References to Custody and Financial Matters would be most helpful if they were in alignment and remained in alignment with the Federal Tax Code.

Dad,

I think you may have misunderstood both the 2012 child support guidelines and my suggested changes to them.  I know there is a lot to read and understand about the inner workings of the guidelines so I'll try to clarify below.  I know this is covered a little more on other posts here.

Basically for shared residency, they paying parent pays 2 different sums of money to the receiving parent.  1 - paying parent usually makes more money than the other parent, so the paying parent pays 1/2 the difference between their respective shares of child support.  So if the paying parent shows to be responsible for $400, and the receiving parent, $100, 1/2 the difference is $150. 2 - (this is what your question is about), gives the receiving parent a portion of child support specifically for direct expenses.  Currently, the receiving parent will receive 13%, 15%, or 18% of the total child support from the tables depending on income.  What I think is right is those percentages should be lower (resulting in a lower child support being paid by the paying parent).  DE% is no longer a credit, but is actually the amount being paid.  This does lead to a more accurate calculation.  I hope this answers your question regarding my opinion that direct expense percentages should be lower.

I think your other question deals with sharing expenses directly.  I don't agree with either parent being required to pay for something like cable TV.  That is a luxury and should be strictly up to each parent.  I think there needs to be a very clear understanding (and it should be included in the guidelines), what direct expenses are.

If one parent neglects to pay for direct expenses when they are supposed to, I think there should be a 3 strike rule.  You are caught not providing 3 times, then you will officially be the one paying support from there on out.  Both parents need to be responsible and provide.  I just don't think that paying support to allow one parent to provide is the right way to do it.  Both parents should be able to decide how money is spent when the child is in their home.

I pay child support and receive an 18% deduction for paying all direct expenses (including clothing).  Direct expenses were defined by case manager as food, clothing, school & entertainment.  I am sure the judge did this because of Mom's consistent lack of paying expenses, reimbursing expenses or using appropriated funds as ordered.  If DE percentages change then I would be paying more CS and the funds directly available to the children would decrease.

To clarify, I have shared custody (week on-week off to be exact).  Pro Rata is 89%/ 11%.  My child support obligation is multiplied by .5 to allow for shared parenting.  It is further reduced by total child support obligation x 18% and I pay all DE. 

I have not tried to enter the info in the calculator.  I will and see if it is the same as what the judge comes up with and congruent with your calculations as well.  Our hearing was Oct. 5 and he has yet to make a ruling on extraordinary expense.  I really appreciate this information. 

Thanks

Dad,

Please excuse my second post here. I do not have the ability to edit previous posts.

I think it is important to note that the Kansas Child Support Guidelines contain specific rules which limit when you can file for a change in your Child Support Order. If as you have stated, the Court has left the door open for you to have an additional hearing regarding "Extraordinary Expenses" you will have a bit of work to do to prove that door was left open and a modification request may be limited to that aspect alone. If you have been Ordered to pay a specific amount and the Child Support Worksheet document has been filed with the Court which did not include any adjustment for "Extraordinary Expenses" than a decision was in effect made by the Court.

Kansas Child Support Guidelines state the following:

Section V. 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.

Guru -

I do not believe that your statement, "Regardless of whether the "door" was left open or not, if the court erred in their calculation of child support per the current guidelines, you have every right to file a motion to modify child support." is consistent with Legal Statutes in the State of Kansas.

If you are an attorney giving your legal opinion than say so. If not. Do not make statements of fact without full and specific knowledge of the law and legal process.

Dad - If you did not file a Motion to challenge or reconsider the Courts findings within 10 days after the hearing on October 5th, I believe that you may be stuck with the decision/Orders as filed until/unless you have a qualified reason under the Kansas Child Support Guidelines for filing a new motion.