ILNews

Evening visits don't count toward credit

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Overnight visits must take place overnight in order to be used in a claim for parenting time credit under the child support guidelines, ruled the Indiana Supreme Court Aug. 19.

In Marla K. Young v. Timothy S. Young, No. 09S05-0803-CV-136, the high court addressed whether evening visits could be credited as overnight visits when calculating child support. Timothy Young was awarded 104 overnights, including 52 which were for two additional evenings per week he spent with their kids.

But evening visits shouldn't count toward parenting time credit, the high court ruled, citing the Child Support Guidelines commentary explaining the term "overnight."

Neither the comment, nor any other part of the guideline, suggests that a term can be credited as overnight when the child doesn't actually stay overnight with the parent, wrote Chief Justice Randall Shepard.

"If the able and careful drafters of the guidelines had intended for non-overnight visits in which the noncustodial parent provides the children with transportation from school and to and from their activities, feeds them, and does homework with them to qualify for parenting time credit, the guidelines could have easily included those visits in the formula," he wrote.

The trial court erred in using Timothy's adjusted gross income figures from his tax returns without examining the deductions when calculating his child support obligation. His adjusted gross figure includes a deduction of money he invested into his retirement account, which doesn't qualify as an ordinary and necessary business expense that can be deducted when determining child support, wrote the chief justice.

The trial court shouldn't have included deductions for redemption of Marla Young's interest in their partnership, which she received as part of their property settlement. Plus, the court allowed all of the depreciation Timothy deducted on his tax returns to be deducted from his income for child support purposes without determining if the depreciation was appropriate, Chief Justice Shepard wrote.

In addition, payments under a property settlement Timothy made to Marla shouldn't be included in child support calculations because Timothy would receive a double benefit because not only does he own the property now, but he also would be allowed to receive a deduction for it.

"Just as the guidelines disallow deductions for payments made to former spouses as part of a property settlement, even if those payments were classified as maintenance by the parties, so too do we disallow deductions for property settlements made between a child's parents," wrote the chief justice.

The Supreme Court remanded with direction to reexamine the child support order in respect to these three issues.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. For many years this young man was "family" being my cousin's son. Then he decided to ignore my existence and that of my daughter who was very hurt by his actions after growing up admiring, Jason. Glad he is doing well, as for his opinion, if you care so much you wouldn't ignore the feelings of those who cared so much about you for years, Jason.

  2. Good riddance to this dangerous activist judge

  3. What is the one thing the Hoosier legal status quo hates more than a whistleblower? A lawyer whistleblower taking on the system man to man. That must never be rewarded, must always, always, always be punished, lest the whole rotten tree be felled.

  4. I want to post this to keep this tread alive and hope more of David's former clients might come forward. In my case, this coward of a man represented me from June 2014 for a couple of months before I fired him. I knew something was wrong when he blatantly lied about what he had advised me in my contentious and unfortunate divorce trial. His impact on the proceedings cast a very long shadow and continues to impact me after a lengthy 19 month divorce. I would join a class action suit.

  5. The dispute in LB Indiana regarding lake front property rights is typical of most beach communities along our Great Lakes. Simply put, communication to non owners when visiting the lakefront would be beneficial. The Great Lakes are designated navigational waters (including shorelines). The high-water mark signifies the area one is able to navigate. This means you can walk, run, skip, etc. along the shores. You can't however loiter, camp, sunbath in front of someones property. Informational signs may be helpful to owners and visitors. Our Great Lakes are a treasure that should be enjoyed by all. PS We should all be concerned that the Long Beach, Indiana community is on septic systems.

ADVERTISEMENT