Thank you for your follow-up. I will respond to each paragraph separately.
First he did not volutarily quit his previous job he was "constructively discharged" due to inability to perform the necessary duties of his job, based on his Dr. work restrictions. He did in fact win a settlement from his previous employer for this (deducting taxes & lawyer fees all was sent to his ex for payment of back child support). Do you feel this information would be helpful in showing that he in no way is trying to lower or get out of paying support for his children.
I do not see that as relevant--I simply see the argument that claiming "substantial injustice" will take place if he is requested to pay above the guidelines as legitimate, not for paying under the guidelines which is where he is currently listed.
Second his previous denials for disability stated denial due to the fact they did not find that he was "unable" to work "any" job, so not likely to be approved this time, forgo his getting a job that he is "capable" of doing with his back conditions. For reference he has been a MIG welder for over 10yrs and now works at Dairy Queen as a cook. He his capable of working just not at the capacity he had previously and definately not in a highly physical factory type of job as he had done for most of his working years.
I understand but it would be up to him to show that he has been zealously attempting to obtain employment based on his skill level and taking his disability into account.
So my concern is are the courts able to say he "should" be earning more income solely based his denied disability claim and potentially set his Child Support above what he even brings home in gross per month?? He is ok with it being more than $40 per month, at the moment they are taking 50% of his gross which amounts to $100/month and he's fine with that. Just worried they will set an amount for example of $400 when he only grosses $200/month. As I already provide majority of support for him, and his children during visitations this is of great concern to me.
The courts might say so, but to fight against it, as I pointed out above, showing evidence of seeking other employment above the current position would be likely seen as sufficient.
So this basically boils down to him needing to get as much current updated medical information (as he has no medical ins. & limited income he has not been to see any doctor for over 1yr after they denied his back surgery), to prove that he is able to work, yet not at the same capacity he had in the past which inturn restricts his income potential, now and future years.
Correct, and that is his duty and his obligation to prove to the courts.