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

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. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT