Mr. Mull & Guru - There is no need to split hairs and chase rabbit trails.

The question I understand to have been asked and to be under debate is whether or not Child Support recipients are legally required to pay for all of their child(rens) extra curricular activities (sports or otherwise) simply because they receive Child Support and whether or not the calculations are made based upon the presumption that the recipient will bear full financial responsibility for said costs.

The evidence does not lead to any legal determination (evidence) that such responsibility falls solely on the Child Support recipient unless specifically Ordered by the Court on an individual case by case basis.

It is at the very least misleading to state anything other than that the expense for normal extracurricular activities (those not considered at the time of Child Support determination as extra ordinary) has not been included in the Child Support calculations and remains a point for further discussion and negotiation between the parents.

The details of my case are incidental to the bottom line global issue. Expenses for a child other than "clothing, childcare, public school education, food, health care, family related transportation & miscellaneous expenses defined as (entertainment - including sports equipment like a bicycle, personal care items, etc.)" are not considered in the USDA data the Kansas Child Support Committee has used to determine Child Support calculations. There is no mention of extra curricular activities. Therefore unless specifically outlined in a Court Order or written agreement between the parents much like educational expenditures after age 18 there is no provision for any other expense not underlined above under the umbrella of Child Support. As follows there is No specific legal obligation for a Child Support recipient to solely bear the costs of those expenses not underlined above or expressly outlined by the Kansas Child Support Guidelines or any Court Order.

Dad,

The Appellate Court decision was in reference to the Kansas Child Support Guidelines as written in January 1999 and as I understand it was a challenge in reference to how the Court interpreted the category of "Special Needs Expenses".

Later versions of the Kansas Child Support Guidelines up to the current date have been changed and further defined.

The Appellate Courts decision in the last two paragraphs =  "The child support schedules used to determine the net parental support obligation were based upon national data regarding average family expenditures for children. Administrative Order No. 128, II.C. To state the obvious, most children with means, in this day and age, participate in some form of extracurricular activity. As reflected in the district court's findings, baseball, basketball, soccer, and Boy Scouts are some of the activities that are frequently engaged in by children. By definition, the cost of these activities would be included in the data regarding average family expenditures for children, much like food, school supplies, transportation, and clothing. In turn, the amounts in the child support schedules would also reflect money spent on these activities.

Money spent on extracurricular activities such as baseball, basketball, soccer, and Boy Scouts are normal expenditures already accounted for in the child support schedules. We recommend that the parties seek to agree between themselves on whether the expense of extracurricular activities will be shared in some way."

The current Kansas Child Support Guidelines are based upon USDA data which states directly what expenses it includes in it's calculations. Currently that does not include extracurricular activity expenses. This may have not been the case for the 1999 Kansas Child Support Guidelines.

That would be my assumption with respect to the applicability of the Case Law you inquired about. I would suppose someone would need to take a case to the Appeals Court again to see if the old ruling would prevail despite the facts of how the data is calculated being contrary to the assumptions made by the Appellate court in their 2001 decision.

Brian,

I have read the reports and in a previous thread started last year on this site quoted them. I read what you posted last year and they do not include what you say they include. I posted them at the time to refute exactly what you are claiming and then the thread ended.

If there is new, more detailed data being considered for the upcoming changes to the Child Support Guidelines than you may be correct. But, what you posted here last year as the basis for the current Child Support Guidelines per the national online report does not include what you are describing.

If, as you say, you are a current member of the Child Support committee with voting and submission privileges I suggest that you re examine exactly what the national data includes in it's description for the data. AND if you have the support of the other committee members add a more specific description of what the Child Support recipient is responsible to pay for exclusive of any further contribution by the Child Support payor. Thereby ending the endless debates on this site and in courtrooms.

In other words... use your power for the good of all and help foster peace among Kansas parents.