ILNews

Economy adjusts child support

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Focus


It used to be fairly easy to prove someone wouldn't pay child support because they didn't want to. But it hasn't gone unnoticed that there are more people who want to pay child support but simply can't.

Legal aid attorneys said they have noticed more people can't afford child support more often since the downturn in the economy started a few years ago They're also seeing it more frequently among clients who had no trouble paying child support when they were making more money or had better jobs a few years ago.

This is also reflected in changes to the child support guidelines that took effect earlier this year, including how to calculate potential income and the previous wording of how to determine support for couples with combined weekly adjusted income of less than $100, which used to be worth more than it is today.

"Economic data indicate one hundred dollars, which is half of the 2008 federal poverty level for one person, is not sufficient for a person to live at a subsistence level today. The prior obligation amounts at combined incomes of $100.00 per week are $25.00 per week for one child and $50.00 per week for two children. These amounts absorb 25 and 50 percent, respectively, of the parents' gross income. Most states set their minimum child support order at $50.00 per month, which is about $12.00 per week," the revised guidelines state. "Therefore, the revised low-income adjustment sets the obligation amount for combined weekly incomes of $100.00 at $12.00 for one child."

The revised guidelines also address how it is better to have realistic child support obligations than to overwhelm the non-custodial parent.

"However, attributing potential income that results in an unrealistic child support obligation may cause the accumulation of an excessive arrearage, and be contrary to the best interests of the child(ren). Research shows the non-custodial parent's involvement increases the child's educational attainment and reduces juvenile delinquency. Since parent-child contact and child support payments are highly correlated, ordering support for low-income parents at levels they can reasonably pay may improve non-custodial parent-child contact; and in turn, the outcomes of their children," the revised guidelines state.

Tom Frohman, an attorney for the Bloomington office of Indiana Legal Services, said he has had a steady stream of non-custodial parent clients who just can't pay what is asked of them.

"The guidelines are predicated on the concept that children should receive the same proportion of parental income as if the parents still lived together," he said. "That concept is sometimes completely ignored by child support orders."

He also said that calculations of potential income don't always add up in reality.

He gave the example of a client making $7.55 per hour, but could only get 25 hours a week. However, the client's support order might be based on a 40-hour workweek, even if that wasn't what he was able to work.

"Even intact families struggle to find and keep work," he said. "I hate that children sometimes have to do without, and sometimes times are tough for families, but that doesn't change when families split up. When a non-custodial parent was a part-time, low-income worker in the household to make ends meet, it doesn't make sense to think he's now a money-making machine," just because he no longer lives with the family.

Frohman added that wasn't to say there aren't bad parents out there who are just avoiding their support obligations, but there are a number of parents who want to pay but just can't.

John Floreancig of the Legal Aid Society of Indianapolis said he noticed similar issues. He said the clientele of legal aid has changed dramatically in recent years and includes more people who had middle-class lifestyles but recently lost their jobs and are now unemployed or underemployed. He said those people may not ever be able to find a job at the rate they were making before.

"You might have a guy who may be a professional, for instance an engineer, who is educated and on the ball, has a good work history and a good earning history, but then his whole department is eliminated, and there aren't any more jobs in that field," he said.

It's then up to the court to decide if it is truly temporary that he won't make the same amount he did before he was laid off.

Like Frohman, Floreancig said there were still some who just refused to pay, but that isn't always the case.

The courts also have noticed a change and are approving modifications as needed.

Allen Circuit Magistrate Craig J. Bobay said in the past three years he has noticed more people who can't pay child support.

"I'm seeing ... modification of support and contempt for non-payment cases. I've found that given the economic climate, it's a lot more difficult to prove contempt. Five or 10 years ago, you could just say if you're not employed it must be because you're not looking and don't want to be employed."

He has also noticed fewer contempt cases have been filed.

"That may be surprising to some," he said, "But people seem to understand the economic reality of what happens when someone's employment is cut or eliminated, or their income is reduced. I'm seeing parents who are working together more with an understanding of the economic reality."

He added the revised child support guidelines emphasize why it's important not to assume someone is capable of getting a minimum wage job if they're not working.

"You have to look behind the scenes," he said, adding the parties in his court have seemed reasonable.

"Maybe it's a little counterintuitive but we've been in the economic downturn long enough that parents on the other side understand," he said.

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The appellate court just said doctors can be sued for reporting child abuse. The most dangerous form of child abuse with the highest mortality rate of any form of child abuse (between 6% and 9% according to the below listed studies). Now doctors will be far less likely to report this form of dangerous child abuse in Indiana. If you want to know what this is, google the names Lacey Spears, Julie Conley (and look at what happened when uninformed judges returned that child against medical advice), Hope Ybarra, and Dixie Blanchard. Here is some really good reporting on what this allegation was: http://media.star-telegram.com/Munchausenmoms/ Here are the two research papers: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0145213487900810 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0145213403000309 25% of sibling are dead in that second study. 25%!!! Unbelievable ruling. Chilling. Wrong.

  2. MELISA EVA VALUE INVESTMENT Greetings to you from Melisa Eva Value Investment. We offer Business and Personal loans, it is quick and easy and hence can be availed without any hassle. We do not ask for any collateral or guarantors while approving these loans and hence these loans require minimum documentation. We offer great and competitive interest rates of 2% which do not weigh you down too much. These loans have a comfortable pay-back period. Apply today by contacting us on E-mail: melisaeva9@gmail.com WE DO NOT ASK FOR AN UPFRONT FEE. BEWARE OF SCAMMERS AND ONLINE FRAUD.

  3. Mr. Levin says that the BMV engaged in misconduct--that the BMV (or, rather, someone in the BMV) knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged fees but did nothing to correct the situation. Such misconduct, whether engaged in by one individual or by a group, is called theft (defined as knowingly or intentionally exerting unauthorized control over the property of another person with the intent to deprive the other person of the property's value or use). Theft is a crime in Indiana (as it still is in most of the civilized world). One wonders, then, why there have been no criminal prosecutions of BMV officials for this theft? Government misconduct doesn't occur in a vacuum. An individual who works for or oversees a government agency is responsible for the misconduct. In this instance, somebody (or somebodies) with the BMV, at some time, knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged. What's more, this person (or these people), even after having the error of their ways pointed out to them, did nothing to fix the problem. Instead, the overcharges continued. Thus, the taxpayers of Indiana are also on the hook for the millions of dollars in attorneys fees (for both sides; the BMV didn't see fit to avail itself of the services of a lawyer employed by the state government) that had to be spent in order to finally convince the BMV that stealing money from Indiana motorists was a bad thing. Given that the BMV official(s) responsible for this crime continued their misconduct, covered it up, and never did anything until the agency reached an agreeable settlement, it seems the statute of limitations for prosecuting these folks has not yet run. I hope our Attorney General is paying attention to this fiasco and is seriously considering prosecution. Indiana, the state that works . . . for thieves.

  4. I'm glad that attorney Carl Hayes, who represented the BMV in this case, is able to say that his client "is pleased to have resolved the issue". Everyone makes mistakes, even bureaucratic behemoths like Indiana's BMV. So to some extent we need to be forgiving of such mistakes. But when those mistakes are going to cost Indiana taxpayers millions of dollars to rectify (because neither plaintiff's counsel nor Mr. Hayes gave freely of their services, and the BMV, being a state-funded agency, relies on taxpayer dollars to pay these attorneys their fees), the agency doesn't have a right to feel "pleased to have resolved the issue". One is left wondering why the BMV feels so pleased with this resolution? The magnitude of the agency's overcharges might suggest to some that, perhaps, these errors were more than mere oversight. Could this be why the agency is so "pleased" with this resolution? Will Indiana motorists ever be assured that the culture of incompetence (if not worse) that the BMV seems to have fostered is no longer the status quo? Or will even more "overcharges" and lawsuits result? It's fairly obvious who is really "pleased to have resolved the issue", and it's not Indiana's taxpayers who are on the hook for the legal fees generated in these cases.

  5. From the article's fourth paragraph: "Her work underscores the blurry lines in Russia between the government and businesses . . ." Obviously, the author of this piece doesn't pay much attention to the "blurry lines" between government and businesses that exist in the United States. And I'm not talking only about Trump's alleged conflicts of interest. When lobbyists for major industries (pharmaceutical, petroleum, insurance, etc) have greater access to this country's elected representatives than do everyday individuals (i.e., voters), then I would say that the lines between government and business in the United States are just as blurry, if not more so, than in Russia.

ADVERTISEMENT