An order issued by the Indiana Supreme Court today amending the state's Child Support Rules and Guidelines caused two
justices to dissent in part over worries a change may alter precedent. The amendments take effect Jan. 1. 2010.
Justices Frank Sullivan and Robert Rucker dissented in part from the amended guidelines because they believed they overrule
Grant v. Hager, 868 N.E.2d 801 (Ind. 2007), which held there is a rebuttable presumption that neither parent owes
the other support in circumstances where the Child Support Obligation Worksheet calculation produced a negative amount for
the noncustodial parent's child support payment because of the application of the Parenting Time Credit. Under the amendments,
there will now be a rebuttable presumption in such cases that the custodial parent must make child support payments to the
noncustodial parent equal to the negative amount.
"We believe that the Guidelines' presumption in such circumstances should continue to be that neither parent owes
the other support," the justices wrote. They also noted, notwithstanding this amendment, that the trial court has the
authority to deviate from the Guidelines amount and order that neither parent owes the other support based on their respective
incomes and parenting time arrangements if the court concludes it would be unjust not to do so, and then makes the written
finding mandated by Child Support Rule 3.
In the order detailing the changes, the high court cautioned against attributing potential incomes that result in unrealistic
child support obligations and may cause excessive arrearage.
"Research shows that on average more noncustodial parental involvement is associated with greater educational attainment
and lower juvenile delinquency," the order noted. "Ordering support for low-income parents at levels they can reasonably
pay may improve noncustodial parent-child contact, and in turn, the outcomes for their children."
Other notable changes to the guidelines:
- The order put Health Care and Medical Support, and Extraordinary Expenses into new, separate guidelines and expanded on
both topics.
- A new, revised low-income adjustment sets the obligation amount for combined weekly incomes of $100 at $12 for one child;
the current Guidelines assign $25 per week for one child.
- The order adjusted the schedules for weekly support payments to include combined weekly adjusted income between $4,000
and $10,000; previously a formula was provided for those incomes above $4,000. A formula will now apply to incomes above $10,000.
- Under the new guidelines, Social Security Disability benefits paid for a child are now recognized as income of the disabled
parent who earned the benefits, and those benefits are included in the Weekly Gross Income of that parent. Excess SSD benefit
shall be applied as payment toward an existing arrearage, and once the arrearage is satisfied, any SSD benefit that exceeds
the current support obligation is considered a gratuity. The revised guidelines change the law regarding the application of
SSD benefits, and the holding in Hieston v. State, N.E.2d 59 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008), and its progeny, have been superseded
by the change.
In addition to the Child Support Rules and Guidelines, the Supreme Court issued an order today amending the Rules of Evidence
to require certain statements be recorded before they can be entered into evidence in Indiana trial courts. Click here to
read more about this change.














vagueness cannot challenged, so let's write all laws vaguely and throw the constitution out the window.Even if the court is operating under a particular law, if they don't it they will change it to their liking. What a joke!!!
Two convictions becomes one conviction with exactly the same sentence, only it is not clear wheter or not that sentence will be 18 months, 120 months or 138 months. Actually if the guns were in a home, whether or not they were his, he is protected under the 2nd amendment. Jurors need to learn the law and the constitution before judging others. The cour5ts need to do this as well.
With all due respect, Rick, I think you probably would be making a mistake by going to law school. The job market for attorneys is so saturated, you may well find yourself unemployed and with a lot of debt. You mention law would be a good supplement to your skills. True. But employers unfortunately don't value that. You will find that a law degree may well pigeonhole you into an attorney slot and limit career options. If you have a good job now I would hold onto that. As an attorney, you may well end up making less with the aforementioned debt.
Jack, I was only responding to bill's comment of tying everybody in government together. I agree with you though, it takes one bad apple to ruin the bunch.. As in any profession. What's truly unfair is when somebody violates someone's trust and takes complete advantage of someone
John’s comment is unfair. The majority of attorneys can be trusted. Unfortunately, all it takes is one greedy, unscrupulous, immoral attorney to jade the public.