This 12 page document goes into detail regarding the potential shortcomings of the current guidelines and proposes some fixes.  Below are the forward and table of contents.


Entire Document Below:
   
     
Forward:
When discussing child support issues with anyone who either  pays or receives it, there is usually a common consensus: parents who pay  support, complain they pay too much, parents who receive support complain they  don’t receive enough.  The primary aim of  this document is not to discount the importance of child support in Kansas, but  to emphasize the importance of a fair child support award – especially  in shared custody cases.  I acknowledge  that Kansas is a deeply rooted income shares state.  However, lack of sufficient adjustment provisions  in an income shares model leads to unfair awards for families and can  ultimately hurt our children.  The  parties effected by the award are not only the children and parents of the  divorce.
 
In July 2010 I sent a letter to Mark Gleeson to pass on to  the committee titled “Actual costs in Shared Residency,” which described some  of the actual out of pocket expenses myself and other shared custodial parents actually  incur on a regular basis.  I  demonstrated, briefly, how the current shared custody adjustment, which went  into effect in 2008, has caused shared custodial parents, and their families,  to bear a much larger financial burden than is necessary to provide reasonable  resources for their child(ren).  In this  letter, I would like to provide further substantiation for my previous letter,  explore the impacts of an unfair child support arrangement and, ultimately, offer  some suggested changes from the point of view of shared custodial parents and  their families.
 
 
 
 
Table of Contents
 
I.       Introduction. 3
II.      Parenting  Costs Research. 3
III.         Cost  Shares or Income Shares?. 4
III.1       Proposed  Changes:5
III.2       Example  1 of proposed changes. 5
III.3       Example  2 of proposed changes. 6
III.4       Example  3 of proposed changes. 6
III.5       Example  4 of proposed changes. 7
IV.         Agreement  by the parties. 7
IV.1      Proposed  changes. 7
V.     Who  should be in control?. 7
V.1       Proposed  Changes. 8
VI.         What  does the shared custody adjustments provide for?. 8
VI.1      Proposed  Changes. 9
VII.       Which  formula?. 9
VII.1         Proposed  Changes. 9
VIII.      Where  does the money go?. 9
VIII.1        Proposed  Changes. 10
IX.         Paternity/Maternity  vs. Divorce – What’s the difference?. 10
X.     Using  Income of Spouse. 10
X.1       Proposed  Changes. 11
XI.         Conclusions. 11
XII.       References. 12
 
     I.               Introduction    No one can force a parent to spend more time with their  child, however many studies show that children who have substantial access to  both parents exude greater confidence, greater knowledge, and are more likely  to succeed in life than those raised without access to both parents.  There is an increasing number of parents in  Kansas who recognize this fact.  Every  case and every child is different, but it appears Kansas Courts and case  managers promote shared custody, or at least substantial parenting time for  both parents, where reasonable and best for the child.  In general, I believe this to be a step in  the right direction.
 
The child support guidelines must accurately and fairly  account for the fact that parents who are awarded substantial parenting time  with their child(ren) also assume substantially greater financial  responsibilities.  They key word is  “substantial”.  Most references define  “substantial” to be somewhere between 25%-33% of overnights or 24-hr  periods.  Obviously shared custody (50%)  is as substantial as any parent could get without taking over as the primary  residential parent (51%).  Currently the  Kansas Child Support Guidelines do not sufficiently differentiate between a  parent offering half of his/her family’s time and resources to better the life  of his/her child and a parent who wishes very minimal contact with his/her  child.  This sends the wrong message to  both the children and the parents of Kansas.
 
 II.             Parenting Costs Research    Reference 4  presents the basis for the current Kansas Child Support Guidelines.  Expenditures proportion information provided  in reference 4 is reproduced in (Figure  1).  Note, the  data in Figure  1 is for intact husband-wife families, however,  “expenses on a child in single-parent families generally followed the same  pattern as expenses on a child in husband-wife families,” (ref 4).
“The parent with whom the child does not reside the majority  of the time may incur transportation, food, and entertainment expenses during  visitation days and maintain a larger living unit because the child stays with  him or her on weekends. The noncustodial parent could also contribute to the  child’s clothing and health care expenses” (ref. 4).  For shared  custodial parents, parenting time is split equally between parents, as are many  of these costs.  Some costs simply offset  for 50/50 residency - housing, food, transportation, clothing, and  miscellaneous costs.  This equals 75% of  the total child-rearing cost. 
 
Both parents should also pay for half of all healthcare  costs.  Some families (mine included) do  not incur any child care costs.  However,  when daycare providers are hired to care for the child(ren), the additional  amount is always ordered by the Court in addition to child support.  So child care should not be included in the  basic child support figure (I believe this is already the case with the Kansas  tables).  Only education and healthcare  costs are left for litigation. 
 
“The intact family standard of living can only be maintained  for the custodial parent by creating a heavier (disproportionate) financial  burden for the non-custodial parent.   This can be done only by having the child support award dramatically  exceed actual child costs.  This creates  an extraordinary benefit for the custodial parent and an extraordinary burden  for the non-custodial parent.” (Ref. 3).  The level at  which both parents actually split costs in a shared custody case, indicate the  20% adjustment should be closer to 80%.
 
 III.            Cost Shares or Income Shares?    Kansas has used the income shares or the estimated spending  method since inception of the guidelines.   There are advantages and disadvantages to this approach.  The basic advantage of this method is  simplicity.  The basic child support  amount can be determined in minutes and simple adjustments can be utilized to  make sure the award is fair.  This method  also has the theoretical advantage of reducing any potential rebuttals in the  Court room because the method is based almost solely on income which can  usually be easily documented using a W-2 or form 1040.  However, the disadvantage of this approach is  that it most likely will not accurately account for true costs for the child  which can lead to insufficient or excessive awards.
 
The cost shares model also has advantages and  disadvantages.  The cost shares model  will accurately account for each child’s out of pocket expenses, but may lack the  detail to account for indirect costs such as transportation and housing.  The cost shares model may be somewhat more  complicated if too many costs are considered.   However, in a shared residency (50/50) situation, many indirect costs are  incurred by both parents equally, so these costs offset.  Cost shares would be the most accurate, but  can be somewhat complicated for families who don’t offset many costs.
 
“The best method to estimate child expenditures is to simply  ask parents what the costs are.  The cost  shares guideline better than any other child support guideline methodology most  closely follows this concept of using actual data on child cost expenditures  compared to other methodologies such as the Engel version of income shares or  the Rothbarth version of income shares.” (ref. 3) 
 
The biggest concern with the cost shares method appears to  be that it will fuel further litigation.   “The cost sharing approach using actual expenditures inherently  encourages
litigation by requiring case-by-case determinations.” (ref. 5)  To some extent, this may be correct, but  child support is litigated all the time either way.  Income shares states probably spend the most  time litigating correct reporting of income.   States using some form of cost shares likely see more litigation on the  actual costs.  Either way, litigation  will occur, but which method is most accurate when considering a shared  custody case?  Based on the information  presented herein, there should be few costs to consider in a shared residency  case because most costs simply offset.   Therefore it may be just as easy, yet more accurate, to simply use  actual costs in shared residency cases.
 
 III.1         Proposed Changes:    Cases where both parents spend significant parenting time  (44/56, 50/50) with their child(ren) should adopt an actual cost-shares method  to most accurately account for expenditures.   Since most costs are offset, this leaves very little to account for in a  cost-shares approach.  Costs for housing,  transportation, food, clothing, and other such costs should not be considered  when determining the child support award, especially when incomes are within  30% of eachother.
 
Since the committee is, from most indications, steadfast in  the use of an income shares approach, the adjustment for significant parenting  time and shared residency cases should consider the following:
 
1.)   Calculate  the basic child support amount per appendix II of reference (1)
2.)   Eliminate  offsetting costs per reference 4  and additional costs which are not part of the basic support figure.  This means that transportation, food,  housing, clothing, misc., and healthcare, costs are eliminated (83%). Childcare  and education are left (child care costs should probably be eliminated from  this calculation as well, but for simplicity we’ll leave it).  Therefore, take 17% of the value in appendix  II of the guidelines.
3.)   Divide  this number by 2 rather than income proportion because both parents are equally  responsible for education and related costs (school supplies).
4.)   Add  back in any child care, healthcare, sports, and other costs the Court deems  necessary, prorated over 12 months
5.)   Parent  A shall pay parent B for 1 year and then roles switch for the following year (along  with tax deduction alternation).   Alternating annually as opposed to semiannually, as mentioned in  reference 5  on page 136, is a better approach because costs throughout the year will vary  (taxes, swim lessons, holidays, etc…).   Annual alternation guarantees that both parents will realize the full  cost or benefit through the year.
 
This method will lead to lower income families providing  less money for their child and higher income families providing more, which is consistent  with all income shares research.
 
 III.2         Example 1 of proposed changes    This example assumes the following:
Shared Custody of 16 year old child attending public school.
 
 III.3         Example 2 of proposed changes    This example assumes the following:
Shared Custody of 16 year old child attending public school.
 

 
 III.4         Example 3 of proposed changes    This example assumes the following:
Shared Custody of 16 year old child attending public school.
 

 
 III.5         Example 4 of proposed changes    This example assumes the following:
Shared Custody of two 3 year old children attending public  school.
 

 IV.           Agreement by the parties    Of any cases considered  here, the Kansas Child Support guidelines have only been used in a case where  parents cannot agree on a child support amount.   Any parties agreeing to a child support amount or other arrangement  would not need to refer to the child support guidelines, so therefore this  language is unnecessary.  On line III.B.7.a.2  of the guidelines (ref. 1) it is stated that the parties must have already executed a  “detailed written agreement.”  The  parties would not be arguing the matter of child support before the Court if  child support was an agreed upon matter and would likely not be referring to  the guidelines.  Since, the Court retains  full jurisdiction over child support matters and makes decisions as to what is  best for the child, this should be removed from the guidelines. 
 
If the obligee is  faced with a decision to receive $100/month in child support and agree to share  direct expenses (see reference 1) vs. receiving $900/month in child support, of course  the obligee in this case would likely not agree to share direct expenses.  In this case, based on the current guidelines,  the Court must grant the obligee the $900/month award.
 
 IV.1        Proposed changes    Any language in the  guidelines which implies that the parties must agree or an agreement must be  reached before the Court can order such, should be removed.
 
     V.             Who should be in control?    Currently, the method by which the Court determines which  parent is in full control of the finances for a child is by which one has the  larger share of parenting time.  But, for  parenting time shares near 50/50, this is determined by which parent has the  least income.  In most cases, which ever  parent makes the least is granted a child support award, and thus, awarded  financial responsibility of the child.  This  is unfair to the child, teaches the child to favor one parent over the other,  and creates an unfair situation for the child(ren) and the obligor.  There are a number of reasons the current  determining method is unfair, a few are listed below:
-           The current guidelines imply the obligee is  supposed to sign the child up for school, sports, activities, purchase  clothing, make appointments, send lunch money, etc… rather than sharing these  duties (and the associated costs).
o    Schools, doctors, coaches, etc… will many times  only talk with the parent who “payed” and signed the child up.  I once had to write a notarized letter and mail  my Court order to a daycare provider simply to access attendance records for my  son who I have always had joint legal custody of.  Mother listed Dad at the very bottom of the 6  line emergency contact list, and school papers were only sent home with the  parent signing the child up.  I was not  allowed to change any paperwork with the school because I had not payed and  signed our son up.
o    The payor is not granted the opportunity to make  decisions in his/her child’s life.  Joint  legal custody is “supposed” to allow both parents to make decisions, however,  when the funds are already in the hand of the obligee and decisions are made  without the consultation of the obligor, the obligor must now either forget  about the incident, or pay even more to litigate the issue.
o    Should one parent simply pay more out of pocket  to try to be involved?  Should that  parent then request reimbursement?  I  have personally requested reimbursement for some of these costs – my request  was met with a threat to file a motion to increase the child support award.
-           Decisions as to what the child will wear, what  activities the child participates in, etc… is determined by the obligee… There  is no accounting for where the child support funds go, so there is no mechanism  in place to govern whether the child is actually receiving appropriate support.
-           If the obligee is unemployed, the current  guidelines merely encourage him/her to enter the Court room every year to seek  a higher Child support award based on the obligor’s likely annual raises.
 
Any child support award should be alternated annually  between parents.  Since a child support  award will create some level of favor toward one parent over the other, the  only way to offset this is to allow both parents the opportunity to provide all  forms of care (school sign-ups, school supplies, sports sign-ups, activity  supplies, etc…)
 
 
 V.1         Proposed Changes    Both parents should be in control.  The only way to ensure both parents retain  equal right and responsibility to their child and the decisions made on their  behalf is to alternate the obligor/obligee roles.  I believe that if this is done fairly, the  Court will find more parents choosing to determine their own child support  amount, and less parents entering the Court room to litigate child support.
 
 VI.           What does the shared custody adjustment provide  for?    Currently shared custodial child support payors receive a  20% adjustment in child support per section IV.E.2 of the child support  guidelines.  Where does the 20% number  come from?  Depending on parenting time  share, the parenting time adjustment values are listed as 5%, 10%, 15%, and  20%.  However, there is no reference to  the basis of these values and what they are supposed to provide for (i.e. food,  clothing, housing, transportation, etc…).   In section II.A, it is stated that child support is “not limited to  direct expenses for food, clothing, school, and entertainment. Child support is  also to be used to provide for housing, utilities, transportation, and other  indirect expenses related to the day-to-day care and well-being of the  child.”  However, in section  III.B.7.a.2.a is it stated that for parties who agree to share direct  expenses, “expenses include, but are not limited to, clothing and education  expenses, but do not include food, transportation, housing, or utilities.”  Therefore, based on the current 20% shared  custody adjustment provision, child support in shared custody does provide the  obligee with additional funds for transportation, housing, utilities, clothing,  etc…Even with both parents making the same income, living in identical homes,  one parent will be paying for the other parent’s home and other such  expenses.  Does this include some level  of extracurricular activities (i.e. sports, music/dance lessons, camps, etc…)?
 
 VI.1       Proposed  Changes    Clarify which costs the parenting time adjustments cover,  and what each parent may be responsible for.   Obviously if things like sports and activities are included in the basic  support figure, these costs should not be added to the basic support amount
 
 VII.          Which formula?    Why does paragraph III.B.7 state that parents “should  consider requesting a parenting time adjustment…rather than use the shared  expense formula?”  Each family is  different – activities are different, travel needs are different, schools are  different, etc…  It would be fair to both  parties to allow either party to present actual cost information to the Court  and allow the Court to decide.  The  currently guidelines nearly explicitly tell the Court to use only the shared  expense formula. 
 
 VII.1      Proposed  Changes    If both the shared expense formula and cost sharing methods  are presented and a difference of greater than 300% is seen, the cost sharing  method should be used instead.
 
 VIII.         Where does the money go?    First and foremost, the Court’s responsibility should be to  provide for children of separated families and ensure they do not go  without.  Currently there is no mechanism  by which the Court can ensure that children are cared for with child support  funds.  Awarding a parent $1000 every month  (assuming shared custody) and asking them to please use every penny on their  child is not reasonable.  It appears as  if the solution has been to increase the award and hope that more of the money  reaches the child(ren).  I have spoke  with many parents which indicate a complete disregard for responsibility with  child support funds.  Money is spent on  anything from long vacations (without the child), new televisions and  electronics, to fingernails and elective surgical procedures (not for the  child).
 
Too much money can create just as many problems.  I know that if I hand my child $10 and  request him/her purchase a loaf of bread that costs $1.89, I may receive a package  of hotdog buns and about $5.00 change.   After some discussion, I may later learn that a candy bar and a soda pop  were purchased.  Now, if I perform the  same exercise except either A.) I request a full accounting of all  expenditures, or B.) I send him/her with $2.00 instead of $10.00, I will find  that a much higher percentage of money went toward the intended purchase.
 
Now consider the same scenario except the child is given  $1.75 to purchase a loaf of bread that costs $1.89.  Not having additional money to even consider  purchasing unneeded items, the child not only finds the requested loaf of  bread, but finds it on sale and saves money.
 
My point is that by increasing the child support award,  children are not necessarily guaranteed to receive what is needed.  A further point is that a lower child support  award does not necessarily lead to a socially and emotionally challenged  child.  I believe a spoiled child can  sometimes fair worse in life than other children who have had to work hard for  everything they have.  The Court’s  primary interest should be the quality of life for the children.  Quality of life is not measured in dollars.
 
 VIII.1    Proposed  Changes    There should be more responsibility on the part of the  obligee and the Court when child support awards are very large to ensure the  children are being taken care of.  For  high child support awards, the obligor should be able to request an accounting  of how the money is being used to care for the child(ren).
 IX.           Paternity/Maternity vs. Divorce – What’s the  difference?    In last session’s meeting minutes, a statement was made that  cost sharing probably wouldn’t work for shared custodial parents.  What is the basis for this statement?  Is it assumed that unmarried parents disagree  or agree on issues any more or less than married parents?  Research has shown that the one of the most  common reason for divorce is money and management thereof.  If divorced parents disagree on money before  divorce, why would it be assumed they could agree on financial issues regarding  their children in a time when both are financially and emotionally taxed?  Further, many times only one spouse pays  bills and knows the details of the family finances.  Therefore, the other spouse would be left to  learn quickly after the divorce.   Divorced couples do not make any better or worse decisions regarding the  financial requirements for their child(ren) than unmarried parents.  Since there is no standard parenting manual,  every parent must be proactive, learn quickly, and adjust.
 
 X.             Using Income of Spouse    This issue has been brought up for years in surveys and  comments to the committee.  I believe if  either parent quits work, it must be substantiated how they are supporting  themselves.  Income must be coming in  somehow if they are supporting themselves and their children.  If they have quit work because they prefer to  live off the income of a spouse, that spouse’s income should then be used as  the basis for child support.  Based on  the current guidelines, the residential parent is encouraged to quit his/her  job for such reasons because their child support payment either increases or is  so minimally affected, it can be reasoned not to seek employment.
 
 X.1         Proposed Changes    The guidelines should require that the DRA submitted by the  obligee shall be fully substantiated if there is no income.  Example – if the obligee claims a $1000/mo  mortgage payment and $800/mo in child care fees, but has no income, it should  be substantiated as to how this obligee would make this mortgage payment  without income as child support should only account for a portion of these  costs, not 100% of them.  At this point,  the Court should require income records of the spouse as well.
 
 XI.           Conclusions    The Kansas Child Support Guidelines create an undue  financial burden on shared custodial parents.   I have offered the insight of a number of shared custodial parents here,  have provided research, examples, and substantiation for these.  It is requested that the committee consider  adopting either an actual cost method or a revised shared custody adjustment  provision to the current income shares method in shared custody cases and any  case where both parents spend significant parenting time with their  child(ren).  The adjustment method  proposed herein could possibly be referred to as a hybrid method which  considers both income shares as well as additional sharing of costs for  healthcare, childcare, and other related expenses.  Using actual costs is more straight  forward.  Regardless of the method used  to determine the amount, it should be alternated annually to allow both parents  equal opportunity to provide for their child(ren).  This is the only fair way.
 
 
 
 
Thank you for your time and consideration
     
 XII.          References    1      “Kansas  Child Support Guidelines,” Pursuant to Kansas Supreme Court Administrative  Order No. 216, Amended November 30, 2007
2      Mull,  B., “Actual Costs in Shared Residency,” July, 2010.
3      Rogers,  R. Mark, “The Cost Shares Child Support Guideline – A Common Sense and  Economics Based Improvement Over the Income Shares Guideline,” February 7,  2001.
  (http://www.guidelineeconomics.com/files/KY_ResponseToPSI.pdf)
4      Lino,  Mark, “Expenditures on Children by Families, 2009,” U.S. Department of  Agriculture Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion, June, 2010.
  (http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/Publications/CRC/crc2009.pdf)
5      Linda  Henry Elrod, “Kansas Child Support Guidelines: An Elusive Search for Fairness  in Support Orders”, 27 WASHBURN. L. J. 104, 120-25 (1987)  (http://www.washburnlaw.edu/faculty/elrod-linda-fulltext/1987-27washburnlawjournal104.pdf)