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.”•


  • 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 do these monies come into account while trying to figure out calculations?

Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I have an open CHINS case I failed a urine screen I have since got clean completed IOP classes now in after care passed home inspection my x sister in law has my children I still don't even have unsupervised when I have been clean for over 4 months my x sister wants to keep the lids for good n has my case working with her I just discovered n have proof that at one of my hearing dcs case worker stated in court to the judge that a screen was dirty which caused me not to have unsupervised this was at the beginning two weeks after my initial screen I thought the weed could have still been in my system was upset because they were suppose to check levels n see if it was going down since this was only a few weeks after initial instead they said dirty I recently requested all of my screens from redwood because I take prescriptions that will show up n I was having my doctor look at levels to verify that matched what I was prescripted because dcs case worker accused me of abuseing when I got my screens I found out that screen I took that dcs case worker stated in court to judge that caused me to not get granted unsupervised was actually negative what can I do about this this is a serious issue saying a parent failed a screen in court to judge when they didn't please advise

  2. I have a degree at law, recent MS in regulatory studies. Licensed in KS, admitted b4 S& 7th circuit, but not to Indiana bar due to political correctness. Blacklisted, nearly unemployable due to hostile state action. Big Idea: Headwinds can overcome, esp for those not within the contours of the bell curve, the Lego Movie happiness set forth above. That said, even without the blacklisting for holding ideas unacceptable to the Glorious State, I think the idea presented above that a law degree open many vistas other than being a galley slave to elitist lawyers is pretty much laughable. (Did the law professors of Indiana pay for this to be published?)

  3. Paul Hartman of Burbank, Oh who is helping Sister Fuller with this Con Artist Kevin Bart McCarthy scares Sister Joseph Therese, Patricia Ann Fuller very much that McCarthy will try and hurt Patricia Ann Fuller and Paul Hartman of Burbank, Oh or any member of his family. Sister is very, very scared, (YES, I AM) This McCarthy guy is a real, real CON MAN and crook. I try to totall flatter Kevin Bart McCARTHY to keep him from hurting my best friends in this world which are Carolyn Rose and Paul Hartman. I Live in total fear of this man Kevin Bart McCarthy and try to praise him as a good man to keep us ALL from his bad deeds. This man could easy have some one cause us a very bad disability. You have to PRAISAE in order TO PROTECT yourself. He lies and makes up stories about people and then tries to steal if THEY OWN THRU THE COURTS A SPECIAL DEVOTION TO PROTECT, EX> Our Lady of America DEVOTION. EVERYONE who reads this, PLEASE BE CAREFUL of Kevin Bart McCarthy of Indianapolis, IN My Phone No. IS 419-435-3838.

  4. Joe, you might want to do some reading on the fate of Hoosier whistleblowers before you get your expectations raised up.

  5. I had a hospital and dcs caseworker falsify reports that my child was born with drugs in her system. I filed a complaint with the Indiana department of health....and they found that the hospital falsified drug screens in their investigation. Then I filed a complaint with human health services in Washington DC...dcs drug Testing is unregulated and is indicating false positives...they are currently being investigated by human health services. Then I located an attorney and signed contracts one month ago to sue dcs and Anderson community hospital. Once the suit is filed I am taking out a loan against the suit and paying a law firm to file a writ of mandamus challenging the courts jurisdiction to invoke chins case against me. I also forwarded evidence to a u.s. senator who contacted hhs to push an investigation faster. Once the lawsuit is filed local news stations will be running coverage on the situation. Easy day....people will be losing their jobs soon...and judge pancol...who has attempted to cover up what has happened will also be in trouble. The drug testing is a kids for cash and federal funding situation.