Kansas Child Support Forum
Kansas Parenting Time and Custody => General Discussions => Topic started by: jorgeperez on July 06, 2012, 07:26:00 PM
-
So I get a letter from DCF. A week before my divorce hearing. Called them told them about the hearing and,they had had no idea of us going to court. ALREADY .they had presumptions of me being out of the Picture and gone. i been in my duaghters life, since she was born,and still am I get her three days a week. The social worker was surprised I responded to the letter. I will be in my duaghters life till I die, I assured her.This is my first child and Im the proudest father in the world. I want to be a father not a visitor and a child suppot payment!
???
-
Maybe I should know, but what is DCF? I applaud you for being proactive, and for being a supportive father (not just financially)! Unfortunately for fathers you must stay proactive to stay involved. Fathers are steamrolled by the system every day because they simply assumed they would be granted parenting time. Most of the time mom has the upper hand and dads are still viewed as cash cows. It is slowly starting to change though. Most fathers on this site advocate shared custody at the very least. If you are not familiar, shared custody is where the children live with each parent half the time (half the number of overnights). Make sure you are getting overnight parenting time.
If you have specific questions, please post a little more information and we'll try to help. Like, what county are you in, how old is your daughter, how long ago was the divorce, etc.
-
Hi there thanks for your support.Im in kansas,And DCF is the Dept. Of Children and Families the new name given to child support here ,My duaghter is 2 and half Our divorce hearing is july 12, uncontested.And in the parenting plan I proposed It stipulates Joint Physical custody, wicth I hope means the same as over nites,on days I get my duaghter about 3 and a half days a week, and every other weekend.And thats what I been doing since I had to leave my house 2 moths ago, is staying proactive in my little girls life, And will continue to do so. Ill keep you guys posted. I can sure use some more feed back. ttyl.
-
I don't recall the Kansas statute, but custody is actually defined. Joint physical custody can be anything from one overnight visit to nearly half time. Shared physical custody isn't even defined, but orders are set every day which call for "shared custody." Basically, if your situation permits, you would want to ask for half the overnights, period. This is done, usually, by either alternating weeks, or Mon/Tues + every other weekend or Wed/Thurs + every other weekend. There are plenty of other ways to do it though.
Speaking strictly about child support, there is a drastic reduction in child support for shared custody. This is a recent change to the guidelines, but shared parents take on a much higher financial obligation. There are plenty of parents working to increase the credit for parents who have custody very near to shared - please read more about this on other threads on this site (document repository is a good starting place).
Education is key for just about everyone. Attorneys are paid to know the laws and get you the best deal, but attorneys aren't always the most knowledgeable. Talk to many of them and compare their answers to your research. Attorneys are business people too who are out to make a very good living. Occasionally they will tell you something just to get your business. Once the dust settles, you're only left with a very large bill. Just learn as much as you can to avoid a problem.
-
Hi I got a question.Since when does child support send an attorney to monitor a divorce hearing? that was a voice mail I recieved from meredith conklin of dcf in kansas that she ll send an attoney to my divrce hearing.and do they enforce health care? for the child becuase she sure is stressing health care for my child.I mean This divorce is a life changing event for me and i just had a kidney removed in sept 2011 and now Im no longer covered on my wifes health care plan for not being in the house hold . But my job offers a medical benefits through AETNA And if I need to I will add my duaghter and my self to that.Im Becuase Im really wanting shared residency and custody of my child so is child support going to fight me on this.Am I being steam rolled? what are my rights?
-
Jorge it's pretty typical for any case where the DCF is involved to have an attorney represent mom. They will never represent a Dad and they are only interested in getting maximum child support so the state doesn't have to provide benefits like insurance and food.
They are most likely there to see how much is in your pocket and see how much of it they can get transferred to mom. The only thing you can do is do what guru and many others here say and learn the laws, calculate your own child support using either the free calculator found on this site, or dig in the books and do it on paper. The more you know about your own case, the less you'll be taken advantage of - and you will be taken advantage of.
If your girl doesn't have insurance, someone should be covering her, either you or your ex. Usually they will go with whoever can provide the insurance cheaper or whoever has typically been providing it.
As far as your rights here - you need to your shared custody ordered immediately. Do not talk about child support and custody in the same sentence because the courts say they're not related, which is complete bullshit. But when you make your argument for shared custody, only talk about what is best for your daughter. Child support will change accordingly after custody has changed. It sounds like you pretty much have shared custody since you have every other weekend and 3 overnights/week. Actually you might just have primary residency, which means she should be paying you!!! You better put a pencil to how much time you have because it can make a HUGE difference in child support.
Don't sell your soul in court and never back down. Stay involved, keep up on your support, if mom decides to be a complete bitch about everything, drag her ass right into court. Never agree to case management because many have gotten screwed in that process. That's all for now.
-
Went to my divorce hearing on thursday Of course that child support attorney was there,And the judge instucted us to work out something with her (DCF) >:( becuase of the assistance my ex is getting it is necessary for child suppot to work the numbers out I think thats bull. She jotted down the times, I wanted to have my duaghter.I emailed her a copy of my domestic relations form. She kept a copy of my child support work order but said she would look it over.Couldnt the judge just ruled out child support all together since me and my ex have agreed on the parenting plan.If a family got any type of assistance in the past,from the state they get it back in child support. thinking about it,I should get a lawer. :-\
-
It's pretty typical for a judge to try to let everyone go work on their problems, and then bring the disagreements back to him for review. So he wants the DCF to earn their keep and go use up our tax dollars. You can rebut anything she says, but I think you should work your own numbers and make sure she's including all that alimony.
The judge may not have been able to rule on the parenting time/custody because the motion filed was with regard to child support (I assume). So, you should be able to file a simple motion to change parenting time/custody. Your ex and her atty sign it, you walk into the judge's office and get a signature, and you can file it. It's that easy when you have an agreement. By federal law, he has to sign it unless he has evidence showing he shouldn't do so.
-
Novaseeker wrote about how child support really works. It’s something every man needs to read:
The main problem with the CS regime is that people are generally unaware how it really works. They assume it works one way, but really don’t understand the disparate impact of how it actually works. In effect, it is an additional tax, full stop, on the father which is paid to the mother on a tax-free basis. It really doesn’t matter how much you make, the tax rate is basically the same, the way the statutory formulas/guidelines generally work. People think it’s based on “income share”, because that’s how the statute is worded, and that’s how it was peddled when the CS rules were changed, but as you’ll see below, it’s really a flat tax on the father’s income regardless of income share.
Here are some examples, just to clarify. Let’s assume a child support calculator that is 15% of pre-tax income for one child.
Example One
=========
H income = 100k
W income = 100k
Total household income = 200k
Total support amount is 15% of 200k, which is 30k. H’s share of total income is 50%, so H pays ex-W 15k, or 15% of his pre-tax income.
Let’s look at what happens when we change the income levels.
Example Two
=========
H income = 100k
W income = 50k
Total household income = 150k
Total support amount is 15% of 150k, which is 22,500. H’s share of income is 66.67%, so H pays ex-W 66.67% of 22,500, which is …. 15k, or 15% of his pre-tax income.
Ok. What happens when ex-W earns a lot more than H?
Example Three
H income = 50k
W income = 100k
Total household income = 150k
Total support amount is 15% of 150k, which is 22,500. H’s share of income is 33.34%, so H pays ex-W 33.34% of 22,500, which is 7500. 7500 is, you guessed it, 15% of H’s pre-tax income.
The way it works is that the father pays a flat rate of his income to the mother no matter what. The actual amount of dollars that flow depends on income share, which means that a guy in example three pays less actual dollars, but the dollars that he does pay are the same % of his pre-tax income as the guys earning twice as much in examples one and two. It’s the same percentage of income no matter what. It’s a flat tax, plain and simple, which is then paid to Mom on a tax-free basis.
CS payments are invisible from the tax perspective, which, in effect, means that the tax impact is terribly disproportionate. Dad doesn’t get any deduction for CS payments. They’re treated as if they were rent or gasoline (except they are not variable — you can’t reduce the cost as you can with rent or gasoline by moving or driving less). And Mom receives them tax free — these payments are not reported on her tax return and are generally invisible. And, as the original post points out, they are made with after-tax dollars, so the actual “effect on income” is much, much higher than 15% — i.e., it’s much more than 15% of the take-home pay of Dad. If Dad in example one has take home pay of, say 60k, 15k of that goes to CS, which is 25% of his take-home pay being transferred to his ex-wife on a tax-free basis to her on an ongoing basis. And, again, that doesn’t even take into account the health care premiums, the college savings account requirements, the life insurance premiums, and so on, that one is required to maintain in the typical decree. At the end of the day, this is a huge, huge wealth transfer from men to women, and it takes place on a completely unreported basis because, again, these payments don’t count for tax purposes, so they are not figured in Mom’s income. Flatly put, it’s a big, big scam, but if you complain about it, you’re instantly denigrated as a deadbeat supporting jackass who hates women and children. It’s a system that has been well designed by feminists to enslave men to their ex-wives, in practice.
-
While I agree with this article, in part, the issue of taxes is not entirely correct. While it is true that child support aims to take a portion of the gross income (which varies with total combined income level), taxes are assessed correctly.
The income proportion which parents "supposedly" allocate to their children is based on national and KS data. All of these data can be found on this site in the "document repository" topic. All of these models base their values of the huge assumption that the family is intact and everyone is wealthy and all is good. I don't necessarily agree with this, but I'm simply presenting the approach that KS has taken. KS then applies what is called the "dissolution burden" factor which tries to account for the establishment of another home. Personally, I think this factor is way too low and there is very minimal data telling us where it came from. There are equations available to calculate what the dissolution factor is, but there is not data telling us where the equation came from. That needs to change.
Taxes - both parents are responsible for the financial needs of children. The KS approach is to assume spending is commensurate with gross income and each parent provides a portion of child support based on what percentage of the family income they earn. Parents cannot spend their gross income because there are taxes taken from the paycheck. You cannot pay child support with money already taken for taxes. Therefore, the child support tables take into account that as combined income increases, the tax bracket increases. So percentage of gross income for child support decreases slightly (I'll emphasize slightly) for higher incomes. So, why does dad pay tax on his child support but mom doesn't have to report it? That's because the funds that dad us paying child support with have already been taxed. The money that mom is supposed to put into the pot has also been taxed. If mom were to report this as income and uncle sam took his share, child support would be double taxed. We could all petition the state to make child support payments tax deductible, and I would agree with that, but theoretically, an intact family would not get the same treatment so it wouldn't be fair.
BUT, did you know that when you go to get a loan they are required to ask you about your child support? Did you know that even with great credit, your loan amount will be reduced because your income is reduced due to the child support payment? Do you think married families are asked how much they spend on their children? NOPE! This is completely unfair to child support payors. It is a built-in penalty that even though you could afford a nicer home, and even though, your credit is awesome, the interest rate you may get will be worse because your debt:income ratio is now higher. I'm amazed few people have never complained about this.
-
Hmm, good information here. I'm glad I now know how child support in Kansas is supposed to work. I think it's a bunch of crap. Just because I work my ass off and get a raise at work doesn't mean my children need anything more. Maybe I have decided to put that into their college fund - that's all on me. Why should the state decide where that extra money goes. For all they know, I dontate even more to charity or repair my old home with the extra income All they know is it needs to change hands from mom to dad and they wash their hands of the whole deal. After that, they never track what mom does with it or if the kids ever see it. I can assure you in my case they don't.
Guru, I know exactly what you mean about getting loans and having to reduce my income because of child support. I never thought of it from your perspective, but you are absolutely RIGHT! Lenders never ask married couples what they spend on their kids, so who gave them the right to ask about child support? Any ideas about how to get this law changed?
-
Hey you guys thanks for the advice.As to The Child support attorney at our divorce we go back the 25th she emailed me and my Ex and came up with me having to pay $116.00 with the 15% adjustment for parenting time according to her Bradly software , My ex will have our duaghter 53% and I will have 47% what happend to 50/50? My ex probably got her to put in the decree that she would be claiming our duaghter on her tax return.Solely. Dude my ex doesnt even have a Job! should I disagree with that or just go with it.
-
Well, the guidelines clearly say "nearly equal residency." This is based purely on the number of monthly overnights you have. How did you calculate that? I'd say if you have 47%, you should ask for the shared residency treatment. The reason is because there's virtually no cost difference to you if you have your kids 50% of the time vs 47% of the time. We all know that. But getting a judge to agree with you is another thing. It will take a good argument on your part and I might recommend you hire an attorney to get that done.
It will be a lot easier if you fight this right now, than later down the road. Judges like to maintain the status quo so if you usually just get the 15% adjustment, that's probably what they'll stick with unless there's a change of custody. If you get hosed, and end up getting only the pathetic 15% adjustment, you may want to wait about 6 months, build a case, then ask for an additional overnight so you have 50% and they you will HAVE to have the shared residency treatment.
Of course, if your ex will simply agree to the shared residency treatment, there is no fight and it will be ordered regardless of the DCF. If your ex doesn't want to agree, then surely she will know you intend to seek shared custody later and you will both be drug right back into court later for it. It would simply be best to go ahead and do it now.
-
Hey Guru you hit every thing right on the head. All I got was the lousy %15 and when I requested the shared residency treatment. The child atty and the judge kinda looked at each other in shock! There was like a 10 second puase. from the judge. He asked my ex what she thought and she of coures didnt even know what it meant. Then the judge said I was asking him to put a label on something thats the same as joint. and that the child support work order wasnt the one outlined for shared residency. Bull shit 47/53 that is status quote if ever heard it. i'LL wait a while like you sed guru. And get another overnite and go back to court.But Im now divorced and begin paying child support already in july and have joint custody of my little princess. Thanks.
-
I'm sorry to hear things didn't quite go as you would have liked. I'm also not surprised by the order. Judges and attorneys usually shy away from the shared residency treatment because they somehow feel that it's wrong. There's nothing wrong with shared residency at all. It's just the perception that when a judge orders it, there can be a large reduction in child support that changes hands. The guidelines should not change the child support adjustment from 15% for 47% parenting time, to over 50% adjustment for 50% parenting time. The math doesn't work! I know for a fact that there are plenty of parents that will be fighting the Kansas Child Support Committee starting in 2013 to change the way parenting time adjustments work. You are absolutely right that it's bullshit right now.
I have questions:
1.) how did you calculate your parenting time?
2.) how much did you get ordered to pay?
-
Me and Ex agreed in court on me having my duaghter 3 week days with over night stays and 1 weekday for 7 hours(8am-3pm) and every other saturday for 7 hours.(8am-3pm) The Child atty. calculated %47 Using the Bradley software. And that made me eligible for the %15 parenting time adjustment.I was was ordered to $116.00 a month.The child support attorney did all the work.I just agreed to disagree.
-
O.K. No Mom's have chimed in on this thread. So, because I read some of the comments as being quite inflammatory and biased I will add to the discussion.
As to the comments posted as follows by the initiator of this thread and attributed to Novaseeker: "CS payments are invisible from the tax perspective, which, in effect, means that the tax impact is terribly disproportionate. Dad doesn’t get any deduction for CS payments. They’re treated as if they were rent or gasoline (except they are not variable — you can’t reduce the cost as you can with rent or gasoline by moving or driving less). And Mom receives them tax free — these payments are not reported on her tax return and are generally invisible. And, as the original post points out, they are made with after-tax dollars, so the actual “effect on income” is much, much higher than 15% — i.e., it’s much more than 15% of the take-home pay of Dad. If Dad in example one has take home pay of, say 60k, 15k of that goes to CS, which is 25% of his take-home pay being transferred to his ex-wife on a tax-free basis to her on an ongoing basis. And, again, that doesn’t even take into account the health care premiums, the college savings account requirements, the life insurance premiums, and so on, that one is required to maintain in the typical decree. At the end of the day, this is a huge, huge wealth transfer from men to women, and it takes place on a completely unreported basis because, again, these payments don’t count for tax purposes, so they are not figured in Mom’s income. Flatly put, it’s a big, big scam, but if you complain about it, you’re instantly denigrated as a deadbeat supporting jackass who hates women and children. It’s a system that has been well designed by feminists to enslave men to their ex-wives, in practice."
It would appear that Federal and State taxes need to be paid on income. I presume that in order to prevent double taxation on the same earnings there are laws in place (Federal?) with regard to Child Support which dictate who pays the tax, payor or recipient. I also presume that the team put in place to construct the Kansas Child Support Guidelines is aware of the laws and considers them in the determination of total amount of money to be paid or received in Child Support. In other words, the tax point is mute (silent) and it does not matter. Federal tax law states that the income is not taxable to the recipient. If it were taxable to the recipient than it would be tax deductible to the payor.
Kansas can not change the Federal Tax Laws. It must consider them when making it's decisions.
Additionally. THIS IS NOT AN CONSIDERATION BETWEEN MOM's AND DAD's. IT is an issue of two parents or any party responsible for raising a child in the United States of America. It does not matter what sex the payor is or what sex the recipient is. This is Federal Law.
So, I also presume that if the tax responsibility shifted than the % of income due by the payor would also change. i.e. The if the payor gets to deduct the amount of Child Support paid from a Federal Tax return than the % of income paid to the recipient would increase to cover the estimated tax burden by the recipient. The current Federal laws make for much simpler calculations by the states because there is no need to estimate the Federal tax burden in the equation. This is because the State's goal is to create a net result where the amount of income to each party raising children to a level above what would qualify them for support benefits paid by the State of Federal Government for housing, food stamps and health care. Thus reducing the tax burden of it's residential population and businesses.
-
Guru,
As to your complaints about lending practices:
"BUT, did you know that when you go to get a loan they are required to ask you about your child support? Did you know that even with great credit, your loan amount will be reduced because your income is reduced due to the child support payment? Do you think married families are asked how much they spend on their children? NOPE! This is completely unfair to child support payors. It is a built-in penalty that even though you could afford a nicer home, and even though, your credit is awesome, the interest rate you may get will be worse because your debt:income ratio is now higher. I'm amazed few people have never complained about this."
The money you pay in Child Support is a Court Ordered judgement. All Court Ordered judgements need to be reported to lenders as they are considered a debt to be paid and reduce your net income. In tact families must also report Court Ordered judgments when applying for a loan. I believe the money due payable in Child Support is considered a debt obligation. There is no discrimination in this process by lenders assessed to in tact families vs. divorced families. This particular debt does not appear on any Credit Bureau Report so it may feel different. But, it is still considered a debt.
-
KSDAD,
In response to your comment as posted below:
"I'm glad I now know how child support in Kansas is supposed to work. I think it's a bunch of crap. Just because I work my ass off and get a raise at work doesn't mean my children need anything more. Maybe I have decided to put that into their college fund - that's all on me. Why should the state decide where that extra money goes. For all they know, I dontate even more to charity or repair my old home with the extra income All they know is it needs to change hands from mom to dad and they wash their hands of the whole deal. After that, they never track what mom does with it or if the kids ever see it. I can assure you in my case they don't."
Your discussion about the sliding scale of Child Support vs. a fixed minimum or maximum amount is worth further debate. I would note that it is likely a social value decision that is considered to be in the best interest of the children. I would also note that any increase in income you make will not result in a n automatic increase in your Child Support obligation. A new motion would need to be filed with the Court by the child(ren's) other parent and all factors reconsidered which might change things resulting in a lower Child Support amount for you.
-
jorgeperez,
RE: your comment as posted below:
"Hey you guys thanks for the advice.As to The Child support attorney at our divorce we go back the 25th she emailed me and my Ex and came up with me having to pay $116.00 with the 15% adjustment for parenting time according to her Bradly software , My ex will have our duaghter 53% and I will have 47% what happend to 50/50? My ex probably got her to put in the decree that she would be claiming our duaghter on her tax return.Solely. Dude my ex doesnt even have a Job! should I disagree with that or just go with it."
Your case is now a bit more complicated since there are many twists and turns to the law and you may have benefited from hiring an attorney or seeking Free legal aide. If you had prepared a Child Support worksheet with the 50% formula in triplicate the Court would have considered it when you raised the question and this would have already been addressed. But, I can appreciate that you would not have known that.
I suggest you check your documents closely to make sure you have not unknowingly agreed that your X will get any Federal Child Tax deductions. This is a complicated matter so bear with me as I walk through my thoughts.
1. Kansas Child Support guidelines assume that you & your X will alternate years in taking any Federal tax deductions in your case since you have only one child to consider. For those with more children it gets more complicated.
2. The Kansas Courts do not have the power and will not issue Orders that one person or the other get the Federal tax deduction but it is considered in the standard calculations.
3. If you have agreed to give the deduction to your X every year in a written agreement than the Court will consider a reduction in your Child Support for the amount (per schedules in the Kansas Child Support Guidelines) your X would benefit from the Federal tax deductions and credits. This would be a valid reason to file a motion for adjustment in Child Support if the minimum standard for filing a change is met.
FYI: The Kansas Child Support Guidelines state the following as valid reasons for filing a motion for the Court to consider a change in Child Support - any other circumstances may result in a denial of your motion without consideration of the Court.
SectionV. CHANGE OF CIRCUMSTANCES
V.A. Courts have continuing jurisdiction to modify child support orders to
advance the welfare of the child when there is a material change of
circumstances.
V.B. In addition to changes of circumstances which have traditionally been
considered by courts, any of the following constitute a material change of
circumstances to warrant judicial review of existing support orders:
V.B.1. 10% Rule: Change of financial circumstances of the parents or the
guidelines which would increase or decrease by 10% the amount shown
24
on Line F.3 of the worksheet, except that the income from a second job
taken by the parent not having primary residency shall not alone be
considered a material change of circumstances to warrant a modification
of the parent’s child support obligation. Income from bonuses not shown
to be regularly paid by the employer shall not be considered a material
change of circumstances to warrant a modification of the parent’s child
support obligation.
An increase in the gross income of the parent having primary residency is
not a material change of circumstances for the purpose of increasing the
child support obligation.
A parent shall notify the other parent of any change of financial
circumstances including, but not necessarily limited to, income, workrelated
child care costs, and health insurance premiums which, if
changed, could constitute a material change of circumstances.
V.B.2. Duty to Notify: In the event of a failure to disclose a material
change of circumstances, such as the understatement, overstatement, or
concealment of financial information, as a result of such breach of duty,
the court may determine the dollar value of a party’s failure to disclose,
and assess the amount in the form of a credit on the Line F.3 child support
amount or an amount in addition to Line F.3 child support amount. The
court may also adopt other sanctions.
Upon receipt of written request for financial information, a parent shall
have thirty days within which to provide the requested information in
writing to the other parent. Refusal to provide the requested information
may make the non-complying parent responsible for the costs and
expenses, including attorney fees, incurred in obtaining the requested
information.
V.B.3. Age Change: The child is in a higher age group as a result of
having passed the child’s 6th or 12th birthday, or because the child’s ages
place them in the higher age group as a result in the change in the
guidelines.
V.B.4. Court Ordered Emancipation or as provided by Kansas Statute.
V.B.5. Incarceration or Termination from Employment: Termination from
employment for incarceration shall not constitute a material change of
circumstances that justifies a reduction in child support.
25
Termination from Employment for Misconduct: Termination from
employment for misconduct will not ordinarily constitute a material change
of circumstances that justifies a reduction in child support.
V.B.6. Failure to Comply: Failure to comply with the terms of a positive or
negative adjustment to the Basic Parental Child Support Obligation
awarded by the court, such as failure to exercise parenting time or nonutilization
of a special needs allocation for private schooling.
4. As I understand it Federal tax law requires that you have a minimum 50% of the overnights and are the higher wage earner to qualify for any Federal tax deduction. So, by nature of the agreement as Ordered you have currently given up any legal rights to the Federal tax deduction by giving her more than 50% of the overnights.
5. the Court would be required to give you credit for the loss of that Federal tax deduction and it is likely that was represented on the worksheet as the Bradley software program DCF used should do it automatically. Check it for accuracy as to whether or not you received a deduction in your support or credit for the loss of the Federal tax deduction.
5. If you have not agreed in writing to allow your X to claim the Federal tax deduction for your child than you can file a motion for the Court to consider a new parenting plan (must be submitted with the motion) which changes your Parenting Time to 50% or more. I think your best argument with the Court would be that you are a working wage earner who can use the deduction and need to qualify for it whereas she is not. that is unless she is remarried and her current family would be able to take the deduction. Than the argument is moot (silent). The Court is required to consider the Federal tax deduction in it's decision per the guidelines.
Section IV.E.3. Income Tax Considerations (Line E.3)
The parties are encouraged to maximize the tax benefits of the
dependency exemption for a minor child and to share those actual
economic benefits.
If the parties do not agree to share the actual economic benefits of the
dependency exemption for a minor child or, if after agreeing, the parent
having primary residency refuses to execute IRS Form 8332, the court
shall consider the actual economic effect to both parties and may adjust
the child support.
The party seeking the Income Tax Consideration Adjustment shall have
the burden of proof.
The court also may consider any other income tax impacts, regardless of
an agreement upon the dependency exemption issue.
See Appendix V for additional discussion and example computations.
Hope that helps.
-
Guru,
As to your complaints about lending practices:
"BUT, did you know that when you go to get a loan they are required to ask you about your child support? Did you know that even with great credit, your loan amount will be reduced because your income is reduced due to the child support payment? Do you think married families are asked how much they spend on their children? NOPE! This is completely unfair to child support payors. It is a built-in penalty that even though you could afford a nicer home, and even though, your credit is awesome, the interest rate you may get will be worse because your debt:income ratio is now higher. I'm amazed few people have never complained about this."
The money you pay in Child Support is a Court Ordered judgement. All Court Ordered judgements need to be reported to lenders as they are considered a debt to be paid and reduce your net income. In tact families must also report Court Ordered judgments when applying for a loan. I believe the money due payable in Child Support is considered a debt obligation. There is no discrimination in this process by lenders assessed to in tact families vs. divorced families. This particular debt does not appear on any Credit Bureau Report so it may feel different. But, it is still considered a debt.
KTM,
There is a "quote" button at the top which helps when you are quoting and replying directly to someone's comments. Regarding your assertion that child support is a debt, I will promptly disagree with that. If child support were really a debt, lenders would be required you to report the number of children you have and exactly how much they cost when you go apply for credit. Married families and separated families see fluctuations in child rearing expenses all the time. The second a lending applicant walks out the door, their child support could be doubled or cut in half. When considering lending, I do not believe it is fair to make it mandatory that applicants reduce their income by their child support.
Consider a family of 12 children compared to a separated family with only one child. Which one do you think spends more on raising children? Which one has to reduce their income on the lender's forms? Only the parent who has court ordered child support. The other one can apparently let their child go hungry without clothing??? This is not correct, fair, or a common sense approach to the issue.
-
Guru,
Your opinion aside you are wrong on points of Federal Law.
Domestic support obligations, such as child support, never can be discharged in a bankruptcy case, regardless of what chapter is filed. When a parent has made a child support claim against the other parent who has filed for bankruptcy, the trustee must provide a written notice to the claimant informing her that she can use the services of the state child support enforcement agency to collect on the debt. The trustee also must provide written notice to the state child support enforcement agency that a claim exists against the debtor and give the name, address, and phone number of the claimant. The trustee needs to provide both the claimant and the state child support enforcement agency with notice of the bankruptcy discharge and the last known address of the debtor; the last known address of the debtor’s employer; and the name of each creditor holding a claim that was not discharged.
Child Support and Students Loans are forms of unsecured debt obligations which are not able to be considered for discharge under a bankruptcy filing, are collectible against your tax refunds and by other means. They are a debt that MUST be considered by any lender. Presumably someone who is not divorced with children will not have that type of debt because they have made different choices in their life. But, they may have other forms of unsecured debt which you do not have. Child Support IS a legal debt obligation whether you want it to be or not.
Many of your points of complaint on this site appear to be misdirected at the people who set the guidelines for Child Support in the state of Kansas. When in fact they would more appropriately be arguments against existing Federal Law which the Kansas committee MUST respect whether they want to or not.
Read more: Child Support & Bankruptcy Laws | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/list_6696070_child-support-bankruptcy-laws.html#ixzz23plf8Xge
KTM,
Regarding your assertion that child support is a debt, I will promptly disagree with that. If child support were really a debt, lenders would be required you to report the number of children you have and exactly how much they cost when you go apply for credit. Married families and separated families see fluctuations in child rearing expenses all the time. The second a lending applicant walks out the door, their child support could be doubled or cut in half. When considering lending, I do not believe it is fair to make it mandatory that applicants reduce their income by their child support.
Consider a family of 12 children compared to a separated family with only one child. Which one do you think spends more on raising children? Which one has to reduce their income on the lender's forms? Only the parent who has court ordered child support. The other one can apparently let their child go hungry without clothing??? This is not correct, fair, or a common sense approach to the issue.
-
P.S. It is not the Child or number of children which are the basis of the debt (per your analogy). The Legal Debt it is the Child Support Order Document that establishes and defines your debt obligation in a Court of Law regardless of the basis for determining that debt obligation.
-
So what you are basically telling us is that by being married and having children, you have no legal debt? If you do not support your children when married, there are no consequences, correct? If the terms of your loan are such that you cannot support your children any more, you can simply stop providing for them and there are no consequences. Therefore, there is no reason to put this kind of information on a loan application?
This kind of thinking makes no common sense to me. I do understand that child support payors are treated as criminals with money judgements against them for 18 years, but somehow the legislators are missing the big picture here. Every parent should be held accountable. Either all parents report their child support or none of them do - regardless of whether they have a judgement to pay.
-
So what you are basically telling us is that by being married and having children, you have no legal debt? If you do not support your children when married, there are no consequences, correct? If the terms of your loan are such that you cannot support your children any more, you can simply stop providing for them and there are no consequences. Therefore, there is no reason to put this kind of information on a loan application?
This kind of thinking makes no common sense to me. I do understand that child support payors are treated as criminals with money judgements against them for 18 years, but somehow the legislators are missing the big picture here. Every parent should be held accountable. Either all parents report their child support or none of them do - regardless of whether they have a judgement to pay.
Call your Congressman. I am sure they can explain it to you. That is if you are willing to listen. They also take complaints. The state of Kansas and the Child Support committee have no power over the Federal Laws and Fairness in lending practices. Those are under the jurisdiction of our Federal Government. It is what it is regardless of how you choose to interpret it.
Judgements/Debts do not become a criminal matter unless you do not pay them. The states issue Child Support Orders and create judgements so that they have a legal right to collect from a payor who has the obligation to support a child financially and may not want to or defaults on the obligation. This prevents the state and it's residents, you & I, from becoming responsible for financially supporting the child on public assistance. Thus reducing our tax burden and the need for social services. Glorious BIG PICTURE!
As to a parent who is able but chooses to abandon the responsibility to support a child while still being married. There are other laws which protect those children ultimately leading to the same result. A Legal judgment against a parent to pay back the state or Federal government for services rendered to the child(ren) or forfeiture of the right to be a parent. Then freeing the child up for adoption.