In the intricate and often disheartening world of family law, cases of injustice can leave lasting scars on the individuals involved. The latest example of such a travesty is the ongoing saga in the Superior Court of the State of Arizona, in and for the County of Maricopa, where Joseph Patrick Whyte finds himself in a battle for fairness and transparency against Diane June Hendershot. The case, filed under No. FC2018-054263, is a striking illustration of how the family court system can sometimes fail to deliver justice, particularly when it comes to the calculation and assignment of child support.
Joseph Whyte, through his counsel, has filed a Motion for Rule 85 Relief, a desperate plea to rectify the blatant errors and omissions in the court’s recent Child Support Order. This motion underscores the glaring discrepancies and questionable decisions made by the court, highlighting issues that could have severe financial and emotional repercussions for Mr. Whyte.
The Court’s Oversight and Misjudgments
One of the most shocking aspects of this case is the court’s apparent neglect in accurately assessing the financial circumstances of both parties. Despite clear evidence presented, the court failed to properly calculate the incomes of both Mr. Whyte and Ms. Hendershot. This failure resulted in an unjust child support order that grossly overestimates Mr. Whyte’s ability to pay, while seemingly ignoring significant sources of income for Ms. Hendershot.
The court’s order mandates Mr. Whyte to pay $1,103.00 per month in child support, based on an unclear and likely inflated assessment of his income. This decision does not account for his loss of employment due to mental health issues, a reality that has forced him to live with his parents in Michigan and struggle with a limited income. The court’s oversight in not providing a detailed breakdown of how it arrived at the income figures for both parties is not just an administrative failure; it is a gross miscarriage of justice.
Allegations of Fraud and Misrepresentation
Adding to the injustice is the accusation that Ms. Hendershot has engaged in fraudulent behavior, allegedly misrepresenting her financial situation and failing to disclose critical information during the discovery process. This includes withholding details about her trust fund, income from real estate sales, and rental income—all factors that should significantly impact the calculation of child support. By neglecting to consider these income sources, the court’s decision unfairly burdens Mr. Whyte while potentially allowing Ms. Hendershot to avoid her full financial responsibilities.
The Fight for Fairness
Mr. Whyte’s motion under Rule 85 of the Arizona Rules of Family Law Procedure is a crucial step toward seeking justice. It highlights the need for the court to revisit its decisions, properly weigh the evidence, and ensure that both parties’ incomes are accurately represented. The motion calls for a fair recalculation of child support based on Mr. Whyte’s actual income and a thorough examination of Ms. Hendershot’s financial disclosures.
This case is not just about one man’s struggle against a flawed system; it is a call to action for a more transparent and just family court process. The court’s responsibility is to ensure that all relevant information is considered and that decisions are made based on facts and fairness. The current situation reflects a system that, at best, is neglectful and, at worst, is complicit in perpetuating an unfair burden on one party.
Conclusion: A Demand for Judicial Accountability
As this case unfolds, it is imperative that the family court in Maricopa County is held accountable for its actions. The stakes are high, not just for Mr. Whyte, but for all individuals navigating the complex and often treacherous waters of family law. This situation serves as a stark reminder of the importance of judicial accountability and the need for a system that prioritizes justice and fairness above all.
In the end, the hope is that the court will recognize its mistakes and take the necessary steps to correct them. Only then can we begin to restore faith in a system that should protect the rights and well-being of all involved, rather than exacerbating the challenges they face. The fight for fairness is far from over, and it is crucial that we remain vigilant in demanding justice for those who have been wronged by the very system meant to protect them.
To read the specific alligations against Charles Kellers, Click here.
Leave a Reply