After repeatedly insisting that he wasn’t a “deadbeat dad” throughout his failed campaign for re-election — and he was– ex-GOP Rep. Joe Walsh is now trying to get his child support payments reduced, but the motion actually states, “motion to terminate child support.” Previously, Walsh was sued for $100,000 in back child support. Still yet, he now insists again that he is not a deadbeat Dad.
The Chicago Sun-Times reports that Walsh, an acidic Tea Party Republican favorite, “who was trying to land a radio deal and last week announced he was forming a new conservative SuperPAC, filed court papers seeking to end his obligation to pay $2,134 per month in child support.”
Both Walsh and his attorney claim that because he is no longer employed as a congressman, they want to “modify” the previous agreement so that he pays 20 percent of his current salary.
Walsh is not currently employed and has no salary. But that could change, he said. “I’m working on it,” he said.
But an attorney for Walsh’s ex-wife said that the former congressman is behind on child support payments that were dictated under a previous court order and that Walsh’s ex-wife was taken by surprise by a Feb. 1 court filing that asks “to terminate child support obligation,” saying Walsh “is without sufficient income or assets with which to continue to pay his support obligation.”
“This is the first communication we’ve received from the congressman; she had no information prior to receiving this filing in the mail that he was going to seek,” said Jack Coladarci, an attorney for Walsh’s ex-wife. “He did not pay January and he has not paid February support… You still have to keep paying until the judge says you can stop.”
Walsh’s court filing states: “Joe’s employment has been terminated through no voluntary act of his own and he is without sufficient income or assets with which to continue to pay his support obligation. Due to a substantial change in circumstances, Joe requests that his child support obligation be terminated based on his present income and circumstances.”
After being asked why the motion was titled “motion to terminate child support,” Walsh’s lawyer, Janet Boyle, characterized the title to the motion, which Walsh signed, as misleading.
Boyle said, “It probably should have been a motion to modify, that’s probably what I would have captioned it. My office used a word that is getting turned around here. That’s what we’re asking for, a modification, whether that’s modified to zero or some other number has yet to be seen.”
Walsh provided pay stubs to the Sun-Times. One shows that there was a $2,134 deduction for the pay period ending Dec. 31. However, Coladarci said that reflects the payment for December, not January. A pay stub from Walsh dated Feb. 1, does not show such a transfer.
But he still insists that he isn’t a deadbeat Dad.
H/T: My son-bot @ComgenKDT with thanks.