Author Topic: Emancipation and Child Support Guidelines  (Read 5439 times)

mtj

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
Emancipation and Child Support Guidelines
« on: October 11, 2013, 07:56:07 AM »

The guidelines need to be more specific in dealing with the situation of a new order of support when one child is emancipated and other minor children are still subject to an order of support.

At least some trustee's offices are routinely proportionally reducing orders of support.  If they do this, the guidelines are not being followed and it is not consistent with Kansas law.

The case law is clear that the emancipation of one child automatically relieves the supporting parent from child support for that child.  The problem is that if you just proportionally reduce the new order of support for the remaining kids, custodial parent is short changed because the guidelines are not proportionate for each child.  Case law in Kansas is clear that you can  not do this - Winsky v. Winsky but apparently some trustee's offices just do this as a matter of routine.  This leaves the custodial parent with having to file a motion to modify.

Guru

  • Expert Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 366
Re: Emancipation and Child Support Guidelines
« Reply #1 on: October 12, 2013, 10:20:01 PM »
I agree with you.  I'll move this to the threads on needed changes to the guidelines.

KTM

  • Expert Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 215
Re: Emancipation and Child Support Guidelines
« Reply #2 on: October 14, 2013, 12:49:09 PM »
Agreed. However, the responsibility for filing for review of Child Support Orders currently legally falls upon the parties (parents). This is a legally correct position and so it would seem that when one child ages out of the system or exits by emancipation that child's portion of the support would be automatically deducted from the standing order leaving the remaining portion(s) to be paid. It is the party desiring a modification who must file a request for hearing on the matter of a Child Support Modification for the Court to consider the most current financial, residential and Child Support Guidelines circumstances.

I believe it would be nice for the parties (parents) if the Child Support Committee would recommend a standard Court procedure for review, notification for review, etc. But, it would not necessarily be legally correct for them to force this upon the Courts.

This can become a complicated process as it is my understanding that the legal power to modify any Child Support Order resides with the District Court Judge and has not been given to a lower level Court Magistrate Judge or the Trustees office. Caution need be taken in making such a recommendation for automatic review based upon the number of cases that would be forced into a review process with a hearing thus potentially increasing the case load of the District Court Judges to a level impossible to manage responsibly.

On the other hand..... If the Court Trustees office is not just dropping off one child's portion of the support and is instead re calculating support based upon information from the old Child Support Order (age, income, etc) and using the most recent guidelines to determine a new amount of support under the authority of the District Court Judges than this would appear to be a most urgent matter for the Child Support Committee to address.

mtj

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
Re: Emancipation and Child Support Guidelines
« Reply #3 on: November 02, 2013, 09:52:59 PM »
As i understand the process at least in Johnson County, the Trustee's Office is proportionally reducing the order of support when a child ages out and other children are still subject to the order.  At the very least, the Trustee's Office should take the numbers from the old order of support and plug them into the correct chart.  What is the point of the guidelines at all if after one child emancipates the new order is just a proportional reduction?

It is  a pretty big difference in money and it is very misleading as you just get a notice in the mail telling you that it will be proportionally reduced.  This isn't even the correct statement of Kansas law.