ILNews

Determining dependency in child support

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Parents and family law attorneys have been given more guidance on what courts are required to do when crafting child support orders and determining which parent can claim a child as a dependent.

A new state statute that took effect July 1 ties together multiple concepts that before had only been recommended by the Indiana Child Support Guidelines. Family law attorneys say the changes will help them determine how to advise their clients on what to expect in the child support orders and legal process. But some lawyers say the changes don’t necessarily simplify the process and they believe that more complicated family law litigation could happen as a result.

cassman-ryan-mug Cassman

“All of these concepts previously existed in some form in statutes and Indiana case law, but they were difficult to reconcile,” said Carmel family law attorney Ryan Cassman at Coots Henke & Wheeler. “The recommendations were not always followed. The old practice of simply alternating the exemptions has been the norm, and I don’t think it will be easier now because that old way was very easy, and this will be complex, but hopefully fair.”

Indianapolis attorney Andrew Soshnick, a Baker & Daniels certified family law specialist and former chair of the Indiana State Bar Association’s family law section, says this statutory change hits at the heart of most child support cases because of the income focus. Neither the ISBA nor the Indiana Judicial Center have kept track of specifically how many of these provisions in the new law had been followed statewide in the past, but anecdotally attorneys say courts didn’t always include those factors as is now required.

“Most well-informed family law practitioners have already dealt with the tax exemption issue in a manner as contemplated under the new statute,” said Indianapolis attorney Carl Becker with Newton Becker Bouwkamp Pendoski. “This includes losing the right to utilize the exemption if the payor is not current on child support at the end of the year. But because there are often arguments regarding what has or has not been paid, this will provide for a mechanism of providing notice when the payee believes there is an arrearage while allowing the payor an opportunity to prove he or she is current.”

The changes were made in House Enrolled Act 1427, which moved through the legislative process mostly unopposed. Only a handful of senators strayed from supporting the bill after unanimous House approval, likely because it only codifies principles that the legal community has become familiar with and began seeing implemented since the revised guidelines took effect in January 2010.

Specifically, the amended parts of Indiana Code 31 delve into the definitions of “custodial” and “non-custodial” parents and require a court to specify in a child support order which parent can claim a child as a dependent for federal and state taxes. It established seven factors the court must consider in determining that, which Cassman says is one more than what the guidelines recommended. Those first six factors include the value of claiming that child at the marginal tax rate of each parent, the parental income levels, age and number of years that child would be a dependent under the parent’s care, the percentage of costs each parent pays in supporting the child, the monetary amount the parent might have incurred under a property settlement in divorce, and any financial aid benefit for postsecondary education.

dependentsBut family law attorneys say a seventh “catchall” provision allowing the court to consider any other relevant factors is one of the most significant changes. Before now, most lawyers and courts have focused on the second factor involving the parents’ income, and the value attached to each being factored in the dependency claim. Very few have honed in and based arguments or resolutions on the other factors, though. That may now change as the new law is implemented.

“The addition of the catchall provision may become relevant as lawyers and litigants focus on this change and develop arguments in each category, but in the short run it probably will not make much difference since the focus traditionally has been on incomes and the values of the exemptions,” Soshnick said. “Lawyers and litigants could create some sophisticated arguments and even think about offering expert testimony. Time will tell if it becomes more relevant.”

Other aspects of the new law are pretty tax-specific in purpose, but Cassman says they all serve the same practical effect: determining how litigants support a child. In order to claim a child as a dependent, a court is required to include in an order that the parent must have paid at least 95 percent of the child support for the calendar year.

That 95 percent payment aspect could be a point of contention in some cases, according to Cassmann. He wonders if extracurricular activities, educational costs, and medical reimbursements are considered “child support” for purposes of this provision as is contemplated in other parts of the 2010 guidelines.

The provisions would seem difficult to apply in some cases, such as where a payor has variable support revenue from commissions, bonuses, or irregular income. Cassmann says he found the Legislature’s use of the phrase “parent who pays support” rather than noncustodial parent interesting, because that would apply to negative support orders where a custodial parent actually pays the noncustodial parent as a result of income and parenting-time credit disparities.

Cassmann says this law is income-based and tax-focused in many aspects, and it stipulates that prosecuting attorneys or private attorneys who take up any Title IV-D paternity or child support matters as part of a case aren’t required to mediate, resolve, or litigate a dispute that arises about a parent’s right to claim a child as a dependent. That aspect of the new law could complicate the process for family law attorneys. Historically, attorneys, mediators, and judges would split the exemptions evenly and sometimes rotate them based on odd and even years.

“That approach felt somewhat fair, and frankly was easier than analyzing the true tax ramifications,” he said. “I think that approach is behind us and we will see more sophisticated analysis of the tax ramifications, as well as some creative arguments regarding how giving one parent or the other the right to claim would be beneficial to the child. We may see the use of CPAs more often to assist with this analysis.”•

ADVERTISEMENT

  • short sighted legislators
    The requirement that a non-custodial parent be current on their child support obligation is short sighted. My girlfriend allowed her ex-husband to claim two of their three children in order to increase the size of his tax refund that was being diverted by tax intercept to help satisfy the arrears that he incurred when he was laid off from his job. Why is it that a custodial parent can understand that increasing a non-custodial parents tax refund can lead to more child support collections, but out legislators can't?
  • Does arrears count?
    As a parent with order I am confused if it just refers to current order for that year or is arrears considered apart of it? And if it is only that calendar year, what if I received support paying parents taxes, state seized monies from accounts and they pay additional amount weekly towards arrears...how do these monies come into account while trying to figure out calculations?

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. No second amendment, pro life, pro traditional marriage, reagan or trump tshirts will be sold either. And you cannot draw Mohammed even in your own notebook. And you must wear a helmet at all times while at the fair. And no lawyer jokes can be told except in the designated protest area. And next year no crucifixes, since they are uber offensive to all but Catholics. Have a nice bland day here in the Lego movie. Remember ... Everything is awesome comrades.

  2. Thank you for this post . I just bought a LG External DVD It came with Cyber pwr 2 go . It would not play on Lenovo Idea pad w/8.1 . Your recommended free VLC worked great .

  3. All these sites putting up all the crap they do making Brent Look like A Monster like he's not a good person . First off th fight actually started not because of Brent but because of one of his friends then when the fight popped off his friend ran like a coward which left Brent to fend for himself .It IS NOT a crime to defend yourself 3 of them and 1 of him . just so happened he was a better fighter. I'm Brent s wife so I know him personally and up close . He's a very caring kind loving man . He's not abusive in any way . He is a loving father and really shouldn't be where he is not for self defense . Now because of one of his stupid friends trying to show off and turning out to be nothing but a coward and leaving Brent to be jumped by 3 men not only is Brent suffering but Me his wife , his kids abd step kidshis mom and brother his family is left to live without him abd suffering in more ways then one . that man was and still is my smile ....he's the one real thing I've ever had in my life .....f@#@ You Lafayette court system . Learn to do your jobs right he maybe should have gotten that year for misdemeanor battery but that s it . not one person can stand to me and tell me if u we're in a fight facing 3 men and u just by yourself u wouldn't fight back that you wouldn't do everything u could to walk away to ur family ur kids That's what Brent is guilty of trying to defend himself against 3 men he wanted to go home tohisfamily worse then they did he just happened to be a better fighter and he got the best of th others . what would you do ? Stand there lay there and be stomped and beaten or would u give it everything u got and fight back ? I'd of done the same only I'm so smallid of probably shot or stabbed or picked up something to use as a weapon . if it was me or them I'd do everything I could to make sure I was going to live that I would make it hone to see my kids and husband . I Love You Brent Anthony Forever & Always .....Soul 1 baby

  4. Good points, although this man did have a dog in the legal fight as that it was his mother on trial ... and he a dependent. As for parking spaces, handicap spots for pregnant women sure makes sense to me ... er, I mean pregnant men or women. (Please, I meant to include pregnant men the first time, not Room 101 again, please not Room 101 again. I love BB)

  5. I have no doubt that the ADA and related laws provide that many disabilities must be addressed. The question, however, is "by whom?" Many people get dealt bad cards by life. Some are deaf. Some are blind. Some are crippled. Why is it the business of the state to "collectivize" these problems and to force those who are NOT so afflicted to pay for those who are? The fact that this litigant was a mere spectator and not a party is chilling. What happens when somebody who speaks only East Bazurkistanish wants a translator so that he can "understand" the proceedings in a case in which he has NO interest? Do I and all other taxpayers have to cough up? It would seem so. ADA should be amended to provide a simple rule: "Your handicap, YOUR problem". This would apply particularly to handicapped parking spaces, where it seems that if the "handicap" is an ingrown toenail, the government comes rushing in to assist the poor downtrodden victim. I would grant wounded vets (IED victims come to mind in particular) a pass on this.. but others? Nope.

ADVERTISEMENT