ILNews

IBA: New Law Changes Child Support Age: Are You Prepared?

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

By Eric N. Engebretson, Whitham Hebenstreit & Zubek LLP

engebretson-eric.jpg Engebretson

Effective July 1, 2012, the law regarding a parent’s duty to support a child changed dramatically. Absent certain circumstances, previously a parent was obligated to pay child support until a child was 21 years of age. However, pursuant to the amended versions of I.C. §31-14-11-18 and §31-16-6-6, child support now generally terminates as of a child’s 19th birthday.

At the outset, it is worth noting that a footnote to a recent opinion of the Indiana Court of Appeals raises the possibility that the amended law might be subject to challenge on constitutional grounds, at least as it applies to certain parties. Specifically, in Sexton v. Sexton, 2012 WL 2054859, the Court suggests that the law may be unconstitutional under Article 1, Section 24 of the Indiana Constitution which prohibits ex post facto laws or laws impairing the obligations of existing contracts. However, assuming that the law is upheld, this change represents a relatively significant departure from prior law.

Any party currently receiving support will now need to anticipate that any support he or she is receiving will terminate and/or decrease as of a child’s 19th birthday. Whether or not child support terminates or simply needs to be modified will likely depend upon whether there are any other minor children born of the relationship. Similarly, those parties currently paying support need to be aware that they can seek to have the child support obligation terminated as of a child’s 19th birthday as opposed to waiting until a child is 21. This is particularly important in situations where there is an “in gross” order representing a child support obligation paid on behalf of multiple children. In such a situation the child support payor needs to be aware that he or she can seek a modification of the existing child support obligation earlier than was allowed under prior law so that an appropriate adjustment can be determined in light of the eldest child’s 19th birthday.

This change in the law also affects the time within which both the courts and the parties can address an appropriate division of post-secondary educational expenses. As a general rule, any request for a contribution toward educational expenses must be made prior to a child being emancipated. As a result, in the event a party has a child that will soon be at least 19 years of age and there is not an educational order already in place, it is important that the party desiring such a contribution get a petition seeking such assistance on file prior to the child’s birthday. Failure to do so could result in the petition being dismissed as untimely filed, since once a child is emancipated the court cannot entertain any such request for assistance. As a brief aside, even in the event of an untimely filed petition, the Sexton decision does suggest that trial courts will need to examine disputes on a case-by-case basis to determine whether or not support orders for college-age students implicitly include an educational component even though the support order does not specifically refer to the support as educational.

The one exception to this rule regarding seeking a contribution toward post-secondary educational expenses concerns paternity cases. Pursuant to the amended version of I.C. § 31-14-11-18(b), a child who is receiving child support under an order issued before July 1, 2012, has until they are 21 years of age to file a petition requesting assistance with their educational needs. It is important to note that this “savings clause” does not apply in dissolution cases as the legislature only included it in the amendment to the paternity statute.

Assuming that an order regarding post-secondary educational expenses is in place or can be inferred, clients need to be advised that the actual monetary obligation related to a 19-year-old child may not dramatically change notwithstanding that the obligation to pay child support will now terminate earlier. The reason is that in addition to tuition, room and board, lab fees and supplies, the term “educational expense” has been defined in various cases to include things such as transportation expenses, car insurance, clothing, entertainment, cell phones, entertainment, food, athletic passes, and other incidentals. The term has even been found to include room and board to be paid by one parent to another when a student resides at home while pursuing an education. While these expenses have always been at issue, presumably the fact that child support was previously paid until a child turned 21 at least helped mitigate and/or diffuse certain disputes over them.•

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. 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