ILNews

Changes coming to Child Support Rules

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

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.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It really doesn't matter what the law IS, if law enforcement refuses to take reports (or take them seriously), if courts refuse to allow unrepresented parties to speak (especially in Small Claims, which is supposedly "informal"). It doesn't matter what the law IS, if constituents are unable to make effective contact or receive any meaningful response from their representatives. Two of our pets were unnecessarily killed; court records reflect that I "abandoned" them. Not so; when I was denied one of them (and my possessions, which by court order I was supposed to be able to remove), I went directly to the court. And earlier, when I tried to have the DV PO extended (it expired while the subject was on probation for violating it), the court denied any extension. The result? Same problems, less than eight hours after expiration. Ironic that the county sheriff was charged (and later pleaded to) with intimidation, but none of his officers seemed interested or capable of taking such a report from a private citizen. When I learned from one officer what I needed to do, I forwarded audio and transcript of one occurrence and my call to law enforcement (before the statute of limitations expired) to the prosecutor's office. I didn't even receive an acknowledgement. Earlier, I'd gone in to the prosecutor's office and been told that the officer's (written) report didn't match what I said occurred. Since I had the audio, I can only say that I have very little faith in Indiana government or law enforcement.

  2. One can only wonder whether Mr. Kimmel was paid for his work by Mr. Burgh ... or whether that bill fell to the citizens of Indiana, many of whom cannot afford attorneys for important matters. It really doesn't take a judge(s) to know that "pavement" can be considered a deadly weapon. It only takes a brain and some education or thought. I'm glad to see the conviction was upheld although sorry to see that the asphalt could even be considered "an issue".

  3. In response to bryanjbrown: thank you for your comment. I am familiar with Paul Ogden (and applaud his assistance to Shirley Justice) and have read of Gary Welsh's (strange) death (and have visited his blog on many occasions). I am not familiar with you (yet). I lived in Kosciusko county, where the sheriff was just removed after pleading in what seems a very "sweetheart" deal. Unfortunately, something NEEDS to change since the attorneys won't (en masse) stand up for ethics (rather making a show to please the "rules" and apparently the judges). I read that many attorneys are underemployed. Seems wisdom would be to cull the herd and get rid of the rotting apples in practice and on the bench, for everyone's sake as well as justice. I'd like to file an attorney complaint, but I have little faith in anything (other than the most flagrant and obvious) resulting in action. My own belief is that if this was medicine, there'd be maimed and injured all over and the carnage caused by "the profession" would be difficult to hide. One can dream ... meanwhile, back to figuring out to file a pro se "motion to dismiss" as well as another court required paper that Indiana is so fond of providing NO resources for (unlike many other states, who don't automatically assume that citizens involved in the court process are scumbags) so that maybe I can get the family law attorney - whose work left me with no settlement, no possessions and resulted in the death of two pets (etc ad nauseum) - to stop abusing the proceedings supplemental and small claims rules and using it as a vehicle for harassment and apparently, amusement.

  4. Been on social security sense sept 2011 2massive strokes open heart surgery and serious ovarian cancer and a blood clot in my lung all in 14 months. Got a letter in may saying that i didn't qualify and it was in form like i just applied ,called social security she said it don't make sense and you are still geting a check in june and i did ,now i get a check from my part D asking for payment for july because there will be no money for my membership, call my prescription coverage part D and confirmed no check will be there.went to social security they didn't want to answer whats going on just said i should of never been on it .no one knows where this letter came from was California im in virginia and been here sense my strokes and vcu filed for my disability i was in the hospital when they did it .It's like it was a error . My ,mothers social security was being handled in that office in California my sister was dealing with it and it had my social security number because she died last year and this letter came out of the same office and it came at the same time i got the letter for my mother benefits for death and they had the same date of being typed just one was on the mail Saturday and one on Monday. . I think it's a mistake and it should been fixed instead there just getting rid of me .i never got a formal letter saying when i was being tsken off.

  5. Employers should not have racially discriminating mind set. It has huge impact on the society what the big players do or don't do in the industry. Background check is conducted just to verify whether information provided by the prospective employee is correct or not. It doesn't have any direct combination with the rejection of the employees. If there is rejection, there should be something effective and full-proof things on the table that may keep the company or the people associated with it in jeopardy.

ADVERTISEMENT