Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Barker v. Barker
Citations: 430 So. 2d 827; 1983 La. App. LEXIS 8213Docket: No. 82-CA-211
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; April 10, 1983; Louisiana; State Appellate Court
In the Twenty-Ninth Judicial District Court, Judge Currault ruled in favor of Marilyn Lee Barker, ordering James Alfred Barker to pay $600 monthly in child support for their daughter, Hope Renee Barker. The couple married in January 1969 in Georgia and divorced in June 1978 in Indiana without addressing child support. In 1980, Marilyn Barker initiated a URESA action in Pennsylvania, resulting in a $50 weekly support award, later increased to $274 monthly. In February 1982, she filed for further support increase while residing in Georgia, leading to the current appeal by James Barker. James Barker, employed as an instrumental engineer, claimed an error in increasing child support without evidence of changed circumstances. His weekly salary is reported at $1,000, with an additional $261.25 from overtime, totaling an average take-home pay of $900. However, no evidence was presented regarding his earnings at the time of the original support order in 1980, leaving uncertainty about any change in his financial situation. Marilyn Barker also works for Volt Technical Services, earning approximately $1,040 monthly. In 1981, her total income was over $12,000, projected to increase to about $13,600 in 1982. She detailed her monthly expenses for Hope, totaling $1,075, which includes costs for babysitting, school lunches, clothing, rent, utilities, food, and medical expenses. Mrs. Barker referred to a list of expenses from the previous year to support her claims regarding child support. The trial judge allocated $85 for Hope’s medical and dental expenses and calculated the rent as $400, leading to a total of $425 per month based on additional testimonies. The hearing's objective was to determine if there had been a change in circumstances since the original child support order in November 1980, which would warrant a modification. The court found no evidence in the record or transcript indicating any change in circumstances that justified altering the support order. Consequently, the appeal was reversed, with the appellee responsible for all costs. The court did not address additional errors raised by the appellant due to procedural non-compliance, including the failure to properly invoke a peremptory exception.