Decision and Order PURSUANT TO SECTION 1113 OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT, AN APPEAL MUST BE TAKEN WITHIN THIRTY DAYS OF RECEIPT OF THE ORDER BY APPELLANT IN COURT, THIRTY-FIVE DAYS FROM THE MAILING OF THE ORDER TO THE APPELLANT BY THE CLERK OF THE COURT, OR THIRTY DAYS AFTER SERVICE BY A PARTY OR ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD UPON THE APPELLANT, WHICHEVER IS EARLIEST. On September 19, 2022, respondent Oluwaleke Adefolusa Osinubi (“Respondent”) timely filed an objection to an order of support dated February 12, 2022 (the “Support Order”) and findings of fact dated July 16, 2022 (“Findings of Fact”) entered by Support Magistrate Amanda Norejko (the “Magistrate”) and provided by the court to counsel for the parties on August 19, 2022. Petitioner submitted proof of service of the objection upon counsel to petitioner Yaa Aboagyewa Dwamena (“Petitioner”), who timely filed a rebuttal. After review of the underlying matter and the court file, including the objection, the rebuttal, a reply submitted by Respondent, procedural history, transcripts and audio recordings of the hearing, the objection is denied.1 Background Petitioner and Respondent are the parents of one child, born January 12, 2011 (the “subject child”). On December 11, 2019, Petitioner filed a petition which sought to establish an order of support against Respondent for the subject child. After a substantial delay caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, a fact-finding hearing was held on the petition on December 11, 2020, December 23, 2020, January 6, 2021, February 5, 2021, February 10, 2021, February 17, 2011, February 24, 2021, March 26, 2021, March 30, 2021, and March 31, 2021. The Support Order and Findings of Fact were entered thereafter, and the court emailed copies to counsel for the parties on August 19, 2022. The Support Order designates Respondent as the non-custodial parent for the purposes of support and provides that Respondent shall pay basic support of $4,661.00 a month, 100 percent of costs for childcare, education, extra-curricular, unreimbursed health related expenses, and $91,194.91 in Retroactive support.2 The basic support award is based on an income cap of $350,000. Upon consideration of the factors specified in Family Court Act (“FCA”) §413(1)(f), the Magistrate determined that Respondent’s pro rata share of the basic support obligation reached using the statutory cap of $154,000 would be unjust and/or inappropriate for the following reasons: The financial resources of the custodial and non-custodial parent, and those of the child; The standard of living the child would have enjoyed had the marriage or household not been dissolved; The gross income of one parent is substantially less than the other parent’s gross income; (Objection, Exhibit A, Support Order at 2). As set forth in the Findings of Fact, the following documents were entered into evidence: financial statements, pay stubs, tax returns, W-2′s, and proof of additional expenses submitted by both parties. An itemized list of income and deductions of both parties and calculation of pro rata shares is annexed to the Findings of Fact as Appendix A. A list of all documents entered into evidence is annexed as Appendix B. The Magistrate calculated the parties’ income and determined that Petitioner’s adjusted gross income is $71,566.96, which is inclusive of Petitioner’s wages and $10,000 annually imputed to Petitioner based upon financial assistance from her family (Support Order, Appendix A; Findings of Fact
6-14). The Magistrate determined that Respondent’s adjusted gross income is $1,048,938.45, including wages, bonuses, and small amounts of interest and dividends from investments (Support Order, Appendix A; Findings of Fact
