FAMILY COURT OF THE STATE OF
COUNTY OF ONONDAGA
In the matter of a Proceeding Under
Article 4 or 5-B of the Family Court Act
FOR SUPPORT MODIFICATION
— against –
1. The Petitioner’s name and address is:
c/o Software Workshop Inc.
55 E. Genesee Street
Phone: 315-635-1968, x-211
Respondent’s name and last known address is:
San Diego, CA
3. The child who is the subject of this petition is:
4. An order of support was made by:
Family Court Order, F-540-98,
Nov 30, 1998
Petitioner: Adrianne Phillipson
Respondent: John Murtari
5. The order of support required the Petitioner to:
Pay a weekly amount of $120.00 based on an imputed income level of $40,000.00
6a. There has been a change of circumstances since that date of the order of support
in that: My son was moved to California in January of 1999, this was not considered as part of the current support order. I had been making payments of $60/week prior to that
time on an approximate income of $16,000 annually.
My former spouse obstructs contact between us – this limits our only meaningful contacts to when I make a visit there. We have a very strong bond between us and Domenic looks forward to our time together and enjoys it very much.
No adjustment has been made to the Order since my Son moved to California to adjust for the high travel expenses. In 1999 I went to California on three occasions to see Domenic for a weekend. Including air fare, rent a car, food, and
accommodations (I would rent a cabin to provide a “home” environment) – each trip cost app: $900.00 – 1,000.00
In the summer vacation of 1999 I made two round trips to California to pickup and drop off Domenic. I paid for his round trip tickets – the total cost was:
$1,200 (Exhibit C).
Total travel expenses last year with about $4,200.
More than anyone I am concerned about supporting my son.
My relocation is not an option. I am an only child and have an 84 year old mother who also needs my help. In practical terms my former spouse comes from a wealthy family and has the means to provide Dom’s “material” needs. Dom has never gone “without” the material things in life … if I did not choose to visit him, he would go “without” the emotional
support I provided as his father.
If I had ever felt Dom was in physical need, I would have abandoned my mother and moved out there. I have always been very honest with the Courts about my intentions.
The financial disclosure affidavit contains a copy of my 1998 tax return (Exhibit A), income of: $18,400
It includes my 1999 return (Exhibit X). The financial disclosure affidavit has my W-2 for 1999 (Exhibit B) which is the entire basis of my income for the year:
$12,500. The 1040 includes a distribution of $7,275 on line 11, but this was not actual income received, but tax burden for my portion of an ‘S’ Corporation which I held at that time
Since the Spring of 1999 I have committed myself to an effort to Reform the Family Law System and to regain an equal relationship with my son, Domenic (newspaper
article, Exhibit D). This has become an important effort and it will not cease until I am restored as an equal parent to my son and can give him the personal support he deserves and which is my obligation & duty.
In the Fall of 1999 I ceased full time employment and only work at a consulting level at the family owned Company, my average monthly income since November of 1999 has been approximately $400.
6b. As a result of the change of circumstances since the date of the order of support, the order of support should be changed as follows:
The order should be modified so as to no longer require me to abandon a type of work to which I am well suited and which gives me the flexibility to be spend time with my child and also work for reform. I hope the Court will be able to take the time to recognize this is a good faith effort on the part of a very conscientious person who has a long record of
public and charitable involvement.
It should be based on actual IRS-1040 income amounts; it should include the expected amount of travel expenses.
At NO time have I ever hidden income or assets during a proceeding; nor have I been accused of such conduct.
I have never been accused (nor is it true) that I started the business or my present effort to reform the system in some attempt to “escape support payments”. These were all “good faith” decisions.
6c. I am asking for relief from arrears that accumulated prior to filing this petition and also from relief from the
“standard” enforcement procedures, and the reason that I did not file a petition before the arrears accumulated is:
After conviction on a support violation, I have been in jail from June 28 to December 28 of 2000 – this has seriously effected my income for this year
The decision to allow my son to move to California occurred in December of 1998, a decision to deny an earlier petition for support change occurred at approximately the same time. It was my intent to appeal both decisions and gain
relief in that matter.
Because of limited resources, the emphasis was placed on getting the Appeal completed on the move – this has been difficult and is expected to be perfected this month (almost a year later). The appeal of support simply had to be abandoned.
I have also spent approximately 50 days in jail during the past year as part of peaceful reform efforts. It has been a difficult year with limited time.
The SCU COMPUTERS are demanding payment (Exhibit G) – at my limited income levels they still require 65%. How am I
expected to survive? They would bring me well below any self support reserve. They “seized” a checking account I had – which had about a twenty dollar balance.
8 – I do not wish to make application for child support services.
9. A previous application was made for the relief requested in this petition, except:
A petition was filed in the Spring of 2000 to modify the order but that request was dismissed without a hearing by Hearing Examine Davies for “no cause of action.” There have been
additional changes to circumstances, as noted above,
since that time.
Wherefore, Petitioner respectfully requests that the current support Order be modified as set forth above and for such other further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF ONONDAGA
Murtari, being duly sworn, says that he is the Petitioner in the above-entitled
proceeding and that the foregoing is true to his own knowledge, except as to
matters herein stated to be alleged on information and belief and as to those
matters, he believes it to be true.
to before me on _____________