

• "required the states to create a rebuttable presumption that the amounts recommended in the child support guidelines are the correct amounts to be awarded. Turner v. Turner, 219 Conn. 703, 714, 595 A.2d 297 (1991)." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 711 n.15; see also id., 710 n.13.,  Favrow v. Vargas, 231 Conn. 699,(1994)

• ¶7] Child support determinations involve questions of law which are subject to a de novo standard of review, findings of fact which are subject to a clearly erroneous standard of review, and may, in some limited areas, be matters of discretion subject to an abuse-of-discretion standard of review. Bladow v. Bladow, 2005 ND 142, ¶ 19, 701 N.W.2d 903 (citing Buchholz v. Buchholz, 1999 ND 36, ¶ 11, 590 N.W.2d 215).    

• “In short, “where a trial court is required to make written findings supporting its decision, its failure to do so constitutes reversible error.” Robinson v. Robinson, 50 Va. App. 189, 194, 648 S.E.2d 314, 316 (2007).

• “court may not deviate from the amount of the child support yielded by the guidelines without a written finding that the guidelines would be unjust or inappropriate under specific criteria”; In re Marriage of Lux, 489 N.W.2d 28 (Iowa Ct. App. 1992); Shaddox v. Schoenberger, 19 Kan. App. 2d 361.869 P.2d 249 (1994); Genusa v. Genusa, 30 So.2d 775 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2009)

• “after determining the presumptively correct child support amount using the child support worksheet, the trial court must consider whether to rebut the presumed correct child support amount, as found by the court, as being unjust or inappro-priate after consideration of all relevant factors”; Scoggins v. Timmerman, 886 S.W.2d 135 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994); Hajenga v. Hajenga, 257 Neb. 841, 601 N.W.2d 528 (1999); Barbagallo v. Barbagallo, 105 Nev. 546, 779 P.2d 532 (1989); Gowing v. Gowing, III N.C. App. 613,432 S.E.2d 911(1993); O'Callaghan v. O'Callaghan, 515 N.W.2d 821 (N.D. App. 1994); Marker v Grimm, 65 Ohio St. 3d 139, 601 N.E.2d 496 (1992); Fitzgerald v. Shanun, 857 P.2d 92 (Okla. App. 1993); Elias v Spencer, 449 Pa. Super. 359.673 A.2d 982 (1996); Lembo v. Lembo, 624 A.2d 1089 (R.I. 1993); Schwab v. Schwab, 505 N.W.2d 752 (S.D. 1993); Mayers v. Mayers, 15 Va. App. 587, 425 S.E.2d 587 (1993); Richardson v. Richard-son, 12 Va. App. 18,401 S.E.2d 894 (1991); In re Marriage of Booth, 114 Wash. 2d 772, 791 P.2d 519 (1990); Bellinger v. Bettinger, 183 W. Va. 528, 396 S.E.2d 709 (1990). 23 Roosth v. Roosth, 889 S.W.2d 445 (Tex. Ct. App. 1994). See also O'Brien v. O'Brien, 138 Conn. App. 544, 53 A.3d 1039 (App. Ct. 2012)

• “a trial court must make an on-the-record finding of the presumptive child support amount before applying deviation criteria in order to facilitate appellate review in those cases in which the trial court finds that a deviation is justified; the finding will enable an appellate court to compare the ultimate order with the guideline amount and make a more informed decision on a claim that the amount of the deviation, rather than the fact of a deviation; court failed to do so which constituted an abuse of discretion”; Mayfield v. Mayfield, 2013 IL 114655, 989 N.E.2d 601 (III. 2013)

• “trial court must apply the child support guidelines, unless it finds that a deviation is appropriate based on the evidence presented by the parties on various factors, and if it does, it must explain why”; In re Marriage of Kent, 245 III. App. 3d 575, 615 N.E.2d 402 (1993)

• “so long as court explains reasons for deviation, court does not have to use words "unjust" or "inappropriate" to deviate”.  23 Burnside v. Somerville, 202 A.D.2d 1064. 609 N.Y.S.2d 127 (1994). See also In re Marriage of Upson, 991 P.2d 341 (Cob. Ct. App. 1999)

• “trial court gave legally insufficient reasons for deviation from child support guidelines”; Reynolds v. Reynolds, 668 So. 2d 245 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

•  “record was silent as to rationale for deviation”. 26 E.g., Smith v. Snyder, 671 So. 2d 752 (Ala. Civ. App. 1995)

• “lack of written findings to support deviation was fatal to court's decision”; Jones v. Jones, 636 So. 2d 867 (Ha. Dist. Ct. App. 1994); Boruff v. Boruff, 602 N.E.2d 180 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992); 67 Wn. App. 378, 835 P.2d 1054, MARRIAGE OF GLASS. But see Draper v. Draper, 40 Conn. App. 570, 672 A.2d 522 (1996)

• “deviation for private school was error where court failed to make particular findings as to why deviation was necessary”; Roberts v. Roberts, 391 S.W.3d 921 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013)

• “record was silent as to rationale for deviation”. 26 E.g., Smith v. Snyder, 671 So. 2d 752 (Ala. Civ. App. 1995); Woolridge v. Woolridge, 915 S.W.2d 372 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996

•  “lack of written findings to support deviation was fatal to court's decision”; Jones v. Jones, 636 So. 2d 867 (Ha. Dist. Ct. App. 1994);

• “We hold that the trial court erred in failing to calculate the presumptive amount of child support and in failing to provide a written explanation for a deviation from the child support guidelines, and we reverse and remand with directions to comply with Code 20-108.1 and 20-108.2. .”  See - * HYLTON VS  HYLTON Record No. 2307-96-3 VA 1999 ;   JUDGE DONALD W. LEMONS

• “trial court gave legally insufficient reasons for deviation from child support guidelines”;  See - Reynolds v. Reynolds, 668 So. 2d 245 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

• “court may not deviate from the amount of the child support yielded by the guidelines without a written finding that the guidelines would be unjust or inappropriate under specific criteria”;  See - In re Marriage of Lux, 489 N.W.2d 28 (Iowa Ct. App. 1992); Shaddox v. Schoenberger, 19 Kan. App. 2d 361.869 P.2d 249 (1994); Genusa v. Genusa, 30 So.2d 775 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2009)

• This statutory requirement obligates the trial court to “identify the factors that justified deviation from the guidelines” and to “explain why and to what extent the factors justified the adjustment.” Richardson v. Richardson, 12 Va. App. 18, 22, 401 S.E.2d 894, 897(1991); cf. Pilati v. Pilati, 59 Va. App. 176, 182, 717 S.E.2d 807, 810 (2011)

• (interpreting the analogous “written findings” requirement for spousal-support orders and stating the need for the trial court to explain “its resolution of any significant underlying factual disputes”). This is because there must be “enough detail and exactness to allow for effective appellate review of the findings.” Princiotto v. Gorrell, 42 Va. App. 253, 260, 590 S.E.2d 626, 630 (2004) (internalquotation marks omitted).

• [T]here shall be a rebuttable presumption in any judicial or administrative proceeding for child support that the amount of the award which would result from the application of the guidelines set out in § 20-108.2 is the correct amount of child support to be awarded....            In order to rebut the presumption, the court shall make written findings in the order, which findings may be incorporated by reference, that the application of such guidelines would be unjust or inappropriate in a particular case. The finding that rebuts the guidelines shall state the amount of support that would have been required under the guidelines, shall give a justification of why the order varies from the guidelines, and shall be determined by relevant evidence pertaining to [certain enumerated statutory factors] affecting the obligation, the ability of each party to provide child support, and the best interests of the child...  See also Farley v. Liskey, 12 Va.App. 1, 4, 401 S.E.2d 897, 899 (1991). Herring v. Herring, 532 S.E.2d 923 (Va. Ct. App. 2000).  Brody v. Brody, 432 S.E.2d 20 (Va. Ct. App. 1993). Walter Edward Saxon, Jr. v.  Angela LeSueur, 0516132 (Va. Ct. App. 2013). Kirk T. Milam v. Shelia J. Milam, 0837124 (Va. Ct. App. 2013). James Jospeh Ledwith v. Beth Faber Ledwith, 0154042 (Va. Ct. App. 2004). Deborah C. Sproles v. Robert K. Lowry, IV, 0134983 (Va. Ct. App. 1999). Zubair A. Saleem v. Afshan Ghias Saleem, a/k/a et a, 0443974 (Va. Ct. App. 1998).

• Code § 20-107.2(2) vests discretion in the trial court in awarding child support and such awards will not be reversed on appeal unless plainly wrong or unsupported by the evidence.'"  Auman v. Auman, 21 Va. App. 275, 277, 464 S.E.2d 154, 155 (1995)  (quoting Young v. Young, 3 Va. App. 80, 81, 348 S.E.2d 46, 47 (1986).

 ALSO SEE SOME OTHER SUPREME COURT CASES

Berge v. Berge 710 NW2d 417, Knobs v. Jacobson, 707 NW2d 803, Brandner v. Brandner 698 NW2d 259, Christoffersen v. Giese 691 NW2d 195 and again in Minar v. Minar 625 NW2d 518.

THIS IS AN ABUSE of POWER BY JUDGE LARRY DAVID WILLIS OF THE CHESAPEAKE JUVENILE AND DOMESTIC RELATIONS DISTRICT COURT

He is on the list of bad Judges which can be seen here:

Posted by citizens

LINK and Here

This is a statement found online Here

“Larry Willis had been the Chairman of the Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission for years up until a new chair was chosen about a month ago.  He was personally responsible for keeping bad judges on the bench by sweeping their misdeeds under the rug.  Of over 2100 complaints filed in 2008, he only saw fit to investigate 20.

He probably ignored their misdeeds because his own were usually much worse.  Sleeping through trials, playing on his computer instead of following the proceedings, making his decisions before the testimony is completed, refusing to listen to litigants who were pro se, acting as the attorney for litigants that he liked, and the list goes on.

I'm calling on all "victims" to contact me.  If we have sufficient numbers, maybe we can challenge his reappointment.  Unless we have numbers, there is no need to waste our time.”

Mr. Thea Artis

VA EQUAL Parents, Inc.

Link

 Judge Larry Willis of the Chesapeake Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court has violated multiple federal and State laws. 

I have sold proof and yet nothing is done about it!!

 I have asked for help from any resources.  I have already sent my documented proof to the Virginia governor Terry McAuliffe, Mark Warner, Tim Kaine, members of the general assembly, Wavy TV Ten, and many other news media resources.

 Judge Larry D. Willis of the Chesapeake JDR Court may retaliate however I have many civil rights groups standing by my side.  I am a member of The Fathers Rights Movement and this organization is all too familiar with my case.  I have the hacktivist group Anonymous helping me get the word out about my online.   The Fathers Rights Movement, Anonymous and other civil rights groups stand ready to rally in Protest on my behalf if this Judge takes out his vengeance.

   We all stand together as one in this matter of Judge Larry Willis of the Chesapeake Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court.

 I ask for only one thing, for Judge Larry Willis of the Chesapeake Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court to DO his job and follow the law!   I call out for an investigation into my case at the Chesapeake Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court. Judge Larry D. Willis needs to be held accountable for his crimes against fathers who have cases in the Chesapeake Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court.

I ask for help from any attorneys so that I can seek Justice in Federal Court.  I ask for any media outlets to contact me to get my story to the public.  I will take this matter to FEDERAL COURT myself if needed for a violation of my RIGHTS as a US citizen of the United States of America.

Response from President Barack Obama, the Governor Terry McAuliffe, the State Senators of Virginia, Mark Warner and Tim Kaine

 After I contacted President Barack Obama, The Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe, Mark Warner and Tim Kaine I have received a few letters of response.  They are baffled about my child support case and The Virginia governor Terry McAuliffe has done what he can to help me with my child support case at The Chesapeake Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court.

  I have exchanged letters with The Obama Administration, The Governor’s office, Mark Warner’s office and Tim Kaines office.  I have sent documentation to all of them that provides one hundred percent proof beyond any doubt that Judge Larry Willis of the Chesapeake Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court has violated multiple State and Federal laws.  The Virginia governor Terry McAuliffe has launched an investigation into my case and has sent my complaint information to the local Division of Child Support Enforcement here in Chesapeake, VA.  I have been on the phone with the supervisor of this office.

The Chesapeake Division of Child Support office is located at:

814 Greenbrier Cir
Chesapeake, VA
(757) 548-7900

  I am highly grateful that The Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe has looked into my case and investigated the details of my child support case however The Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe, Virginia State Senators Mark Warner and Tim Kaine have all informed me in writing that they DO NOT have the authority to overturn a State Judges Decision.  Even if Judge Larry D. Willis violates both federal and State laws.

The Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe did reverse an administrative order to suspend my driver’s license so that I can work.   I am thankful for this and I think that Governor Terry McAuliffe is awesome!!   He cares about the little people whether they are felons, male, female, rich, poor, white or black.   I would like to thank Governor Terry McAuliffe personally for helping me however more needs to be done.

I have also send documentation to President Obama, members of the General Assembly, Civil Rights Groups and National and local media resources. I ask that people gather with me in protest against this injustice. I call out to fathers and other victims of The the Chesapeake Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court. I am in contact with atleast five other fathers, three families who are victims of The the Chesapeake Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court. The Fathers Rights Movement and other Civil Rights groups stand ready.

Other Victims of Chesapeake Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court

  I am in contact with other fathers that claim that they have been treated unfairly by this court just because of their gender. 

  What I can do is tell you what other licensed attorneys have told me about this court and I can provide documentation with solid facts that prove beyond any doubt that Judge Larry Willis of the Chesapeake Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court has violated at least four State and Federal laws.

  I have been in contact with other fathers that feel that they are victims of the Chesapeake Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court.  Fathers who have lost their visitation and custody rights in the Chesapeake Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court.  Fathers who are like me and are victimized by The Chesapeake JDR courts by Judges that violate federal and State laws.

 They have created groups in the past to organize against the Chesapeake Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Courts.  Only a few of these fathers have had the courage to post information online about their cases in the Chesapeake Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court.

  I once was talking to an attorney about this.  She said that for people to post negative things about a Judge or certain court online is perfectly normal.  That it’s going to happen. Well I did some research and this statement is FALSE.  It really is not that common for litigates to feel so victimized by a Judge that they post their information online.

  Most of the victims of the Chesapeake Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court lack the courage to stand up and fight. They also seek help only with their individual cases rather than fighting for other victims of the Chesapeake Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court.

  The Fathers Rights Movement

 The Fathers Rights Movement is a civil rights group for fathers however many of the Facebook followers and members of the Fathers rights Movement are women.  They also have children, both boys and girls who take the microphone to stand in protest against Social services and family courts all over the country.

 They protest wrongful practices and unlawful actions by family courts nationwide.  The Fathers Rights Movement stands by my side as they also are familiar with my case and documentation.

 The Hacktivist Group Known as Anonymous

  The Hacktivist Group Known as Anonymous has vowed to help organize a protest against the Chesapeake Juvenile Courts if this is needed and to launch a Search Engine Optimization campaign to rank this posting on Google in order to get traffic and help make the Public be aware of the actions of the Chesapeake JDR courts.