ILNews

Bill would change child support statute

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Focus

Indiana is one of only a handful of states that requires parents to pay child support until a child’s 21st birthday, but that may be about to change.

On Jan. 10, the Indiana Senate Committee on Corrections, Criminal and Civil Matters voted 7-2 in favor of Senate Bill 18, which would change the age of emancipation for minors from 21 to 19. Family law attorneys say that under current statute, many parents have unknowingly fallen behind on child support payments, assuming that their duty to pay support ends with the child’s 18th birthday.

Jason Hopper, an attorney with the Noblesville office of Cordell & Cordell and whose primary clients are men, said he has encountered many fathers who have accidentally run afoul of the law.

melissa avery Avery

“I can’t begin to tell you how many prospective clients that I interview that have the displeasure of finding out that they have a child support arrearage,” Hopper said.

In the dark

Merryn Gluys, family law attorney for Neighborhood Christian Legal Clinic, said about 80 percent of the cases she handles involve child support. Of those cases, she said about half involve clients who have accumulated arrearages because they assumed the duty to pay ends when children turn 18.

Under current law, parents who are paying support may file an emancipation petition for a child who has left high school and doesn’t intend to go to college. Unless the parent files an emancipation petition, the obligation to pay support continues until the child’s 21st birthday.

“The expectation is that the average child support paying person would just know that they need to file an emancipation petition,” Gluys said. “It’s not a logical conclusion to make.”

Hopper said that if a noncustodial parent has an attorney, that attorney should be the person who advises his or her client about the specifics of child support obligations. But when parents do not have an attorney, they may be on their own in interpreting child support obligations.

Melissa Avery, partner at Avery & Cheerva, explained that child support orders don’t necessarily spell out obligations, either.

“Usually the orders just say you have to pay so much per week, and most do not explain when the obligation terminates – I’ve seen some that do, but most do not,” Avery said.

Intent vs. reality

Gluys said that the intent behind Indiana’s current law is to ensure that custodial parents have some assistance if their children want to go to college. Because even if a divorce decree contains provisions for a child’s college education, that decree could always be challenged in court. But Gluys said that in families of modest means, children may not attend college, but noncustodial parents continue paying support until children turn 21.

“The whole public policy behind the law is largely defeated by what I have observed,” Gluys said. “No law can accommodate everybody, but this one swerves so far away from what it is intended to do.”

While Gluys’ clients – who typically cannot hire counsel – may be the parents who most often unknowingly fall behind on child support, wealthier clients can accumulate serious arrearages quickly.

Under Indiana Code 35-46-1-5, a person who knowingly or intentionally fails to support a dependent child commits a Class D felony; ignorance of the law is not listed as a possible defense. And parents who accumulate more than $15,000 in arrearage under this statute commit Class C felony nonsupport, punishable by two to eight years incarceration, with an advisory sentence of four years.

Hopper said that high-income parents may be at greater jeopardy of accumulating an arrearage that results in a Class C felony charge simply because they’re paying a higher dollar amount in support. He also said that his clients may be less likely to receive notices about accrued child support, whereas families receiving Social Security Act Title IV-D funding would likely receive notices that they are in arrears.

jason hopper Hopper

State penalties

For parents who receive public assistance, Title IV-D funding provides free services, including assistance with finding absentee parents, establishing paternity, establishing and enforcing support orders and periodic review and adjustment of those orders. But if a state cannot show that it is able to enforce support orders, it risks losing some of those Title IV-D funds.

Hopper said Indiana has earned low marks for its ability to enforce support orders.

“I think the legislative intent behind the bill is all about money and increasing the state’s IV-D funding,” Hopper said. “When I look at this bill and how the states and counties are awarded IV-D funding, it’s all competitive.”

Changing the state law in a way that prevents unintentional arrearage could therefore ensure the state’s funding is not negatively affected.

Why now?

Sen. Brent Steele, R-Bedford, said while he voted against similar legislation two years ago, he thinks the time is right for SB18. He said he’s heard more and more stories about young adults who are taking advantage of continued child support when they could be working.

Avery said she has a few concerns about the legislation.

“I would be more in favor of a bill that said 19 and graduated from high school, because some kids are not graduated when they turn 19,” she said. “And my other concern is it’s not giving me direction on those children who right now are between 19 and 21, as to whether they can still request college expense orders.”•

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. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT