• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Where to start to change CS laws in a your state?

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

2Mistakes

Senior Member
What is the name of your state? Mississippi

Hi all.

I'm wondering if anyone could point me in the right direction with this. I do not feel that MS's CS laws are fair to CP. It seems that most states have gone to a shared-income model and will impute an income for a NCP who is voluntarily under or unemployed.

Mississippi does not do this. CS is calculated as a flat % of the NCP NET income. If NCP doesn't have a job, then $50 per month is ordered. They aren't told to get a job. They can get away with just paying $50 a month.

I know that I can't be the only CP in my state who feels this way. Where does one go to lobby for some reform to their state's CS laws?
 


Zephyr

Senior Member
What is the name of your state? Mississippi

Hi all.

I'm wondering if anyone could point me in the right direction with this. I do not feel that MS's CS laws are fair to CP. It seems that most states have gone to a shared-income model and will impute an income for a NCP who is voluntarily under or unemployed.

Mississippi does not do this. CS is calculated as a flat % of the NCP NET income. If NCP doesn't have a job, then $50 per month is ordered. They aren't told to get a job. They can get away with just paying $50 a month.

I know that I can't be the only CP in my state who feels this way. Where does one go to lobby for some reform to their state's CS laws?
you might want to double check your laws cause if they are going by a strict percentage then I think the state is willingly passing on some federal funding...which is quite uncommon for states to do
 

2Mistakes

Senior Member
OK, I've been doing lots and lots of research. I've come to the conclusion that I did not pay attention in my high school Government class.

Anyways, I found this is my state's CS laws, and I'm trying to interpret it:

"Any order for the support of minor children, whether entered through the judicial system or through an expedited process, shall not be subject to a downward retroactive modification. An upward retroactive modification may be ordered back to the date of the event justifying the upward modification."

Does this mean that if I take my ex to court for a modification and I am unable to prove my case and can not get an upward modification that she also will be unable to get a downward modification from what she's paying now?
 

qurice

Member
"Any order for the support of minor children, whether entered through the judicial system or through an expedited process, shall not be subject to a downward retroactive modification. An upward retroactive modification may be ordered back to the date of the event justifying the upward modification."

Does this mean that if I take my ex to court for a modification and I am unable to prove my case and can not get an upward modification that she also will be unable to get a downward modification from what she's paying now?
Sounds like all that means is that if the order is decreased, it wont go back to the filing date. If it did CP would have to pay some $$ back to the NCP. But increases can be retro dated, meaning the NCP will have some catching up to do.

It doesn't really have anything to do with whether you can get an increase or not, just how they handle making the changes to the new CS amount, if there is a change.
 
Last edited:

2Mistakes

Senior Member
OK, my state has 2 statutes that deal with CS. They are 43-19-101 and 43-19-103.

43-19-101 establishes the CS guidelines. Here it is:

§ 43-19-101. Child support award guidelines.

(1) The following child support award guidelines shall be a rebuttable presumption in all judicial or administrative proceedings regarding the awarding or modifying of child support awards in this state:






Number Of Children Percentage Of Adjusted Gross Income
Due Support That Should Be Awarded For Support
1 14%
2 20%
3 22%
4 24%
5 or more 26%



(2) The guidelines provided for in subsection (1) of this section apply unless the judicial or administrative body awarding or modifying the child support award makes a written finding or specific finding on the record that the application of the guidelines would be unjust or inappropriate in a particular case as determined under the criteria specified in Section 43-19-103.

(3) The amount of "adjusted gross income" as that term is used in subsection (1) of this section shall be calculated as follows:

(a) Determine gross income from all potential sources that may reasonably be expected to be available to the absent parent including, but not limited to, the following: wages and salary income; income from self employment; income from commissions; income from investments, including dividends, interest income and income on any trust account or property; absent parent's portion of any joint income of both parents; workers' compensation, disability, unemployment, annuity and retirement benefits, including an individual retirement account (IRA); any other payments made by any person, private entity, federal or state government or any unit of local government; alimony; any income earned from an interest in or from inherited property; any other form of earned income; and gross income shall exclude any monetary benefits derived from a second household, such as income of the absent parent's current spouse;
(b) Subtract the following legally mandated deductions:
(i) Federal, state and local taxes. Contributions to the payment of taxes over and beyond the actual liability for the taxable year shall not be considered a mandatory deduction;
(ii) Social security contributions;
(iii) Retirement and disability contributions except any voluntary retirement and disability contributions;
(c) If the absent parent is subject to an existing court order for another child or children, subtract the amount of that court-ordered support;
(d) If the absent parent is also the parent of another child or other children residing with him, then the court may subtract an amount that it deems appropriate to account for the needs of said child or children;
(e) Compute the total annual amount of adjusted gross income based on paragraphs (a) through (d), then divide this amount by twelve (12) to obtain the monthly amount of adjusted gross income.

Upon conclusion of the calculation of paragraphs (a) through (e), multiply the monthly amount of adjusted gross income by the appropriate percentage designated in subsection (1) to arrive at the amount of the monthly child support award.

(4) In cases in which the adjusted gross income as defined in this section is more than Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00) or less than Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00), the court shall make a written finding in the record as to whether or not the application of the guidelines established in this section is reasonable.

(5) The Department of Human Services shall review the appropriateness of these guidelines beginning January 1, 1994, and every four (4) years thereafter and report its findings to the Legislature no later than the first day of the regular legislative session of that year. The Legislature shall thereafter amend these guidelines when it finds that amendment is necessary to ensure that equitable support is being awarded in all cases involving the support of minor children.

(6) All orders involving support of minor children, as a matter of law, shall include reasonable medical support. Notice to the noncustodial parent's employer that medical support has been ordered shall be on a form as prescribed by the Department of Human Services. In any case in which the support of any child is involved, the court shall make the following findings either on the record or in the judgment:
(a) The availability to all parties of health insurance coverage for the child(ren);
(b) The cost of health insurance coverage to all parties.

The court shall then make appropriate provisions in the judgment for the provision of health insurance coverage for the child(ren) in the manner that is in the best interests of the child(ren). If the court requires the custodial parent to obtain the coverage then its cost shall be taken into account in establishing the child support award. If the court determines that health insurance coverage is not available to any party or that it is not available to either party at a cost that is reasonable as compared to the income of the parties, then the court shall make specific findings as to such either on the record or in the judgment. In that event, the court shall make appropriate provisions in the judgment for the payment of medical expenses of the child(ren) in the absence of health insurance coverage.


I'll continue in my next post with the 2nd statute and then my questions.
 

2Mistakes

Senior Member
Sounds like all that means is that if the order is decreased, it wont go back to the filing date. If it did CP would have to pay some $$ back to the NCP. But increases can be retro dated, meaning the NCP will have some catching up to do.

It doesn't really have anything to do with whether you can get an increase or not, just how they handle making the changes to the new CS amount, if there is a change.
Thanks, quirce. After I posted that, I read it again and had come to that conclusion as well. I think at first I was skipping over the word "retroactive."
 

2Mistakes

Senior Member
OK, the second statute deals with deviating from 43-19-101 in determining CS, I think.

Here it is:

§ 43-19-103. Criteria for overcoming presumption that guidelines are appropriate.

The rebuttable presumption as to the justness or appropriateness of an award or modification of a child support award in this state, based upon the guidelines established by Section 43-19-101, may be overcome by a judicial or administrative body awarding or modifying the child support award by making a written finding or specific finding on the record that the application of the guidelines would be unjust or inappropriate in a particular case as determined according to the following criteria:

(a) Extraordinary medical, psychological, educational or dental expenses.

(b) Independent income of the child.

(c) The payment of both child support and spousal support to the obligee.

(d) Seasonal variations in one or both parents' incomes or expenses.

(e) The age of the child, taking into account the greater needs of older children.

(f) Special needs that have traditionally been met within the family budget even though the fulfilling of those needs will cause the support to exceed the proposed guidelines.

(g) The particular shared parental arrangement, such as where the noncustodial parent spends a great deal of time with the children thereby reducing the financial expenditures incurred by the custodial parent, or the refusal of the noncustodial parent to become involved in the activities of the child, or giving due consideration to the custodial parent's homemaking services.

(h) Total available assets of the obligee, obligor and the child.

(i) Any other adjustment which is needed to achieve an equitable result which may include, but not be limited to, a reasonable and necessary existing expense or debt.


To me, this statute gives the judge the latitude to deviate from the guidelines and order more (or less) CS.

Here's my sitch. My ex and I have 3 kids, ages 14, 12, and 5. In Jan. 2006, we filed a modification jointly giving me full physical custody. I agreed at that time to accept $300 per month as CS for all 3 kids. I did this because she and I had a verbal agreement that this amount was to be temporary. She had just quit her $45,000/yr. job to move to S. FL with her boyfriend. She said that within 6 months, she would be on her feet down there and have a new job, and that at that time, we would do another joint modification to increase the child support. I guess I was a fool to believe her, but I just really wanted custody of my children, and she wouldn't sign it unless we put $300 per month in there.

It's now 2 years later and she still hasn't "gotten a job." I know that she works for her boyfriend and gets paid cash, but I can't prove it. So I'm having to operate under the premise of her not working.

Doesn't this second statute give the judge latitude to deviate from the CS guidlines and order her to pay more CS?
 

qurice

Member
OK, the second statute deals with deviating from 43-19-101 in determining CS, I think.

Here it is:

§ 43-19-103. Criteria for overcoming presumption that guidelines are appropriate.

The rebuttable presumption as to the justness or appropriateness of an award or modification of a child support award in this state, based upon the guidelines established by Section 43-19-101, may be overcome by a judicial or administrative body awarding or modifying the child support award by making a written finding or specific finding on the record that the application of the guidelines would be unjust or inappropriate in a particular case as determined according to the following criteria:

(a) Extraordinary medical, psychological, educational or dental expenses.

(b) Independent income of the child.

(c) The payment of both child support and spousal support to the obligee.

(d) Seasonal variations in one or both parents' incomes or expenses.

(e) The age of the child, taking into account the greater needs of older children.

(f) Special needs that have traditionally been met within the family budget even though the fulfilling of those needs will cause the support to exceed the proposed guidelines.

(g) The particular shared parental arrangement, such as where the noncustodial parent spends a great deal of time with the children thereby reducing the financial expenditures incurred by the custodial parent, or the refusal of the noncustodial parent to become involved in the activities of the child, or giving due consideration to the custodial parent's homemaking services.

(h) Total available assets of the obligee, obligor and the child.

(i) Any other adjustment which is needed to achieve an equitable result which may include, but not be limited to, a reasonable and necessary existing expense or debt.


To me, this statute gives the judge the latitude to deviate from the guidelines and order more (or less) CS.

Here's my sitch. My ex and I have 3 kids, ages 14, 12, and 5. In Jan. 2006, we filed a modification jointly giving me full physical custody. I agreed at that time to accept $300 per month as CS for all 3 kids. I did this because she and I had a verbal agreement that this amount was to be temporary. She had just quit her $45,000/yr. job to move to S. FL with her boyfriend. She said that within 6 months, she would be on her feet down there and have a new job, and that at that time, we would do another joint modification to increase the child support. I guess I was a fool to believe her, but I just really wanted custody of my children, and she wouldn't sign it unless we put $300 per month in there.

It's now 2 years later and she still hasn't "gotten a job." I know that she works for her boyfriend and gets paid cash, but I can't prove it. So I'm having to operate under the premise of her not working.

Doesn't this second statute give the judge latitude to deviate from the CS guidlines and order her to pay more CS?
That's just it, your $300/mo order is already a deviation from guidelines. Since the guidelines are presumed to be in the best interest of the children (unless shown otherwise) I would think that you should not have a problem getting CS increased to what it should be. Based on her previous income of $45k/yr what would she be required to pay?

However, then you run into the problem of her current income. If it can't be proven, you'd have to argue for her to be imputed an income. You could try to argue that 2 yrs has been enough of time for mom to find gainful or at least SOME employment that can be shown.
 

qurice

Member
Just for the record, TX also still does a flat percentage of the NCP's income.
Yup, the statutes are very similar to how TX has it setup also.

OP, even if your state was shared income, you still would have the problem of mom having no provable income. If there is anything you want to change, that is where to start. Mom needs to be imputed an income and pay based on guidelines.
 

2Mistakes

Senior Member
That's just it, your $300/mo order is already a deviation from guidelines. Since the guidelines are presumed to be in the best interest of the children (unless shown otherwise) I would think that you should not have a problem getting CS increased to what it should be. Based on her previous income of $45k/yr what would she be required to pay?

However, then you run into the problem of her current income. If it can't be proven, you'd have to argue for her to be imputed an income. You could try to argue that 2 yrs has been enough of time for mom to find gainful or at least SOME employment that can be shown.
Based upon an AGI of $3200 per month, her CS obligation would be $704 per month

I think I am going to start drafting a Complaint for Modification of Child Support, and I'm sure I'll need help as I get more into it.

My initial thoughts are this:

In my complaint, I will cite 43-19-103 to show the judge that he can deviate from the guidelines. I belive that I still have the emails from 2 years ago wherein she agreed that $300 per month would be temporary while she got on her feet, and will attach them as exhibits. I will also make the argument that 2 years should have been enough time for her to find a job.

I also THINK that I should include the following points in my complaint, pursuant to 43-19-103, showing that it is in the best interests of the kids that I be granted an upward modification:

a. 43-19-103 states that a deviation can be made taking into account the age of the children, which takes into account the greater needs of older children. My 2 oldest are 14 and 12. They have extracaricular activities more and more, and they are not free.

b. 43-19-103 states that a deviation can be made taking into account the total available assets of the obligee, obligor, and chidlren. My kids have no assets. I have very few. I have our home which has about $5,000 equity in it. My ex has 4 Harley's in her name, as well as a 2006 BMW Z3. All are paid for. They are in her name b/c her bf has IRS problems, so they put all assets in her name. She told my wife this in an email.

I am thinking of more arguments as I type. Any suggestions are greatly appreciated.
 

2Mistakes

Senior Member
Yup, the statutes are very similar to how TX has it setup also.

OP, even if your state was shared income, you still would have the problem of mom having no provable income. If there is anything you want to change, that is where to start. Mom needs to be imputed an income and pay based on guidelines.
And herein lies my problem. I can't find anything in the statutes about imputing income. Where can I start to search for arguments to impute her an income?
 

2Mistakes

Senior Member
I thought of a few more things:

My ex is a licensed property adjuster in the state of FL. You can go to FL CFO website and pull her license info. Would it be helpful for me to print her license listing and attach it to my pleadings? She has a Bachelor's Degree and a professional license. She is capable of working.

Also, and this is a bit complicated. I have a savings account with BoA. I never use it b/c there is no local branch. I think I got it b/c if I opened a savings account with them, I got a lower interest rate on my credit card.

Anyways, my ex does all her banking with BoA. When I sign in to online access with my BoA account, it shows me her accounts as well. I DO NOT have access to her accounts. It shows her checking and savings balances. That's it. For some reason, it has us linked, maybe from when we were married. I have called BoA and told them that we are no longer married and do not need access to one another's bank accounts. They have not corrected this issue.

As of today, her checking account balance is $24,000 and her savings account balance is $102,000. Now, I know that this is her bf's money. He is in deep doo-doo with the IRS to the tune of $250,000 +, so he hides money and assets under her name. She has told my wife this. It is fact.

Anyways, if I file a complaint against her, would I be able to request info about these accounts from her in the discovery process? What if she didn't furnish anything from these accounts? Could I subpeona the records?

Would it even be relevant? I guess my thinking is how does a woman who does not work have all this money and assets (motorcycles, cars, etc.)?

If she's not going to lie on the stand, she has to admit to helping her bf conceal assets from the IRS!
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top