Comments for the 2012 Proposed KS Child Support    Guidelines

November 21, 2011

To: KS Supreme Court, Media & State Officials

FROM: KS Parents

                                  Dear Supreme Court Justices, State Officials and Members of  the Media,
We, the parents of Kansas, have the  following comments against the proposed 2012 KS Child Support Guidelines (KCSG)  prepared by the KCSG Committee.  Our repeated  efforts to resolve these serious issues with the committee, join the committee  as parent representatives, or obtain the underlying justification data for the proposed  changes have been unsuccessful.  As  parents, we believe that the committee is no longer suited to serve the public  interest.  The committee has ignored  repeated public comments year-after-year, and is more interested in serving  their own political and financial agendas rather than the best interests of KS  children and parents. 
The proposed 2012 guidelines have  been released for public review and we motion for our comments to be reviewed  directly by the Supreme Court Justices rather than the committee.  Responses to the 2011 public survey are once  again ignored by the KCSG Committee.  Based  on priority, our comments are as follows:
1.      We  object to the increased child support obligations (see child support tables,  approximately 3-20% increase in obligations).
a.      We  do not agree that our children’s expenses have increased in direct proportion  to our gross incomes, especially considering the state of the economy.
b.      The committee’s  justification data to increase child support obligations was collected when the  economy was in a good state and cannot be applied to the current state of the  economy.
c.       For  years, the committee has overcharged child support paying parents for what  should have been their share of the indirect expenses such as; housing,  transportation, utilities; and they are trying to partially correct this issue  in 2012.  The parenting time adjustments for  equal time parents are being increased from 20% to 41-78% without any change in  obligations.  Because of this substantial  amount of overcharge, if anything, child support obligations should be reduced  to compensate paying parents.
2.      The  current less than equal time parenting time adjustments should be drastically  increased (See section IV.E of child support guidelines).  The proposed equal parenting time child  support formula should also be applied towards less than equal parenting cases  commensurate with the parenting time.  Similar  approaches have been used successfully in other states for many years.
a.      Parents  with advanced math skills have already proposed several formulas to the  committee, in great detail, that would accomplish the same.
b.      The  current 5%, 10% and 15% adjustments (see section IV.E of child support  guidelines) are, as admitted by the committee, arbitrary and do not have any financial  basis.  Based on the proposed guidelines,  an equal time parent will receive parenting time adjustment ranging 41-78% for  indirect expenses, whereas a 45% parent will receive only 15%.  This is very unfair for the children and  families.  The children who spend 45% at  the CS paying parent’s home will still need a home with an extra room, furniture,  utilities and transportation.  It is very  unfair to give less than 1/3 of the adjustment for only 5% difference in parenting  time. 
c.       Uneven  distribution of child support dollars will further encourage financially  motivated parents to motion for greater parenting time for the wrong reasons,  and encourage parents and courts to deny additional parenting time for the  wrong reasons.  Parental alienation is a  real issue and unfair child support guidelines directly fuel this problem.
3.      The  proposed equal parenting time formula (see section III.7.b of child support  guidelines) should be re-written such that the higher income parent could also receive  child support, if court ordered or agreed upon by parents as it is in the  current guidelines and its previous revisions.
a.      KS  law has specific criteria in selecting the primary residential parent.  Income is not one of them.  Why should income level determine who  receives child support?
b.      There  are already many examples of lower income parents paying child support because  the higher income parent provides for most of the direct expenses.  The proposed language makes the assumption  that the lower income parent always provides all direct expenses, which is absolutely  not the case and does not treat parents equally.
c.       Rather  than taking the recommendations and requests of Kansas residents to alternate  which parent pays and which parent receives child support on an annual basis,  which would be the fairest method, the committee has decided to minimize the  amount of changes in the guidelines and not allow this provision.  The committee has offered no opinion on this  matter.  Enforcing a rule that only the  lower income parent, which could be by only a few dollars, is allowed to  purchase all the clothing, school supplies, items for the home, sports signups,  etc. alienates children all the time.  Rules like this need revised to encourage  equality and fairness.
4.      Child  support allowance for clothing and basic miscellaneous expenses (see section  III.7.b of child support guidelines) should be shared commensurate with  parenting time so that both parents can provide these instead of bags  travelling back and forth between households several times a week.
a.      The  clothing supply issue does not work as the committee intended.  Guidelines need to reflect what actually is happening.   One parent purchasing all of the clothing  does not work.
b.      One  parent providing all clothing alienates the child support paying parent.
c.       Clothing  allowance shouldbe shared commensurate to parenting times, just like other  indirect expenses.
d.      The  advising economist has proposed that a 2% adjustment could be made to the 13%,  15% and 18% direct expense values to compensate for the fact that parents  already purchase clothing for their child in their home.  Similar adjustments could be made for other  direct expenses such as; misc needs, toys, electronics, pocket money, etc.  2012 proposed guidelines expect even  electronic items such as TV for children room, game stations, etc to travel  between households or purchased by one parent only!
e.      The  newly proposed equal parenting time fomula claims to eliminate receipt  exchanges.  However, since the child  support receiving parent still receives all of the money for direct expenses, and  since child support paying parents still purchase the same at their home, instead  of receipt exchanges, the committee is promoting increased litigation to  recover expenditures on direct expenses.
5.      The  Child Support Guidelines should provide more definition for exactly what direct  and indirect expenses are, and what each parent is required to provide.  The committee did not provide any  justification data for the newly proposed equal parenting time formula to the  public, even after repeated requests, before the public survey.  Public blindly voted on this newly proposed  formula unaware of how the percentages were arrived.
6.      Under  the current guidelines, sanctions should be ordered, including attorney fees,  if the child support receiving parent fails to provide for the direct needs of  the children, refuses to reimburse child’s direct expenses during child support  paying parents care, or provides lesser quality/substandard items for the  child. 
7.      Sanctions  should also be ordered for child support receiving parents if they voluntarily  terminate their employment, are terminated due to misconduct or remain  underemployed in order to increase their child support award.  Sections II.F.1.c and V.b.5 infer that there  are only consequences for child support paying parents.  There are, likewise, just as many instances  where child support recipients become or remain underemployed simply to avoid a  decrease in child support or to promote a vindictive agenda.  If child support awards were more consistent  with actual spending, this line would likely not be an issue.
8.      Similarly,  sanctions should also be ordered for child support receiving parents if they  fail to disclose an increase in their salary.   
9.      Similarly,  backdating of a child support reduction should be ordered for paying parents in  the case of an involuntary salary reduction or layoffs.
10.  The  proposed addition regarding extraordinary expenses should be removed to prevent  confusion.  This section is not clear to  any of the parents and will likely become controversial and lead to further  litigation.  There are so many larger  issues to tackle as stated above, before this issue should be addressed.
11.  The term  "shared residential custody" condition (see section II.7.b) should be  eliminated from the guidelines in its entirety.   The term “shared custody” is not defined in Kansas statute, nor is it  defined in the guidelines.  Equal or  nearly equal parenting time should be the only qualification to use the shared  residency formula.
a.      The  term "shared residential custody" condition / wording was never used  for the 80/20 rule.  Why use it now for  the newly proposed formula.  It is a language  issue in the orders and is not be consistent in all cases.  Many of the orders assign one parent primary  over another for child support purposes even if the time is shared or equal.  What is important for the guidelines to  clarify is that this provision applies to “parenting time,” not language in the  order.
12.  All  justification data should be released for public review, free of charge, on the  committee website at least sixty (60) days before the public review of the  guidelines.
a.      The  committee has not provided any justification data for the newly proposed equal parenting  time formula to the public.  The public  review period is closed and was only open for approximately 60 days.
13.  The  guidelines should provide the statistics on how many mothers vs. fathers  receive support.  The committee should be  ordered to find ways to equalize these numbers.
14.  The  child support dollars should be accounted for by receiving parents and be  available to paying parents quarterly upon request.
15.  The  previous public surveys were sent out to a much greater number of child support  recipients than payors (80,000 vs. 1,000 !!!), which resulted in a number of  comments favoring recepients over payors.   In fact, only 0.2% of recipients submitted a survey.  However, nearly 24% of payors submitted  surveys!  Furthermore, the survey was  open for comment for nearly eight ( months.   There should be an order to send the public surveys to an equal number  of payors and recipients, and allow for sufficient time to collect surveys,  analyze the data, and incorporate comments into the guidelines.  Currently, the process does not allow  sufficient time for public comments to be incorporated.
16.  There  are individuals on the KCSG committee, who have been members for over 10 years.  These members steer the committee in the same  direction every review (i.e. Linda Elrod, Mark Gleeson, etc.).  We would like to impose a term limit for  members and appointed executive aids to a maximum of 8 years.
17.  KCSG  Committee consists of the following individuals and currently no parent  representatives are allowed on the committee even after our repeated inquiries.  This committee, which consist of mostly legal  profession, financially benefit from conflict between parents.  The economist contracted for the committee is  believed to be a child support receiving parent.  The state representatives on the committee  benefit from the matching federal funds received based on how much child  support can be collected in Kansas.   These are major conflicts of interest that requires forming of a new  un-biased committee that consist mostly of parents.
 
Thomas E. Foster, Olathe, Judge, Chair of the Committee
 Constance Alvey, Dist 29, Judge
 Amy Harth, Dist 6, Judge
 Linda Elrod, Topeka, Law Professor
 John T. Bird, Hays, Attorney
 Charles F Harris, Wichita,  Attorney
Sherri Loveland, Lawrence, Attorney
 Larry Rute, Topeka, Attorney
 Gary Pomeroy, Lawrence, Attorney
 Lana Gordon, Topeka, State Rep
 Tom Holland, Topeka , State  Senator
 Roy F. Brungardt, Hays, Accountant
 Jodi Pelkowski, Contract Economist
 Mark Gleeson, Committee Secretary
 
Kansas  parents and children desperately need the Supreme Court’s attention to these  matters!     
Sincerely,
Kansas Parents for Fair Child  Support and Mandated Equal Parenting Time
Ksparents4equality@yahoo.com
http://www.facebook.com/#!/groups/ksparents4equality/