From: seeker@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (karen lynn white)
Subject: (non?) changes in Indiana
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 18:18:10 GMT

>From: westerm@aclcb.purdue.edu (Rick Westerman)

>Yesterday (Thursday, Jan 8, 1993) new child support guidelines were issued
>in the state of Indiana. Unlike some states, the guidelines in Indiana are
>created by the Indiana Supreme Court not the legislature. The newly enacted
>guidelines are expected to be in force for the next 3-5 years and will 
>become effective Mar 1, 1993.

>What follows is a summary of the guidelines as written up by my local paper.
>As with most newspaper articles, the write-up is maddenly non-specific; I'll
>post more specific details as I receive them. 

After I read this posting I called my lawyer for comments on this list.  He
hadn't seen the new laws yet and could only comment on what was here.  I'll
refer to him as LP.
	
 >1) Continue using gross income to determine income of both divorced parents
 >   when setting child support levels. 

> 2) Work-related child care costs will be apportioned between the divorced
>    parents based on their percentage share of income.

> 3) Total child support and maintenance [e.g., alimony] levels will be 
>    capped at 50% of adjusted gross income rather than the current 60
>    percent.

> 4) Prior child support levels can be adjusted when either parent remarries
>    or gains additional children.

> 5) A noncustodial parent will be able to ask for an accounting of the
>    support monies spent by the custodial parent, under limited circumstances.

According to LP, 1,2,4 & 5 sound a lot like what the law is now so it is
hard to tell what the change might be.  3 would only affect temporary
orders.  (I assume because the cap is already lower than 60 otherwise.)

My comment about number 4 is that while I can certainly see most children
should be equal under the law, but not always.  A NCP who didn't bond to
a first child shouldn't be so tied down that they can never afford to
have a real family.  But the law also shouldn't assume every situation
is something like that.  For example my ex is now married (as of last
week) to a woman whose three children were fathered by a German who
(seems to) not want them. They are three kids the same ages and opposite
sexes of our children. In the few months he has known her, he has all
but emotionally divorced himself from our three (I hope this is temporary)
and wants to adopt these three.   If the law made him much less responsible
for the three he already has, doesn't it encourage him to abandon them?  
(Note: He and I are 20 minutes apart, I pay him for the time he spends with
the kids, they can ride the bus to his house and no one has ever denied
his access to the kids or put barriers in his way.  Also it was his choice
at the time that they live with me since he couldn't take care of them
regularly.  Except for the last few months, he has been an excellent
father.)

> 6) College expenses, which the old guidelines required the noncustodial
>    parent to pay, now will be apportioned to the parents according to 
>    their financial resources.

Personally I feel no parent should be responsible for college expenses
but certainly not a NCP.  According to LP this will result in few real
changes anyway since only rarely is the NCP asked to pay for college now.

> 7) Child support may be reduced by up to 10 percent per week when 
>    noncustodial parents regularly exercise visitation on alternate
>    weekends.

> 8) Courts may consider reducing support by up to 50 percent when the child 
>    stays with the noncustodial parent for periods of seven days or longer.

> 9) Judges can consider several factors, including union dues, financial
>    support for elderly parents, travel expenses, and visitation, when
>    setting support levels.

>10) Additional flexibility will be given to judges, lawyers, and litigants
>    in ares of irregular income, potential income and tax exceptions,
>    when support levels are set.

LP says courts can lower support for visitation now but this will
encourage them to do so.  Other factors are also considered so he isn't
sure what is new about this either.  LP did point out that points 7 & 8
give the NCP a weapon to the CP since there is NO enforcement of visitation.
As this reads a NCP can ask for and will most certainly get credit for
maximum visitation but then never actually has to take it.  

In fact, as things stand, a NCP can plan on having the kids for several 
weeks in the summer and allow the CP to make other plans to be away.  Then
the NCP can decide not to have the kids with no prior notice and no penalty.
Then later the NCP can still demand that three weeks and it can't be denied.
This could be repeated all summer long.  

The situation won't change under the new ruling but the NCP will still get the 
financial credit for having the kids even if that person never sees them.

Personally I think if there is credit for visitation there should be
enforcement of that visitation.  I pay my ex half the support for the time
he has the kids and he still plays these games where he says he will have
them for a few days and then changes his mind at the last minute (perhaps
when he finds out I plan to be away or doing something else for part of
that time......)

My final comment is that I think things would have been better if the
guidelines had simply been lowered.  I think they are too high now and
I have no trouble getting by on less  (so I probably won't be taken to
court because of these changes :-)

>My comments:
>
>   The overall table-driven support levels haven't changed. Indiana already
>    has one of the highest levels of support in the USA and for most people
>    this won't change.
>
>    The 10% reduction in support for regular visitation, nor the possible
>    50% reduction for long stays, doesn't begin to cover the cost of 
>    visitation. For one thing, the 10% doesn't properly reflect the amount
>    of time spent with the NCP (a weekend every two weeks is 15% of the
>    child's time) nor does it take into account the amount of support the
>    CP is suppose to be giving to the child. It is a step in the right
>    direction, but IMHO, a very small step.
>
>    In general, there is more flexibility in the guidelines. While this
>    is a good idea in that, as we all know, support cases are not equal
>    and thus should be treated on an individual basis, I still like the
>    old "universal rule" method. Under the old universal rules you might
>    get shafted but at least everyone got shafted equally and there wasn't
>    much arguing. The new rules could lead to more between parent fighting,
>    court time and lawyers' fees.
>
>    Divorce parents still have to pay for college. Non-divorced parents
>    do not.
>
>    The new guideline about taking into account second children is a
>    a very good one. But also included is something about re-marriage.
>    Does this mean that the second spouse's income is taken into account
>    and thus support will go up upon re-marriage? And how much of a
>    reduction do second children bring? Will all children (1st and 2nd)
>    now be treated equally?  Those are some of the maddening details that
>    the newspaper article didn't cover. When I find out, I'll post.
>-- Rick
>
>Rick Westerman                System Manager of the AIDS Center Laboratory
>westerm@aclcb.purdue.edu      for Computational Biochemistry (ACLCB), BCHM
>Phone: (317) 494-0505         bldg., Purdue University, W. Lafayette, IN 47907
> FAX: (317) 494-7897

Karen White	
Senior Technical Programmer
Medical Sciences Program, Indiana University
seeker@bronze@ucs.indiana.edu

Newsgroups: alt.child-support