ILNews

Committee gets feedback on child support rules

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Creative suggestions came from a public hearing today about how to modify Indiana's child support rules and guidelines.

As it does every four years, the domestic relations committee of the Judicial Conference of Indiana is reviewing the guidelines and will propose changes to the Indiana Supreme Court. A public hearing this morning brought a handful of speakers with comments and criticisms about the current system and what can be done to make it better.

Those attending the hearing before the 10-person committee included attorneys, business people, government workers, people from volunteer organizations involved with child-support issues, and parents who've gone through the system themselves.

Robert Monday with the national Children's Rights Council had three suggestions: college support orders need to be clearer as far as the tax treatment for custodial parents, such as whether credits are being recognized and filtered down to child support guidelines; being able to pay for college expenses directly through the school, rather than through the custodial parents; and how to decide support relating to extracurricular activities, such as soccer or hockey expenses.

A parent, Donald Beatty from Wabash, said he wanted to see some change to allow both parents, not just one as currently happens, to claim health insurance premiums and receive credits.

Attorney Tom Frohman with Indiana Legal Services in Bloomington had written suggestions for the committee to consider and delved into his experience giving free legal help to low-income parents in 14 counties.

"The main thrust is that the problem isn't the guidelines, it's the application of those guidelines and the confusing inconsistencies," he said. "Most trial judges think the worksheet is the guidelines, not part of them or one tool to be used in the guidelines. Worksheets give a presumptive amount that should be ordered, but it's not the end of the story. Trial judges almost invariably stick to the worksheet of the guidelines to tell the whole story."

For example, the guidelines say that no minimum support order exists but they also note that judges can set a $25 to $50 a week range, he said. Frohman also noted that guidelines say a person paying support shouldn't be denied his own self-support, but other language says minimum wage should be applied if a person isn't working.

One committee member asked about having an income calculation worksheet for the judges to see to help draw out other information, such as rental expenses that can affect support payment.

The committee said it's been having significant discussions about an Indiana Supreme Court decision that came down last year involving child support rules. In Lambert v. Lambert, 861 N.E.2d 1176, 1177 (Ind. 2007), justices held that "incarceration does not relieve parents of their child support obligations," but that trial judges should not impute potential income to an imprisoned parent based on pre-incarceration wages or other employment-related income.

Changes likely will be made in the guidelines to reflect that holding, according to Steuben Superior Judge William Fee, who chairs the committee. He said the committee hopes to finish its review by the end of this year and make recommendations for the Indiana Supreme Court to consider in its rulemaking session next year.

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  2. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  3. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

  4. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

  5. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

ADVERTISEMENT