Saturday, December 29, 2012

HB 1027 & Residential Support Credit

While Representative Moeller's HB 1027 has many notable features it does retain the existing "deviation" language regarding residential credit in lieu of the Work Group's recommendation to implement the "Indiana Credit Formula"  (page 23 and Appendix XI of Work Group Report)

The following is an excerpt drawn from the Parenting Time Credit  section of the Indiana Child Support legislation.
  Analysis of Support Guidelines.  The Indiana Child Support Guidelines are based on the assumption the child(ren) live in one household with primary physical custody in one parent who undertakes all of the spending on behalf of the child(ren).  There is a rebuttable presumption the support calculated from the Guideline support schedule is the correct amount of weekly child support to be awarded.  The total amount of the anticipated average weekly spending is the Basic Child Support Obligation (Line 4 of the Worksheet).
                The Guideline support schedules do not reflect the fact, however, when both parents exercise parenting time, out-of-pocket expenses will be incurred for the child(ren)’s care.  These expenses were recognized previously by the application of a 10% visitation credit and a 50% abatement of child support during periods of extended visitation.  The visitation credit was based on the regular exercise of alternate weekend visitation which is equivalent to approximately 14% of the annual overnights.  With the adoption of the Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines, the noncustodial parent’s share of parenting time, if exercised, is equivalent to approximately 27% of the annual overnights. As a result, these revisions provide a parenting credit based upon the number of overnights with the noncustodial parent ranging from 52 overnights annually to equal parenting time.  As parenting time increases, a proportionally larger increase in the credit will occur.
Analysis of Parenting Time Costs.  An examination of the costs associated with the sharing of parenting time reveals two types of expenses are incurred by both parents, transferred and duplicated expenses.  A third category of expenses is controlled expenses, such as the 6% uninsured health care expense that remains the sole obligation of the parent for whom the parenting time credit is not calculated.  This latter category is assumed to be equal to 15% of the Basic Child Support Obligation.
Transferred Expenses. This type of expense is incurred only when the child(ren) reside(s) with a parent and these expenses are “transferred” with the child(ren) as they move from one parent’s residence to the other.  Examples of this type of expense are food and the major portion of spending for transportation.  When spending is transferred from one parent to the other parent, the other parent should be given a credit against that parent’s child support obligation since this type of expense is included in the support calculation schedules.  When parents equally share in the parenting, an assumption is made that 35% of the Basic Child Support Obligation reflects “transferred” expenses.  The amount of expenses transferred from one parent to the other will depend upon the number of overnights the child(ren) spend(s) with each parent.
Duplicated Fixed Expenses. This type of expense is incurred when two households are maintained for the child(ren).  An example of this type of expense is shelter costs which are not transferred when the child(ren) move(s) from one parent’s residence to the other but remain fixed in each parent’s household and represent duplicated expenditures.  The fixed expense of the parent who has primary physical custody is included in the Guideline support schedules.  However, the fixed expense of the other parent is not included in the support schedules but represents an increase in the total cost of raising the child(ren) attributed to the parenting time plan.  Both parents should share in these additional costs.
When parents equally share in the parenting, an assumption is made that 50% of the Basic Child Support Obligation will be “duplicated.”  When the child(ren) spend(s) less time with one parent, the percentage of duplicated expenses will decline.
Controlled Expenses.  This type of expense for the child(ren) is typically paid by the custodial parent and is not transferred or duplicated.  Controlled expenses are items like clothing, education, school books and supplies, ordinary uninsured health care and personal care.  For example, the custodial parent buys a winter coat for the child.  The noncustodial parent will not buy another one.  The custodial parent controls this type of expense.  The controlled expenses account for 15% of the cost of raising the child.  The parenting time credit is based on the more time the parents share, the more expenses are duplicated and transferred.  The controlled expenses are not shared and remain with the parent that does not get the parenting time credit.  Controlled expenses are generally not a consideration unless there is equal parenting time. These categories of expenses are not pertinent for litigation.  They are presented only to explain the factors used in developing the parenting time credit formula.  The percentages were assigned to these categories after considering the treatment of joint custody by other states and examining published data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Consumer Expenditure Survey.

Tuesday, December 18, 2012

About Child Support



Jim Moeller, representing Washington's 49th District, which encompasses the Vancouver area, has filed advance bill HB 1027.   Titled "An Act Relating to implementing changes to child support based on the child support schedule work group report" perhaps this bill will fare better than last session's attempt.

Speaking of child support, presently RCW 19.071(5) allows for a deduction of up to $5,000 annually in the support worksheets for voluntary retirement contributions actually made.    The specific wording is as follows:


Determination of net income:  The following expenses shall be disclosed and deducted from gross monthly income to calculate net monthly income:  federal and state income taxes (see the following paragraph); federal insurance contributions act deductions (FICA); mandatory pension plan payments; mandatory union or professional dues; state industrial insurance premiums; court-ordered maintenance to the extent actually paid; up to five thousand dollars per year in voluntary  retirement contributions actually made if the contributions show a pattern of contributions during the one-year period preceding the action establishing the child support order unless there is a determination that the contributions were made for the purpose of reducing child support; and normal business expenses and self-employment taxes for self-employed persons.  Justification shall be required for any business expense deduction about which there is a disagreement.  Items deducted from gross income shall not be a reason to deviate from the standard calculation.  RCW 26.19.071(5).


This $5,000 corresponds with the annual IRS allowance.    Beginning in 2013, however, the IRS amount is raised to $5,500.  http://www.irs.gov/uac/2013-Pension-Plan-Limitations   It'll be interesting to see if the RCW keeps pace.

Sunday, November 18, 2012

Referendum No. 74



Referendum No. 74

Same-Sex Marriage


  • Approved:1,600,308  (53.35%).  Rejected: 1,399,364 (46.65%).   Counties Approving: 9 (Whatcom, Snohomish, King, Island, San Juan, Jefferson, Kitsap, Thurston, Whitman).   Counties Rejecting: 30.    
  •  Widest Margins:   Adams (71.83% rejected) vs. San Juan (70.17% approved)
  • First date to apply for marriage: 12/6/12
  • Law phases out domestic partnerships, except for senior couples age 62 or over
  • DOMA (presently) prohibits federal recognition





Saturday, October 27, 2012

By The Numbers



The 2011 US Census Bureau Report contains interesting information and statistics regarding divorce and family households in America.   The following are some highlights. 

Divorce Rates Highest in the South, Lowest in the Northeast, Census Bureau Reports   (Press Release)

·         “National rates of marriage in the past 12 months were 19.1 for men and 17.6 for women. There were 3.5 instances of widowhood for men and 7.8 for women, per every 1,000 people.
·         Children living with a parent who divorced in 2009 were more likely to live in a household headed by their mother (75 percent) than in a household headed by their father (25 percent). Additionally, children living with a parent who divorced in 2009 were more likely to be in a household below the poverty level (28 percent) compared with other children (19 percent), and they were more likely to live in a rented home (53 percent) compared with other children (36 percent).
·         The economic well-being of those who experienced a recent marital event differed. Women who divorced in the past 12 months were more likely to receive public assistance than recently divorced men (23 percent and 15 percent).Women who divorced in the past 12 months reported less household income than recently divorced men. For example, 27 percent of women who divorced in the past 12 months had less than $25,000 in annual household income compared with 17 percent of recently divorced men. Similarly, women who divorced in the past 12 months were more likely than recently divorced men to be in poverty (22 percent compared with 11 percent).
·         Women who divorced in the past 12 months were more likely to be living in a multigenerational household -- 11 percent of such women, compared with 5 percent of men.
·         Thirteen states had median durations for second marriages for women below the U.S. median of 14.5 years. This included six states in the Northeast (Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont) ranging from 13.1 to 13.6 years.
·         Among those widowed in the last year, 77 percent of men and 73 percent of women were white alone, non-Hispanic.”  

2011 AmericanCommunity Survey
Excerpts from United States Census Bureau

Marital Status
:   Males (over age 25): 50% are married and 9.7% are divorced with age 55-64 largest category of divorced males @ 16.4%.   Females (over age 25): 46.6% are married and 12.2% are divorced with age 55-64 largest category of divorced females @ 20%.   Divorce By Ethnicity: American Indian & Alaska Native (13%), Black or African American (12%), White (11.4%), Hispanic or Latino (8.3%), Asian (5%).  

Children (under 18) in Household:  
Under 6
:  Married couple household (32.9%), male householder/no wife (34.8%), female householder/no husband (32%).  
6-11 years: Married couple household (33.7%), male householder/no wife (31.5%), female householder/no husband (33.1%).  
12-17 years: Married couple household (33.3%), male householder/no wife (33.7%), female householder/no husband (34.9%).  

Presence of unmarried partner of householder present:  male householder (40.9%), female householder (15.3%).  

Tuesday, October 2, 2012

Committed Intimate Relationship


A "Committed Intimate Relationship" is a moniker given by the Washington courts to a "stable, marital-like relationship where both parties cohabit with knowledge that a lawful marriage between them does not exist."    Five factors are relevant:  (1) continuous cohabitation, (2) duration of the relationship, (3) purpose of the relationship, (4) pooling resources and services for joint projects, and (5) the intent of the parties.    

According to the January-May 2012 Washington State Courts Report thirty-nine of the 17,456 domestic filings in Washington Superior Courts were "committed intimate relationship" cases: twenty-five in Western Washington and fourteen in Eastern Washington.   Two of filings went to trial:  one in Thurston County and the other in Snohomish County.

There have been four recent appellate opinions dealing with these type of cases.   They make for interesting reading, particularly if you're in such a relationship or contemplating one.   

  •  Tatham v Rogers __WnApp __ (Div III, 8/14/12)  
    Committed Intimate Relationship, with a small town twist.
  • Marriage of McCarthy __WnApp __ (Div III, 08/21/12, Unpublished)  
    Husband appeals property distribution after finding of committed intimate relationship.
  • Finch v Weider__WnApp __ (Div I, 9/17/12).  
    Oral agreement rebuts property presumption in  committed intimate relationship.  
  • Kelly v Moesslang__WnApp __ (Div III, 9/18/12)  
    Three year statute of limitation applies to suit alleging committed intimate relationship.