Opinion ID: 852595
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: What Is Most Likely to Produce Support?

Text: We conclude that the approach taken in Nebraska is the most consistent with the Guidelines and applicable statute, with one caveat. It seems appropriate to impute pre-incarceration income to the obligor after release and place the burden on the obligor to seek modification if such is warranted. We lay out below the basis for this holding. A. Suspending Support Inconsistent with Statute. Adopting a system that considers incarceration an absolute justification for the reduction or suspension of child support appears inconsistent with the policy embedded in Indiana's statutes. The Indiana Code provides that [t]he duty to support a child under [law] ceases when the child becomes twenty-one (21) years of age unless the child is emancipated, or the court determines that the child is at least eighteen, not attending school, and supporting herself through employment. [3] Ind.Code Ann. § 31-16-6-6 (West 2006). Given the robust approach our legislature has taken to ensure that all children are supported adequately by their parents until the age of majority, we cannot imagine that the legislature intended for incarcerated parents to be granted a full reprieve from their child support obligations while their children are minors. Consequently, we think it would be inappropriate to adopt a practice of absolute justification. Moreover, adopting such a position would cut against the established common law tradition that has long held parents responsible for the support of their offspring. In this state, that tradition extends back a very long time. See, e.g., Haase v. Roehrscheid, 6 Ind. 66, 68 (1854) ([i]t is the duty of a father to support and educate his minor children). It makes little sense to choose a path that cuts against the grain of statute, legal tradition, and natural instinct so completely. B. No Justification Rule Inconsistent with Guidelines. Indiana child support policy has long looked to an obligor's capacity to earn. Obligors who could work and do not, or appear regularly underemployed, face demands to do better by their dependent children. The Guideline provisions on voluntary unemployment or underemployment reflect this approach. The commentary to Ind. Child Support Guideline 3(A)(3) states: Potential income may be determined if a parent has no income, or only means-tested income, and is . . . capable of earning more.  Child.Supp. G. 3(A)(3) (emphasis added). As the example most relevant to the current situation, the commentary uses the case of a parent who is capable of entering the work force, but voluntarily fails or refuses to work or to be employed. Child.Supp. G. 3 cmt. 2(c)(2) (emphasis added). This provision indicates that the concept of voluntary unemployment or underemployment as used in the Guidelines requires both the ability to earn more income, and the conscious choice on the part of a parent to reduce income. Our statutes complement this interpretation. Indiana Code § 31-16-6-1(a)(4) instructs courts to consider the financial resources and needs of the noncustodial parent when setting support orders. This strongly implies that it is actual present ability of the non-custodial parent to pay the support ordered that a court is to consider. The Court of Appeals was correct to note that most criminal activity reflects a voluntary choice, and carries with it the potential for incarceration and consequent unemployment. Lambert, 839 N.E.2d at 714. Still, the choice to commit a crime is not quite the same as voluntarily fail[ing] or refus[ing] to work or to be employed. Child.Supp. G. 3 cmt. 2(c)(2). Chief Justice Abrahamson clarified the relationship between the choices best when she observed that [a] parent's moral culpability in the events that [led to incarceration] is relevant . . . to the extent that it demonstrates an intent to reduce available income or assets to avoid paying child support. In re Marriage of Rottscheit, 262 Wis.2d 292, 326, 664 N.W.2d 525, 541 (2003) (Abrahamson, C.J., dissenting). The choice to commit a crime is so far removed from the decision to avoid child support obligations that it is inappropriate to consider them as identical. We believe the conclusion is also supported by the overarching policy goal of all family court matters involving children: protecting the best interests of those children. The child support system is not meant to serve a punitive purpose. Rather, the system is an economic one, designed to measure the relative contribution each parent should makeand is capable of makingto share fairly the economic burdens of child rearing, Child. Supp. G. 1. Considering the existing sociological evidence, it seems apparent that imposing impossibly high support payments on incarcerated parents acts like a punitive measure, and does an injustice to the best interests of the child by ignoring factors that can, and frequently do, severely damage the parent-child relationship. Individual reactions to economic realities can have profound effects on the behavior of non-custodial parents. Substantial sociological research has focused on the effects child support obligations and incarceration have on the behavior of non-custodial parents. [4] These studies have generally concluded that the existence of unsustainable support orders actually leads to greater failure of non-custodial parents to pay their support obligations. [5] The Council of State Governments has created the Re-Entry Policy Council to promote study and innovation in this field, and federal departments such as Justice and Labor have supported its work. The Council has produced a comprehensive report on the difficulties of readmitting prisoners into society. The report identified child support obligations, especially arrearages, as a barrier to successful re-entry into society because they have a tendency to disrupt family reunification, parent-child contact, and the employment patterns of ex-prisoners. Re-Entry Policy Council, supra, at 327. Among the factors identified as contributing to lack of compliance with support orders is the perception among obligors, whether incarcerated or not, that the imposition of high support orders is punitive or otherwise unfair. Lin, supra note 4, at 395-96. Analysis reveals that when the support order has produced large arrearages, there is a significant decline in compliance with the order. Bartfeld & Meyer, supra note 4, at 365. The ultimate implication of this research is that when a parent is finally released from prison with a large child support arrearage, the parent is less likely to comply with the order. Moreover, once released, non-custodial parents tend to view the methods employed to collect support and arrearages as a disincentive to seek legitimate gainful employment. Research suggests that high maximum garnishment rates [6] and other enforcement mechanisms tend to discourage employment, particularly among the lower socioeconomic strata, which tend to view employment as elastic in nature. Holzer & Offner, supra note 4, at 79-80; Holzer et al., supra note 4, at 24. When combined with the difficulty faced by felons in obtaining employment, there is thus a strong incentive to seek work in the underground economy where it is difficult for authorities and custodial parents to track earnings and collect payments. Re-Entry Policy Council, supra, at 327. The ultimate lesson to be drawn from this research is that when high support orders continue through a period of incarceration and thus build arrearages, the response by the obligor is to find more methods of avoiding payment. To the extent that an order fails to take into account the real financial capacity of a jailed parent, the system fails the child by making it statistically more likely that the child will be deprived of adequate support over the long term. C. Not Imputing Income Is the Best Solution. Ultimately, adoption of the non-imputation approach preserves the traditional rule imposing support without ignoring the realities of incarceration. Unlike the absolute justification rule, the non-imputation approach allows courts to comply with the Guidelines by imposing at least the minimal support order as provided by Ind. Child Support Guideline 2. This serves the child support system by ensuring that all non-custodial parents remain responsibleat least to some degreefor the support of their children. The most obvious examples of the unfair results that would occur under an absolutist approach are the case of the very wealthy and the very poor non-custodial parent. Under an absolute justification system, the very wealthy but incarcerated parent is absolved of support obligations when, in fact, there is the likelihood that sources of income exclusive of wages could reasonably be expected to pay the cost of support. On the other hand, the imputed income rule unfairly burdens the very poor incarcerated parent under circumstances in which he lacks the capacity to pay his support obligations. None of the foregoing precludes setting support orders that reflect the actual income or resources of an incarcerated parent. It merely counsels against imputing pre-incarceration wages, salaries, commissions, or other employment income to the individual. A court may, obviously, still consider other sources of income when calculating support payments. See Child. Supp. G. 3(A). Consequently, unlike the absolute justification rule, prisoners who do have the capacity to pay higher support obligations remain responsible for that support level. Moreover, a court could well order an increased support payment as soon as the incapacity caused by prison is removed from a non-custodial parent's ability to earn income. In other words, a court could prospectively order that child support return to the pre-incarceration level upon a prisoner's release because following release, the parent is theoretically able to return to that wage level. Such an order has multiple benefits. First, it encourages non-custodial parents to track carefully their support obligation, as it would require an incarcerated parent to seek modification of the order upon their release. Second, it relieves the custodial parent from the added burden of tracking the expected release date of the obligor and filing for modification upon that release.