When Corporate Jobs and Cashier Positions Clash

The one place where corporate jobs, cashier positions, and parenting will collide is in Judge Vonda B’s YouTube court, where surprises are common and laughter is the best medicine at times. We delve into the case of the Parks, a couple involved in a child support dispute, in this episode. Mr. Parks is in front of the judge, a confused expression on his face. Can you really blame him? In this case, his ex-wife, who just left her corporate position for the glamorous life of a cashier, is at issue. Mr. Parks is certain that his ex-wife’s change in job is a ruse to avoid her financial obligations. But Judge Vonda B. is not a person to be taken advantage of. Any attempt to refer to the ex-wife as anything other than “ma’am” is promptly rejected by her. Ouch! Judge Vonda B. is not someone to be trifled with, as the ex-wife rapidly discovers.

Mr. Parks discloses that they had a kid together, which furthers the plot. The ex-wife contends that by covering the child’s medical costs and offering support, she is already making a positive impact on the child’s wellbeing. The ex-wife, eager to defend herself, interjects, “I left my corporate-paying job after our divorce, and I felt that it was not right in a way to mean… I intentionally left my job.” Oh no, it’s the deliberate stress of the divorce impeding work performance once more. Judge Vonda B. promptly ends that line of reasoning by telling the ex-wife that they are here to discuss finances, not the discord from their previous relationships.

ads

Now that the ex-wife’s income has been revealed, Mr. Parks is prepared to seize the opportunity. He is aware that she used to earn a staggering $70,000 annually from her corporate position. To his surprise, she turned down that high-profile post in favor of a head clerk position at a convenience store with a low annual salary of $30,000. The disbelief of Judge Vonda B. as she questions the ex-wife’s master’s degree credentials for such a post is apparent. A head clerk needing a master’s degree?  The ex-wife, though, is adamant about supporting her decisions. She maintains that the strain of the divorce made it impossible for her to execute her former job effectively. Judge Vonda B. replies, “You think I should be shouting support on thirty thousand dollars instead of the seventy that you intentionally start working at?” with her sharp wit. Burn! Judge Vonda B. won’t let the ex-wife off the hook that simply, that much is obvious.

Judge Vonda B. makes a choice after some hilarious banter and puzzled stares from Mr. Parks. She calculates that the ex-wife owes $899.60 in child support per month after deducting her income and health insurance costs. The judge seems more amused by the ex-wife’s uncertainty and tries to play the victim. Judge Vonda B. bids the perplexed participants farewell as the case comes to a close. However, she reminds us that the situation described is not unusual under Texas law before she draws to a close. The court might still order someone to pay the same amount of child support as their former greater income even if they are found to be purposefully underemployed in order to avoid paying it. So, people, don’t try to trick the system!

Warning: This page contains imaginary events that are solely intended for entertainment.