The applicant brought a motion to change a temporary order that had previously eliminated child support due to the respondent’s unemployment and anticipated access transportation costs following the applicant’s relocation with the child.
The court found a material change in circumstances because the respondent had since obtained full-time employment with significantly increased income.
The court considered the allocation of access transportation costs, noting that while non-custodial parents often bear such costs, the law does not require this in every case.
Given that the relocation created substantial travel expenses and the parties had historically shared those costs, the court determined it remained equitable to continue sharing them.
A temporary child support order was made, adjusting table support by accounting for child care expenses and a contribution by the applicant toward access transportation costs.