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. Call it unauthorized law if you must, a regulatory wrong, but it was fraud and theft well beyond that, a seeming crime! "In three specific cases, the hearing officer found that Westerfield did little to no work for her clients but only issued a partial refund or no refund at all." That is theft by deception, folks. "In its decision to suspend Westerfield, the Supreme Court noted that she already had a long disciplinary history dating back to 1996 and had previously been suspended in 2004 and indefinitely suspended in 2005. She was reinstated in 2009 after finally giving the commission a response to the grievance for which she was suspended in 2004." WOW -- was the Indiana Supreme Court complicit in her fraud? Talk about being on notice of a real bad actor .... "Further, the justices noted that during her testimony, Westerfield was “disingenuous and evasive” about her relationship with Tope and attempted to distance herself from him. They also wrote that other aggravating factors existed in Westerfield’s case, such as her lack of remorse." WOW, and yet she only got 18 months on the bench, and if she shows up and cries for them in a year and a half, and pays money to JLAP for group therapy ... back in to ride roughshod over hapless clients (or are they "marks") once again! Aint Hoosier lawyering a great money making adventure!!! Just live for the bucks, even if filthy lucre, and come out a-ok. ME on the other hand??? Lifetime banishment for blowing the whistle on unconstitutional governance. Yes, had I ripped off clients or had ANY disciplinary history for doing that I would have fared better, most likely, as that it would have revealed me motivated by Mammon and not Faith. Check it out if you doubt my reading of this, compare and contrast the above 18 months with my lifetime banishment from court, see appendix for Bar Examiners report which the ISC adopted without substantive review: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS

  2. Wow, over a quarter million dollars? That is a a lot of commissary money! Over what time frame? Years I would guess. Anyone ever try to blow the whistle? Probably not, since most Hoosiers who take notice of such things realize that Hoosier whistleblowers are almost always pilloried. If someone did blow the whistle, they were likely fired. The persecution of whistleblowers is a sure sign of far too much government corruption. Details of my own personal experience at the top of Hoosier governance available upon request ... maybe a "fake news" media outlet will have the courage to tell the stories of Hoosier whistleblowers that the "real" Hoosier media (cough) will not deign to touch. (They are part of the problem.)

  3. So if I am reading it right, only if and when African American college students agree to receive checks labeling them as "Negroes" do they receive aid from the UNCF or the Quaker's Educational Fund? In other words, to borrow from the Indiana Appellate Court, "the [nonprofit] supposed to be [their] advocate, refers to [students] in a racially offensive manner. While there is no evidence that [the nonprofits] intended harm to [African American students], the harm was nonetheless inflicted. [Black students are] presented to [academia and future employers] in a racially offensive manner. For these reasons, [such] performance [is] deficient and also prejudice[ial]." Maybe even DEPLORABLE???

  4. I'm the poor soul who spent over 10 years in prison with many many other prisoners trying to kill me for being charged with a sex offense THAT I DID NOT COMMIT i was in jail for a battery charge for helping a friend leave a boyfriend who beat her I've been saying for over 28 years that i did not and would never hurt a child like that mine or anybody's child but NOBODY wants to believe that i might not be guilty of this horrible crime or think that when i say that ALL the paperwork concerning my conviction has strangely DISAPPEARED or even when the long beach judge re-sentenced me over 14 months on a already filed plea bargain out of another districts court then had it filed under a fake name so i could not find while trying to fight my conviction on appeal in a nut shell people are ALWAYS quick to believe the worst about some one well I DID NOT HURT ANY CHILD EVER IN MY LIFE AND HAVE SAID THIS FOR ALMOST 30 YEARS please if anybody can me get some kind of justice it would be greatly appreciated respectfully written wrongly accused Brian Valenti

  5. A high ranking Indiana supreme Court operative caught red handed leading a group using the uber offensive N word! She must denounce or be denounced! (Or not since she is an insider ... rules do not apply to them). Evidence here: http://m.indianacompanies.us/friends-educational-fund-for-negroes.364110.company.v2#top_info

ADVERTISEMENT