When you go before the judge be ready to prove the reason for your drop in income, that it is a 50/50 agreement, and that Wroksheet B is the correct one to use by law. One point to raise on the stand could be that you are obligated to provide support for your children while they are in your care and that the worksheet A amount prevents that. Be ready for the ex's lawyer to raise a claim that your are voluntarily underemployed. Make sure you and your lawyer are familiar with appeallate cases where the Circuit allowed or ordered Worksheet B.

Also be ready for your ex to seek a reduction in the amount of time you have with the kids. Be ready to prove the 50/50 situation and that it is working well for your children, and that there is no change of circumstances since the consent judgement ordering 50/50.

Not sure who to report a HO to.

I have had some luck planting seeds in my local Tea Party group about our current "family" law system. Otherwise get as many Dads as you can to get involved.

Nothing happens quickly in this system, unless of course the state is seeking ways to make things harder for parents. I understand fully the desire to get quick results from our legislature and the courts. Keep pressure up on your legislature critters to get the laws back to representing the public rather than the special interests (such as trial lawyers and HOs that make a killing off contested divorce).
Patience, hard to have in this situation, but it is required.

You have 30 days to get your motion for appeal in to the circuit cout if I am not mistaken. Look up the rules for a pro se appeal in your circuit court's web page along with the time requirements.

So far sounds to me like you were railroaded into the "standard implementation order" garbage that permeates the courts (gives them an excuse to not have to think). Talk to you lawyer to find out if you need to meet any particular burden of proof to have it adjusted. Talk to him about what you case will need to prove to justify it. Such as, the increased tax burden on you every other year leaves less money available for you to spend on the child when he is with you, the change will not cause significant financial burden on her since she has another child that she can claim every year.

Good attorney in Vernon Parish? Not really such an animal, I have heard that such creatures exist somewhere, but not here. You can try Mike Anderson or Scott Westerchill. However, they and the others, are pretty beaten down by the local judges regarding custody and visitation. They ahve been saying that they will allow an increase in parenting time, don't even think about shared parenting though.

I think that whomever is the domiciliary parent gets to choose what happens to the money. You can likely petition the court seeking to have that money put into a trust so that it can be used for your child's college education.

In order to get a change in the Child support you will have to file for it through the courts. Contact a competent family law attorney to see about a change in custody (or modification of the custody order) so that your custody of your son cannot be arbitrarily taken away by an angry Mom. When you file that you will also have to talk to the attorney about about changing the CS order to worksheet B for a split custody case.
Be ready for mama to take your son back as soon as she is served. If she wants him back, do not try to interfere with the custody as it is ordered now. Document the fact that your son is now living with you and has been, with her consent, for X amount of months.
As far as what you have already paid to her is CS, no the court will not give that back to you. The courts cannot back date CS, it can only begin to take effect on the date that the moving party filed for the CS.

There have been a few cases where the Circuit courts have ruled in favor of both sides of the issue. Remember the one where the father was found volutarily under employed when he left a higher paying job in Houston?

The bottom line has always seemed to me to be an issue of proving that one is acting in good faith in taking the lower paying job or reducing over time. Remember that NCP is assumed to be wanting to be a "deadbeat". So I would want to show that the change in work schedule gives me more time available for my children (Priority 1) and that it is better for my own health (how can it be good for the kids for Dad to literally work himself to death?). I would also want to prove that overtime in the new position (the one taken under doctors orders) is just not offered or is very limited in scope and duration.
If I had started a second job or taken on ovetime AFTER the initial order and mama took me to court seeking more CS, I would want to be able to show that the overtime or second job was intended only to accomplish a specific goal (ie paying off a line of credit, vacation with the kids, home improvement).

Yes, I was VERY happy with this opinion. Some highlights:

"Since the Court has found that the district court was correct in denying Ms. Schmidt’s exception of no cause of action raised in her first assignment of error, it is clear from Mr. Schmidt’s motion that he is seeking a modification of visitation. Ms. Schmidt’s assertion that Mr. Schmidt seeks to change custody of the children is both misleading and far-reaching."

And:

"... the Family Law Handbook cited Mosely v. Mosely, 499 So.2d 106 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1986), in which the First Circuit held that modifications in visitation “are not so substantial as to require proof of a change of circumstances.” The First Circuit also held that as to modification of visitation, “a showing that the modifications are in the best interest of the children is
sufficient. La Civ. Code arts. 146,6 157.7” Id., 499 So.2d at 109...."

So it would seem to me that when pleading for an increase in time with the children, the NCP should talk to the lawyer about pleading for an "increase in visitation" or an "increase in parenting time" such as the father did in Gerace (3rd Cir.).

I think all of the Circuits have ruled that a trial court can disregard the testimony of expert witnesses. I have been seeing those type statements in opinions for years now. I'm pretty sure that Lawrence (3rd Circuit) a couple years ago was one of them, but was certainly not the first.

Orrill V. Orrill

Dad gets primary custody. Good ruling by the trial court and affirmation by the Circuit Court.

The trial court uses the phrase "Parental Alienation" in describing the mothers actions. Circuit court does not discredit or disavow the term. The heading for that particular discussion reads "Mother's Actions Alienating Son From Father."