"If she has no job"
...had you read poster's previous posts, you would know Mom's income has ALREADY been IMPUTED in this mess.
"and still wants an increase in CS, that is greedy"
What in the world is "greedy" about guideline support?! That is the law. She isn't asking for support herself; just GUIDELINE amounts the law has prescribed. AND she asked for LESS than guideline just to make him happy if he'd promise to see the child. That was STIPULATED in the order. NOT an increase.
"She files the motions and wants him to pay for her attorney fees when he has no counsel, does not make sense" He reneged AND has counsel.
If you READ the post, you will notice poster contradicts himself (again!) by claiming he has no attorney, then claims HIS attorney wants $4000!
Obviously there is an issue with veracity here.
"If she needs more money she is free to get a job again."
REPEAT: her income has already been IMPUTED to her.
MOM followed the existing order accepting UNDER guideline support; it was the poster who reneged on the order...that's why he has to pay. It's very simple.
It would really help alot if responders would actually read the postings; some seem to go off on a tangent totally unrelated to the issue ignoring the specific details, while addressing a different issue seemingly all in their imagination.
This must be disheartening to many posters; it is understandable when they post their version of "War and Peace" (in one paragraph!), but there is no excuse when the post is a few sentences long.
No excuses for non-compliance.