Kansas Child Support Forum
General Kansas Child Support Discussions => Kansas Child Support Guidelines => Topic started by: Dad on November 10, 2012, 03:32:04 PM
-
Just to clarify, is there a separate worksheet (re: application) for Multiple Family, or are they just referring to what number of child schedule to use?
Thanks!
-
MFA uses the same worksheet. You simply enter how many children should be considered for the MFA credit. The guidelines are currently written to only allow a parent paying child support to use this and only if the other parent requests an increase in child support. You are correct that really the only thing the MFA does is allows you to use a higher child table.
I know this may be clear to you, but for other readers I will offer the following example: there is a single child between Mom&Dad. Dad has since remarried and has an additional 3 children. If Dad is paying child support to Mom, he can ask the court to use the 4 child table instead of the 1 child table, but only if Mom asks to increase child support. The difference in child support for a family supporting a 2 year old on a $100,000 combined annual income is about $680/child for 4 children, and about $1200/child for 1 child.
-
Guru,
The guidelines state: In the instance of shared residency or divided residency, the Multiple-Family Application is available to either party in defense of a requested child support increase.
This is our situation: Mom and Dad have 2 children together and have equal parenting time. Mom had a child with a third party and the child resides in Mom's home. Everyone, including Mom's attorney, the DA, is using the 3 child schedule. We understand that this is correct and highly precedented. From your response it wold seem that you understand something different. Please advise.
Thanks,
Dad
-
Well, first let me answer a question with a question. Would a person paying child support want to increase their own child support? Probably not, so the MFA really only applies to paying parties. Now, as to which kids can be included, I agree with you that using all the children on both sides would be the best way.
What I'm trying to say is that just because Mom births another child does not mean you can walk into the court room and ask for a reduction in child support. see "in defense of a requested child support increase." Also, just because you have a new child in your family, it doesn't mean you can go ask for a reduction. Heck, you could have triplets next year, which would drastically change things, but the way it's written, you cannot automatically request a reduction.
I'm not saying I agree with it, but that's how its written.
In the future, could you please offer some more details on your questions and your case specifically so I can give you a more direct answer? Usually its the case where Dad wants to ask for a reduction in support because there are new children in the family. Honestly, I think that's how it should work, but it doesn't work quite like that.
-
Not that my opinion matters in the Court's interpretation of the Multiple Family Application related to Child Support Calculations.
But, I believe it may be fair to allow ONLY Biological children of the two parties in consideration to be counted. This would include children produced by relationships with other people. Not Step Children (children acquired by marriage) because they would presumably be provided by another biological parent. Not children adopted after the child/ren being considered in the Child Support Motion were born.
I believe it is important for a parent to be penalized and not benefit from producing children without consideration for their support. Either a mother that has children by multiple fathers outside of marriage OR a man who spreads his seen amongst the world producing multiple children outside of marriage.
-
KTM, I think your logic regarding only biological children makes sense. I agree that step children would presumably be supported by his or her own parents. I don't think there's be a very large problem with this though.
I might differ with you just a bit on penalizing parents for procreating. In many cases, to which, I believe you are referring, the parents willingly have even more children out of wedlock. For this, the guidelines already take into account child support for multiple children, as it reduces the monthly income of a payor. But in the end, yes, each child will get less. Not sure what anyone could do about that other than mandatory sterilization.
Sometimes married parents haven't planned for more children though, or are surprised to learn that the one child they expected is now going to be three children. I don't know that its fair to disallow using the MFA just because parents have decided to have more children. I don't agree they should be penalized for it either. Bigger family means each child gets a bit less, but that's true of married families too, and since the Kansas child support guidelines and the economic data to support them are based on married families, I think there should be no penalty. After all, there are no penalties for married people having children, only benefits. Why should divorced/separated parents be any different?
-
Why? I don't have all of the answers.
But, I think that traditionally as people either grow in their careers presumably making more money or marry up to someone who makes more money than their first parenting partner the first child can get left behind with a parent less able or more burdened by the costs of raising a child as a single parent without remarrying to create a two income household.
Those children would get less support as the number of siblings grew from the more prosperous parents loins and they would as a consequence be given less child support to help them get to adulthood. The problem would get worse if the less prosperous parent were also to continue reproducing out of wedlock. There are a percentage of children who do not have both parents exercising parenting time so they are dependent upon their sole parent to provide for all of their needs.
Eventually, as the level of child support for that child diminishes they would end up being dependent upon public assistance, we the taxpayers, to survive until age 18. The point of Child Support is to avoid taxpayers from having to do that. So, if the level of Child Support is not decreased as someone continues to proliferate and they choose not to be involved in the parenting of the children there would presumably be a highly motivating reason to not reproduce.
Additionally, if the level of Child Support is not decreased as someone continues to proliferate and they choose to be involved in the parenting of all the children there would presumably be a highly motivating reason to think and plan. Remember that Child Support is for the child and likely intended from the child slipping into poverty and onto public assistance at any time. Having more children does not negate the responsibility to do that for all of them.
-
KTM, Why do you specify biological children and exclude adopted children born after biological child? If my wife and I can't have children and we adopt, then my ex-wife wants an increase in child support, why should the MFA not be used, when if my wife and I were able to have a child that was biologically ours, the MFA would be used? It sounds like discrimination against the infertile to me.
-
I am not an expert on adoption. So, I have found it difficult to find the right words to express my opinion concisely.
My interpretation of the application of this restricted use of the MFA would be to prevent Child Support for children (adopted or biological) from a first relationship being reduced by a parents choice to continue reproducing or adopting in the next relationship and so on and so on. Because there are parents in the system with multiple children each with a different partner. I do not want to be financially responsible for those children because the parents or parent reduces the Child Support payments each time they procreate with another party and the child/ren ought not pay the price for something they had no control over (being born).
I specify Biological children for two reasons.
1. Adoption is an absolute planned choice and an expensive one. Biological pregnancies may be unplanned.
2. Children by a second marriage may be legally adopted by the second parent if the biological parent has surrendered legal rights.
My position is that if a parent chooses to acquire children by choice while or after Child Support is established for a child or children from one or more previous relationships that the biological children's Child Support should not be reduced. This will ensure that if the parent chooses to add additional financial responsibilities by acquiring through marriage, by adoption or procreating more children the taxpayers need not become financially responsible for the other children. If their Child Support were reduced it may result in them becoming dependent upon some type of public assistance.
-
Can someone point me in the right direction for any precedent, case law, or guideline meeting notes that would support MFA being used when Mom has a baby with another partner and asks Dad (who has no additional children) for an increase in child support? The SRS/CSE/DA now states that the 3 child worksheet should be used to figure Mom's obligation, but not Dad's, thereby reducing her obligation and increasing mine. Guru, I have already forwarded the docs to you.
-
Also, CM just stated that the Bradley software had a glitch in it and that the 3 child should not be used (even though she was the one who convinced me that is should be used on October 30) or only used to calculate (r.e. reduce) mom's obligation to the children we have together.
Email from CM:
The use of a multiple family adjustment generally provides the parent who has the extra responsibility in the home of another child a financial benefit. Using the Bradley software it does not, I believe that is a glitch as it was not the intent of the multiple family adjustment to increase the financial obligation of the parent with the add'l child. Atleast that is my understanding from trainings on the csw. If I am mistaken I am mistaken but all due respect your argument does not convince me that I am.
She then goes on to remove herself from the discussion and explain that it should be handled by the attorneys.
All I can is AHHHHHH!!!!!
-
@KTM, you are entitled to your opinion, but I am completely against it. If what you say is true, I guess all those children who were conceived, but not "planned," are not entitled to the same support. They would then be entitled to less support. But, planned children and unplanned children all receive the same support, right? What about an adopted child to now divorced parents? Would that child receive the same support. Answer: yes! While you have your opinion, I don't think your case holds water.
@Dad, I'm not terribly surprised that the system has again creatively interpreted this section of the guidelines. In fact there is nothing stating the Mother's children should not be used. I suggest you call or write Mark Gleeson with the child support guidelines committee to see if he can clarify the intentions of the committee in this regard.
I absolutely do not agree, nor does the worksheet support the use of two separate tables for both mom and dad. You use one or the other. I don't think you should be using one table for mom, yet another table for Dad. By doing that, you are now supporting Mom's additional children, right?
-
@Guru, can you please email me Mr. Gleeson's contact info?
Thanks. And yes, I am supporting Mom's additional children if I pay more because of the additional children.
-
Guru,
I am not making a case. A case requires facts and evidence. Your statements indicate that again I have inadequately expressed my opinion.
The issue is birth order. Biological origin is a secondary qualification.
Both Dad's and your statements about him being penalized for Mom having another child with another father is an example of what I am talking about.
The family's children should not be counted in the Child Support calculations. Only the child/ren that were a product of the two parties involved with the filing of Child Support or children that existed prior to their procreating relationship.
The same goes for Dad. If he has more children. The Child Support paid for the child in this example should not be reduced because he has done so.
However, I think it is fair to reduce the parents GROSS income by any outstanding Child Support Order obligations. I say this with the thought that consideration for this would only be given if the original Order for the Child Support (First relationship) deduction being considered is dated prior to the birth of the Child being considered in the Child Support Order now being considered (second relationship).
Again, a less than adequate example on a very complicated matter.
-
I may be alone on this, but I believe MFA should be used on all children, adopted or biological, no matter which of the two parents are legally obligated to financially care for them. If the now divorced combined income is a pie, when the pieces are sliced for 6, they will be much larger than when sliced for 9. Further, with many of the financial considerations of CS, the contribution each child is making toward overhead costs would decrease. For example, it does not cost more money to heat a house with an additionsl person living there.
-
Dad, I agree with your opinion on this and your analogy makes sense to me. I think regardless of biological or adopted, prior or subsequent to the divorce, all children should be included in the MFA.
-
Dad & Guru
What you are stating will allow for a child or children to be provided for in Child Support by more than the two biological/original parents.
i.e. Child is born and has two biological parents.
A Child support worksheet is calculated.
One or both of the parents re marry someone else and Divorce again.
A Child Support worksheet is calculated which includes "all" of the children associated with those parties.
The children of the first marriage may then begin receiving Court Ordered Support from the first relationship (two parties) and the second relationship (four parties) and so on and so on.
I believe that it is solely the original/biological parents that should remain responsible financially for the child/ren they created unless legal rights were surrendered such as in the case of adoption. Than, the legally adopting parties should solely bear financial responsibility. It is not fair to the child/ren to dilute the child's support through the acquisition/creation of more children.
If someone wants to have more children the choice ought to be weighed with the financial responsibility to the existing child/ren in mind.
Any other way allows a man to procreate indiscriminately with multiple partners and end up minimally supporting the children by diluting the pool which would lead us, the taxpayer to foot the bill of public assistance. OR would allow a woman to indiscriminately give birth to multiple children to increase the level of Child Support.
A birth order and biological origin formula would prevent either party from benefiting from indiscriminate behavior.
ex. Petitioners child #3 & Respondents child #1 OR Respondents child #2 & Petitioners child #1.
-
s@KTM, I was very specific when I said all children that a parent is legally financially responsible for ( this does not include step children). It only includes the biological or adopted children of the two parties involved.
In our case, from what I understand, the 3 child schedule should be used, but only 2 children calculated on it.
I agree that anyone should consider the financial ramifications of having a child. According to our case manager though the csw is written to give the parent with the additional financial responsibility (i.e. the parent with more children) a break. Unfortunately, when giving that parent a break, it increases the responsibility of the paying parent who has chosen to not have additional children.
Dad
-
Dad,
I suspect that there is a great deal of difference from Judge to Judge & Case to Case as to the interpretation of "financial responsibility" with regard to children or step children.
Do the Child Support Guidelines specifically use the terminology "Legally Financially Responsible" and define how that is to be defined?
No. (?)
-
On Page 7 the term "legal financial responsibility" is used. I have not found a definition for said term in the guidelines, but perhaps that can be added to the changes to be made list.
-
Yes, Dad.
I agree that would be helpful. I also searched the Kansas Statutes to find a definition of that term used in the Child Support Guidelines and found nothing.
Does a definition exist within the Kansas Statutes?
-
Update. This is what I received from the case manager:
Please forward this email to your attorneys as well. I have spoken with Bradley Short of Bradley Software to discuss the discrepancies in the child support calculations in the multiple worksheets and my concern as to whether or not there is a glitch in their software. There is no glitch in the software, but the reality is the child support guidelines as written do not contemplate your situation. It is counter-intuitive that the mfa would reduce Father’s obligation for support, as the purpose of the mfa was to take into account that the non-residential parent has an additional support obligation of raising another child. However, as written utilizing the mfa as a whole significantly reduces Father’s child support obligation.
It appears that counsel for MOM has attempted to get around this by NOT using the multiple family adjustment when calculating DAD's child support obligation, but utilizing it when calculating the equal parenting time adjustment and getting the bottom line. In sum… where the mfa is not utilized Mom’s net obligation (line D9) prior to calculating the shared expense is $255 and where it is utilized it is $228. It is perplexing to me that there is no consistency in the use of worksheets, but presume this is howMOM’s counsel was intending on getting around the fact that the child support guidelines did not contemplate the current support obligation when calculating the child support worksheet. The only other discrepancy that Brad pointed out is that he felt that Mother’s obligation should increase by $46 for the special needs adjustment rather than Father’s obligation being reduced by $46, however, the reality is after doing both variations of the worksheets, whether Father is attributed a negative $46 or an additional $46 is added to Mother’s CSW the bottom line does not change.
The only other difference is that the Bradley Software calculates a $5 enforcement fee and MOMs counsel’s worksheet contemplates an $11 enforcement fee.
So, bottom line in not using the mfa (in either calculation, ie Mother’s support obligation or Father’s support obligation) before the enforcement fee is $15.00, ie $511 simply consistently not using the mfa verses $526 doing a hybrid calculation.
My hope is that the above information will be helpful in getting the two of you to come to “yes” without the necessity of further court proceedings.
This is the same person that 4 weeks ago told me I was wrong for believing the three child was used in error and that a three child schedule in fact should be used. I am not sure what changed her mind but we are trying to work through all of this and come to some kind of an agreement.
-
FYI:
A letter submitted by a Case manager to you and copied to the attorneys will also be submitted to the Judge in your Case. Upon receipt of any decision or summary in writing by a Case Manager it will be file stamped and kept by the Judge.
The Kansas Statutes for Case Management allow for a specific number of days for either party to file a Motion for a hearing to challenge the statements and opinions of the Case Manager. After that period of time passes the Court may file the letter on your Case record and the Case Managers decisions become an Order.
-
Can we all agree that the MFA section of the guidelines needs a little clarification? I think if a case manager has to seek the insight of the owner of the software, something may not be quite so clear cut. Hopefully we all knew ahead of time that this was most definitely not a "glitch." This game of who the judge thinks is "more financially capable" or "legally financial responsible" is where we all get into that gray trouble area. Gray area is acceptable when it means $20, but when hundreds/month can shift because of a judge's personal beliefs (which can vary from year to year), it's not right.
-
Agreed
-
Does anyone else feel like if the court says you owe around $500 a month for your non-residential children but you also have custody of a child from a previous relationship that you get zero support from, but only get a credit of $220 DFA, that is a little one sided? Why is one child getting 500 in support and the other getting less than half of that?
-
I think its pretty common that kids of a divorce are afforded more opportunities than those same kids would have been if the parents were still together. It's unfortunate, but the way Kansas sees it is if we spend more money on our kids they will turn out better. I think there's a pretty fine line between giving them what they "need" and giving them everything they "want."