Indiana Law Review


The New Indiana Child Support Guidelines
Gale M. Phelps*
Jerald L. Miller**

I. Introduction

The Child Support Enforcement Amendments of 1984' require all

states to adopt formulas for child support awards by October 1, 1987.

Guidelines are to be available to all judges and other officials with the

authority to establish child support awards but are not necessarily binding

upon them.^ The implementation of these guidelines is expected to im-

prove both the adequacy and the equity of court orders relating to child

support. Guidelines based upon sound economic evidence allow child

support to reflect realistically the actual cost of raising children.

Child support guidelines have the force of law in some states but

not in others. Indiana falls in the latter category.^ Different methods used

to implement state guidelines include statutory enactments/ court rules,

^

* Partner, Phelps & Fara, Indianapolis. B.A., Butler University, 1969; J.D.,
Indiana University School of Law—Indianapolis, 1976.

** Partner, Boberschmidt, Miller, O'Bryan & Turner, P.A., IndianapoUs. B.S.,
Ball State University, 1965; J.D., Indiana University, 1973.

1. Pub. L. No. 98-378, 98 Stat. 1305, 1321-22 {codified at 42 U.S.C. § 667).

2. 42 U.S.C. § 667(b) (Supp. Ill 1986), 45 C.F.R. § 302.56(b) (1987). The choice

of the word "GuideUnes" reflects an intent to establish a formula or a quantitative

standard for setting child support rather than criteria.

3. Judicial Reform Comm., Judicial Conference of Indla.na, CmLD Support
Guidelines 2 (2d ed. 1988). [hereinafter Child Support Guidelines]. In June of 1985, the

Judicial Reform Committee of the Indiana Judicial Conference assumed the responsibility

for the development of the child support guideUnes. This committee was comprised of

judges from various counties throughout Indiana. The first draft, completed on July 24,

1987, was presented to the Indiana Judicial Conference Board of Directors on September

15, 1987. The Board of Directors adopted the draft guidehnes to be placed in use by

October 1, 1987, pursuant to the Child Support Enforcement Amendments of 1984, 42
U.S.C. § 667 (Supp. Ill 1986). On June 24th, the second edition of the Indiana Guidelines
was approved by the Board of Directors of the Indiana Judicial Conference. The final

copy was distributed at the Annual Meeting of the Indiana Judicial Conference on September

14, 1988. Copies of the Child Support Guidelines are available from the Indiana Judicial

Center, 1800 N. Meridian Street, Suite 404, Indianapohs, Indiana 46202 by maiUng an

advance payment of $5.55 to the Indiana Judicial Center and requesting a copy of these

guidelines.

4. See, e.g., Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-10-115 (1987); III. Ann. Stat. Ch. 40 para.
505 (Smith-Hurd Supp. 1988); Minn. Stat. Ann. § 518.551 (West Supp. 1988).

5. New Jersey adopted guideUnes by means of a Supreme Court Rule. See N.J.
R. Governing Practice, Chancery Division, Family Part R. 5:6A & App. XI (1986).
Delaware implemented the Melson Formula by means of a family court rule. See infra
note 25 and accompanying text.

203



204 INDIANA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 22:203

and administrative regulations.^

II. The Concept of Guidelines

A. The Need for the Guidelines

Few states used child support guidelines before Congress enacted
the Child Support Enforcement Amendments of 1984.^ The purpose of
this congressional mandate was an effort to address deficiencies in the

traditional case-by-case method of setting child support orders. Congress

perceived that the deficiencies in child support orders generally fell into

the following three categories: "(1) a shortfall in the adequacy of the

orders, when compared with the true costs of rearing children as measured
by economic studies; (2) inconsistent orders causing inequitable treatment

of parties in similarly situated cases; and (3) inefficient adjudication of

child support amounts in the absence of uniform standards."^

A 1985 study by the United States Office of Child Support En-
forcement estimated that $26.6 billion in child support would have been

due in the calendar year of 1984 if child support had been set by either

the "Delaware Melson Formula" or the "Wisconsin Percentage of Income

Standard."^ A Census Bureau study found that $10.1 billion in child
support was reported due during a similar period of time in 1983 but

only $7.1 billion actually was collected. '° There was not only a compHance

gap of three biUion dollars, but also an adequacy gap of over fifteen

biUion dollars.''

6. Missouri and Utah are among the states which have implemented guidelines
by administrative rule. Williams, Guidelines for Setting Levels of Child Support Orders,

21 Fam. L.Q. 281, 311 (1987).

7. Id. at 282. Marion County, Indiana had child support guidehnes in place for

approximately seven years prior to the 1984 child support enforcement legislation.

8. Id.

9. R. Haskins, Estimates of National Child Support Collections Potential and the

Income Security of Female-Headed Families, Report to Office of Child Support En-

forcement, Bush Institute for Child and Family Policy, University of North Car-
olina AT Chapel Hill (1985) [hereinafter Haskins Report]. See infra note 25 and

accompanying text (for discussion of the Delaware model); Wilhams, supra note 6, at

290-91 (for discussion of the Wisconsin model).

10. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce, Child Support and
Alimony: 1983, Current Population Reports, Speclal Studies, Series P-23, No. 141

(1985) [hereinafter Census Bureau].

11. Haskins Report, supra note 9. Estimated child support collections increase

approximately at the rate of inflation. The total amount due in 1983 would have been

$25.5 billion under the Delaware or Wisconsin formulas, compared with the Haskins

estimate of $26.6 bilhon in 1984. The estimated "adequacy gap" of $15.5 bilHon is

determined by comparing the $25.5 billion estimate with the Census Bureau figure of $10

billion.



1988] CHILD SUPPORT GUIDELINES 205

The mean court-ordered child support obligation in effect in 1983
was approximately $191 per month for 1.7 children J^ According to an

authoritative study by Thomas Espenshade, an order of $191 is equivalent

to only twenty-five percent of the average expenditures on 1.7 children

in middle income households. ^^ Assuming that child support should be

shared by the parents based upon their ability to generate income, court-

ordered support in 1983 should have been 2.5 times higher in order to

provide an adequate amount of child support, based upon the income

available for the support of those children. '"^ Court-ordered child support

in 1983 also fell short of minimal standards for the cost of raising

children. Based upon the 1983 United States Poverty Guidelines,'^ the

average court-ordered child support obligation in 1983 provided only

eighty percent of the poverty level.

Two problems contribute to this dramatic gap in adequate child
support. The first is inadequate initial orders. A study of initial child
support awards conducted by the Denver District Court of Colorado

identified various factors which significantly affected the amount of the

award, such as the presence of an attorney, the ability of the attorney,

whether an award was contested, and the season of the year.'^ Obviously,

none of these pertains to the needs of the children or the abilities of

the parties to support their children. The second problem is the failure

to update child support orders on a regular basis. An order that is more
than a few years old is, in all probability, seriously inadequate even if

the initial order was reasonable.

Statewide guidelines not only promote the interests of children, but

they also may increase the number of voluntary settlements and reduce
the time that it takes for a court to adjudicate and resolve cases that

are disputed. In addition, guidelines provide a framework within which

attorneys can present, and judges can evaluate, the issues in a reasonable

fashion.

12. Census Bureau, supra note 10.

13. T. Espenshade, Investing in Children: New Estimates of Parental Ex-
penditures (1984).

14. Census Bureau, supra note 10. The Census Bureau reported that the mean
income of all women due child support in 1983, not including child support actually
received, was $10,226. The income of men owing child support was not known but the
mean income of all men was $18,110. The Espenshade study estimated that $749 per
month was necessary for the support of 1.7 children. T. Espenshade, supra note 13. If
this is divided in proportion to income, the obligor's share would be $479 per month or
2.5 times the average court-ordered amount of $191 in 1983.

15. 48 Fed. Reg. 7010-11 (1983).

16. Yee, What Really Happens in Child Support Cases: An Imperical Study of
Establishment and Enforcement of Child Support Orders in the Denver District Court,
57 Den. L.J. 21, 28-37 (1979).



206 INDIANA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 22:203

B. How to Establish a Guideline

Child support guidelines must take into account various economic

factors which relate to the cost of raising children. A preUminary question
concerns minimum child-rearing costs based upon the needs of children
at a mere subsistence level. Guideline drafters may use the United States
Poverty GuideUne for a standard to '* specify the minimum income that
could support an average family of given composition at the lowest level

consistent with the standards of living prevailing in the country. "^"^ In

1987, this minimum income was $458 per month for one household
member and $158 for each additional household member.'^ It can be
assumed, therefore, that the cost of raising a child at the poverty level

is $158 per month. Most parents represented by a private lawyer have

a greater ability to provide for their children than this Poverty Guideline

implies. ^^

The second inquiry concerns child-rearing costs above the minimum
needed for subsistence. Studies of household expenditure patterns make
it clear that when people have higher income, they spend more of it

on their children. ^° The Espenshade study uses data from 8,547 households

surveyed in the 1972 and 1973 Consumer Expenditure Survey.^* Espen-

shade estimated average expenditures on children during that period of

time, based upon the socio-economic status of the family and the number

of children present, and updated the results to 1986 price levels. For a

middle socio-economic status household, the average expenditure on

children from birth through age eighteen was $589 per month for one
child, $914 per month for two children and $1,145 for three children. ^^

Spending on children can be described validly as proportions of household

income although the proportions decline as the household income in-

17. M. Orshansky, Measuring Poverty, in The Social Welfare Forum (1965).
18. Annual Update of the Poverty Income Guidelines, 52 Fed. Reg. 5340-41 (1987).

19. Orshansky, supra note 17.

20. Williams, supra note 6, at 288. The most commonly cited figures on costs of
children have been pubhshed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. See C.S. Edwards,

USDA Estimates of the Cost of Raising a Child: A Guide to Their Use and In-
terpretation, Pub. No. 1411, U.S. Department of Agriculture (1981). The best available

evidence of child-rearing expenses in the "above poverty level" household is found in the

Espenshade study, Espenshade's figures are more appropriate than the U.S.D.A. figures

even though the U.S.D.A. figures provide a useful basis for comparison. The U.S.D.A,

figures are estimates and are based on data from the 1960/61 Survey of Consumer

Expenditures. This is now more than 25 years old. In addition, Espenshade's marginal
cost methodology is more valid for determining appropriate levels of child support. See

T. Espenshade, supra note 13, at 44-59.

21. T. Espenshade, supra note 13, at 44-59.

22. T. Espenshade, supra note 13, at Table 3. The figures used are for a household

with a wife employed part-time on a year round basis.



1988] CHILD SUPPORT GUIDELINES 207

creases. Thus a household with more income spends proportionately less

on its children as its income increases.

A third question relevant to determining levels of child support is
to ascertain how spending on the children is affected by the number of
children in the family. Expenditures on children as a proportionate share

of current family consumption are estimated at 26.2<yo for one child,

40.7% for two children, 51.097o for three children and 57.5% for four

children. 2^ When children are added to a household, therefore, spending
does not increase in direct proportion to the number of children added.
There is a common misconception that these declining increments pri-
marily reflect economies of scale in raising children. To the contrary,
these figures seem to indicate a decreasing level of expenditures for each

child as family size increases. Equal amounts are not spent on each

child, but rather the spending level for each represents only about three-

quarters of the amount that would have been spent on one child alone.

C Types of Guidelines
There are several types of child support guidelines. One is a **flat

percentage" guideline, which simply sets child support at a percentage

of the obligor's income depending upon the number of children. ^"^ A
second type of guideline follows the Delaware Melson Child Support

Formula adopted by the Delaware Family Court for statewide use in

January 1979.^^ Under the "Melson formula," the available income of

each parent is determined by deducting a self-support reserve from the

parent's income. Then, each dependent's primary support need, including

child care and extraordinary medical expenses, is computed, and the

total primary support amount is prorated between the parents' available
net incomes. The Melson formula also allocates a percentage of the
remaining available income to pay additional child support. This ** stan-

dard of living allowance" thus allows children to benefit from their

parents' higher living standard. If a parent has dependents other than

the child for whom support is being sought, and these other dependents
are not covered by a prior court order, the primary support amounts

23. Department of Labor, Revised EgmvAXENT Scale for Estimating Equivalent
Incomes or Budget Costs by Family Type, Bulletin No. 1570-2.

24. See, e.g.. III. Ann. Stat. ch. 40, para. 505 (Smith-Hurd 1987). Minnesota,
Illinois, Texas and Wisconsin have adopted guidelines based upon variations of this concept.

See WilUams, supra note 6, at 290-91.

25. Family Courts of the State of Delaware, The Delaware Child Support Formula:

Study and Evaluation, Report to the 132nd General Assembly (1984). See also Delaware
Child Support (Melson) Formula, Family Court of the State of Delaware (revised
1984) (available from the Office of Child Support Enforcement Reference Center, Room
2525, 330 C Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20201); Williams, supra note 6, at 295-301.



208 INDIANA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 22:203

for* them are deducted from the obligor's remaining available income

before computing the standard of living allowance. Thus, a noncustodial

parent who has two other natural or adopted children living in his or
her household is allowed to reduce his or her standard of living allowance

by a primary support amount for these two children.

A third type of guideline is the Income Equalization or '*Cassetty"
model, which attempts to insure that the children of divorced parents

suffer the least possible economic hardship and continue to enjoy as

nearly as possible the family's pre-divorce standard of living. ^^ The

Cassetty model exempts from net income the poverty level of support

for each member of both households. The total net income of each
household is used, not just the income of the parents. Thus, a current

spouse of either parent is counted for purposes of applying the poverty

level exclusion. The balance of both households' income is allocated

between them in proportion to the number of persons in each family

unit. There is no separate consideration of child care expenses or medical

costs.

A fourth type of guideline is the "income shares" model which was
developed by the Institute of Court Management for the National Center
for State Courts under the Child Support GuideUne Project.^"^ The income

shares model attempts to provide the child with the same portion of

parental income that the child would have received if the parents had

continued to live together. This concept was particularly appealing to

Indiana's Judicial Reform Committee because it was in compliance with

Indiana Code section 31-1-11.5-12.^^ Under Indiana law, consideration
must be given not only to the income of the noncustodial parent but

to the following four factors:

(1) the financial resources of the custodial parent;

26. Cassetty and Douthitt, The Economics of Setting Adequate and Equitable Child

Support Payment Awards, 12 Tex. St. B. Sec. Rep., Fam., Special Support and Visitation
Issue (1984). See also Williams, supra note 6, at 302-03.

27. R. Williams, Development of Guidelines for Child Support Orders, in Report

TO THE U.S. Office of Child Support Enforcement, National Center for State

Courts (1987). This report can be obtained from the Reference Center, U.S. Office of

Child Support Enforcement, Switzer Building, Room 2525, 330 C Street, S.W., Washington,
D.C. 20201. The report was developed with support from the U.S. Office of Child Support

Enforcement under grant number 18-P-20003-3-01. The income shares model is based upon

economic evidence of child-rearing expenditures and principles relied upon by the Advisory

Panel for the Child Support Guideline Project. This model has been adopted in Colorado,

Maine, Michigan, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, Vermont and now Indiana. See Wil-
liams, supra note 6, at 291-95.

28. Ind. Code § 31-1-11.5-12 (1988). See Child Support Guidelines, supra note 3,
at 2-3.



1988] CHILD SUPPORT GUIDELINES 209

(2) the standard of living the child would have enjoyed had the

marriage not been dissolved or had the separation not been

ordered;

(3) the physical or mental condition of the child and the child's

educational needs; and

(4) the financial resources and needs of the noncustodial parent.
^^

The computation of child support under the income shares model

is a three-step process. First, the parents' combined income is determined.

Second, this combined income is used to compute a basic child support

obligation. This obligation represents the amount which would have been

spent on the children if the household had remained intact. Actual work-

related child care expenditures and extraordinary medical expenses are

added to the basic obligation to arrive at a total child support obligation.

Finally, the total obligation is prorated between the parents based upon

their proportionate shares of the total income. The noncustodial parent

then pays the custodial parent the prorated amount. ^^

This procedure purportedly simulates spending patterns in an intact

household where total family income is allocated to the children pro-

portionately. Adjustments can be made under the income shares model
for nontraditional custody arrangements such as shared physical custody

and split custody. Indiana has not yet adopted or addressed the shared

physical and split custody calculations, but income shares models adopted

in certain other states include provisions for these calculations. In a

shared physical custody arrangement, each parent has physical custody

for at least twenty-five to thirty percent of the time.^' The exact threshold

varies from state to state. A total support obligation is calculated sep-
arately for each parent. The expenses born directly by each parent under
the shared physical custody arrangement are determined, and a theoretical

payover amount is calculated for each parent. The net obligor pays the
difference between these amounts. ^^ A zero child support obligation would
result only where both parties earn the same amount of money and
share physical custody equally. In split custody situations, each parent

has physical custody of at least one child. The calculations are made
by computing a theoretical support obligation for the children in the

physical custody of each parent. The amounts owed by each parent are

29. IND. Code § 31-1-1 1.5-12(a) (1988). See also Lepper v. Lepper, 509 N.E.2d
818, 820 (Ind. 1987); Hunter v. Hunter, 498 N.E.2d 1278, 1288 (Ind. Ct. App. 1986);
Tucker v. Tucker, 406 N.E.2d 321, 323 (Ind. Ct. App. 1980). But see In re Marriage of

Ferguson, 519 N.E.2d 735, 739 (Ind. Ct. App. 1988).

30. Williams, supra note 6, at 293. The figures for the basic obUgation are derived
from economic data on household expenditures on children.

31. Id. at 293-94.

32. Id. at 294.



210 INDIANA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 22:203

ofifset, and the parent owing the larger amount is liable for the difference.

D. Use of Child Support Guidelines

No guideline, regardless of how carefully developed, can anticipate
the unique circumstances in every case. Consequently, states generally

have implemented their guidelines either as rebuttable presumptions or

advisory standards. No state has made a guideline mandatory. Indiana
has chosen the advisory approach and, therefore, the new guidelines are

merely proposed standards. If Indiana ever does adopt the guidelines

as a rebuttable presumption, they would be applied in all support de-

terminations unless one party demonstrates, or the court or administrative

agency determines, that an inequity would result. In either case, a

departure from the guidelines would have to be accompanied by specific

findings which establish the reasons for the deviation.

1. Applying Guidelines to Modifications.—As years pass and cir-
cumstances change, child support orders which were adequate initially

must be updated." Three factors erode the value of child support orders:

inflation, income increases and the higher cost of supporting older

children. Inflation has caused the real value of an original child support

award of $500 per month in 1976 to decline to $261 by 1986.3^ In
addition, parents with children who are in need of child support are
typically at an age when their income increases most rapidly (ages twenty-

one to forty-five).^^ Children are entitled to the economic benefits of

this increased income. Finally, children's expenses increase as they get

older. Espenshade calculated that expenditures are twenty-three percent

higher for children in the twelve to seventeen age group than for younger

children. ^^ In Indiana, the only ground for modifying child support

awards is evidence of a substantial and continuing change of circum-

stances sufficient to warrant a modification.^"^ This change must be more

than slight. Indiana case law is replete with decisions holding that either

the income of the parties or the needs of the children must have changed

substantially since the last order was entered. ^^

Procedures for updating child support orders vary from state to

state. Minnesota has enacted a process by which each order for child

support "shall provide for the biennial adjustment in the amount to be

33. Id. at 314.

34. Id.

35. Id.

36. T. Espenshade, supra note 13, at 30-31.

37. IND. Code § 31-1-11.5-17 (1988).
38. See, e.g., Halum v. Halum, 492 N.E.2d 30 (Ind. Ct. App. 1986); McCallister

McCallister, 488 N.E.2d 1147 (Ind. Ct. App. 1986).



1988] CHILD SUPPORT GUIDELINES 211

paid based on a change in the cost of living. "^^ The Minnesota statute

thus provides for the automatic updating of child support orders. Another

proposal would increase child support based either upon the cost of

living or inflation rate. These standards are unacceptable in Indiana

because they do not reflect the statutory provisions that support be

based upon the child's needs and the parents' incomes."^^ A better method
of updating child support orders would be to apply the same standards

that were used for setting the initial support awards. The experience of

other states with guidelines would indicate that availability of a guideline

tends to encourage the parties to implement their own updating provisions
by exchanging tax returns or other information relevant to income and

then to apply the new guidelines voluntarily to adjust the amount of

child support."^^

The adoption of Indiana's new guidelines shifts the focus of child
support determinations away from the expenses of the child toward an

income-based process. This approach appears to be a fairer way of
dealing with child support because it balances the needs of the child

against the needs of the parents. Much litigation over child support
centers on the necessity of certain expenses claimed by each parent either

for their own daily living expenses or the child's living expenses. The
major drawback in basing child support on living expenses is that expenses

are always within the control of the parties, can be manipulated easily,

and almost always exceed income initially because the parties have not

yet adjusted to losing the benefit of combined incomes in an intact

household. With child support guidehnes, the income of the parties

becomes paramount and expenses tend to be ignored except for special

considerations. Guidelines should not be adopted, however, without also

adopting standards for reporting and verifying income because income

also can be manipulated. Ideally, guidelines should require a party to

submit income and asset statements and support those statements with

39. Minn. Stat. § 518.641 (1986).

40. See Ind. Code § 31-1-11.5-12 (1988).
41. Williams & Campbell, Review of Selected State Practices in Establishing &

Updating Child Support Awards, Report to U.S. Ofhce of Child Support Enforcement,
National Institute for Socio-Economics Research, 23 (1984). See also Williams &
Campbell, Review of Literature and Statutory Provisions Relating to the Establishment

and Updating of Child Support Awards, in Report to U.S. Office of Child Support
Enforcement, National Institute for Socio-Economic Research, 1-3 (1984). Williams

and Campbell reported that in Delaware many agreements developed by attorneys made
a provision for the annual exchange of information and a reapplication of the formula

to arrive at a new child support amount. In this same report, it was stated that stipulated

agreements in Wisconsin often have similar provisos. The most recent Colorado statutory
provisions for determining child support also encouraged the use of guidelines in a voluntary

updating process. See Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-10-115 (1986).



212 INDIANA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 22:203

documentation such as pay records for the previous twelve to eighteen

months.

2. Allocating Ordinary and Extraordinary Child Care, Medical and

Educational Expenses.—Although there has been no reported litigation
in Indiana addressing the difference between extraordinary and ordinary

expenses, courts in other jurisdictions have considered various criteria

to distinguish between extraordinary and ordinary expenses. One com-
mentator suggests that a portion of any child-related expense, including

medical and educational expenses, can properly be considered ordinary

if the amounts involved are relatively small, predictable and fairly con-

sistent in families of the same size and income level/^

Ordinary child care expenses include babysitting in order to permit

a parent to shop, see a physician, attend social obligations, and engage

in similar activities. "^^ Minor ordinary medical expenses would be those

included in deductibles for insurance purposes. "^"^ Ordinary educational

expenses might include the cost of school supplies and field trips. "^^

In comparison, extraordinary child care expenses include those ex-

penses necessary for full-time or substantial part-time child care in order

to allow a parent to work."^ Extraordinary major medical bills may be
any medical expense that is necessary, out-of-pocket, and not usual or

ordinary .''^ Extraordinary educational expenses include the costs of col-

lege, graduate school or a private elementary or secondary school ed-

ucation.^^ An "extraordinary" expense, therefore, could be defined as
*'any large, discrete, legitimate child-rearing expense that varies greatly

from family to family or from child to child. "'^^

Extraordinary expenses have received varying treatment in deter-

mining child support obligations. One approach is simply to include the
extraordinary expense as basic child support, ^° while another method

makes no specific provision for extraordinary expenses at all.^' Other

methods include deducting extraordinary expenses from the income of

the parent paying such expenses before calculating the child support

42. Goldfarb, Child Support Guidelines: A Model for Fair Allocation of Child
Care, Medical and Educational Expenses, 21 Fam. L.Q. 325, 330 (1987).

43. Id. at 337-38.

44. Id. at 342.

45. Id. at 343.

46. Id. at 338.

47. Id. at 342-43.

48. Id. at 343-44.

49. Id. at 331.

50. See Wolfe, Child Sltpport Guidelines Project: State by State Summary,

NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund (1986).
51. Id.



1988] CHILD SUPPORT GUIDELINES 213

award, ^^ and granting a bonus not directly tied to the amount of the

expense to the parent who is paying the extraordinary expense." Some
states do not apply the guideHnes to cases which involve extraordinary

expenses and decide those matters on a case-by-case basis. ^"^ Finally,

extraordinary expenses may be prorated in proportion to the parents'
incomes and the prorated amount added to the basic child support

award. ^^

The new Indiana guidelines follow this last approach and prorate

extraordinary expenses according to the parents' relative incomes. ^^ The

primary advantage of this technique is that it realistically addresses the

actual cost incurred by the custodial parent. A disadvantage is that,
even though these child care, medical and education expenses may vary
greatly from year to year, the amount added by court order to the non-

custodial parent's support obligation would not change from one year

to the next to accommodate the variations. Furthermore, in the event

that courts use "reasonable" or "reasonable and necessary" language

to define extraordinary expenses, the door would be open to second-

guessing by the parties and to litigation regarding what is reasonable

and necessary. Nonetheless, the interests of all the parties are served by

an approach which takes into account the financial situation of each

parent in addition to the nature of each expense.

Any provision addressing extraordinary medical expenses must en-
compass all types of medical, dental and related professional care.

Obviously, the level of expense that rises to a catastrophic level may
not be easily addressed by any guidehne. The custodial, the noncustodial
parent, or both may deduct a medical expense on their tax returns if
they actually incurred the expense. ^^ For tax purposes, therefore, the

parent with the lower adjusted gross income, who can maximize the
medical deduction, should be the party who writes the checks for as
many of the medical bills as possible.

Educational expenses such as school supplies and field trips usually

do not rise to the level of an extraordinary expense. Extraordinary

educational expenses generally relate to the cost of college, graduate or

professional school, private school, extra lessons, enrichment, or special

educational needs for a disabled child. Traditionally, divorced fathers,

including those with high incomes and high educational attainments of

their own, do not contribute voluntarily to their children's college ed-

52. Id.

53. Id.

54. Id.

55. Id

56. Child Support Guidelines, supra note 3, at 17-18.

57. See I.R.C. § 213(d)(5) (1986).



214 INDIANA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 22:203

ucation.^^ Some divorced fathers may be even less inclined to assist their
daughters with higher education needs than their sons.^^ Unfortunately,

providers of financial aid consider all of the income supposedly available

to the child. Consequently, the noncustodial parent's financial resources

may result in the child being refused financial aid. This is the basis of
Symer and Cooney's theory that children of divorce are more likely to
defer college attendance until they can accumulate savings through their

own earnings. ^°

Indiana law comprehensively sets forth the rights and obhgations of

children who wish to attend college. Courts may consider several factors
in deciding whether parents should provide a college education for their

children. These factors include the parents' educational levels, the child's

career goals, the resources and abilities of the parents and the child to

pay for the education, the child's educational accompUshments, the

emphasis that has been placed on education in the home, and the

educational traditions of the family measured by the educational achieve-

ments of other children in the family.^'

Extraordinary educational needs other than college may include pri-
vate school, lessons, enrichment, and educational needs of disabled

children. Inclusion of expenses for private schooling should be supported

by evidence that such schooling is affordable to the family and that the

parents likely would have incurred that expense had they remained

married. Lessons in enrichment should be treated as ordinary expenses

unless they are extremely costly or unusual. Expenses for items such as

music lessons, camps, sports equipment, and religious instruction should

be deemed ordinary because they commonly are provided by parents
and are of a modest cost. The educational needs of a disabled child,

to the extent that the parties can meet them, should be allocated between

the parties based upon their incomes.

III. The Indiana Child Support Guidelines

A. Commentary of the Judicial Reform Committee

Previous sections of this Article have outlined many factors which
must be considered when child support guidelines are established. The

58. Wallerstein & Corbin, Father-Child Relationships After Divorce: Child Support
and Educational Opportunity, 20 Fam. L.Q. 109, 119 (1986).

59. Id. at 121.

60. Symer & Cooney, Family Relations Across Adulthood: Implications for Alimony
and Support Divisions 10-11, American Bar Association National Symposium on Alimony

and Child Support (Apr. 24-25, 1987).

61. iND. Code § 31-1-11.5-12 (1988). See also Thiele v. Thiele, 479 N.E.2d 1324
(Ind. Ct. App. 1985); Gower v. Gower, 427 N.E.2d 703 (Ind. Ct. App. 1981).



1988] CHILD SUPPORT GUIDELINES 215

Judicial Reform Committee of the Judicial Conference of Indiana was

assigned the task of developing the guidehnes for the State of Indiana.

After this process was completed and a framework for the guidelines

was estabUshed, the task of these judges was to explain the meaning

of the terms used. Anytime a guideline is established, it is beneficial

for all the parties who will be using that guideline to understand with
reasonable certainty the terminology and parameters covered. If this basis

is clearly estabUshed, then application of the guidelines becomes a simple

matter.

Every family is different and the needs of every child are different.

Therefore, the application of guidelines without considering all of the

issues is inappropriate. To assist all persons in understanding and in-
terpreting Indiana's Guidelines, the Judicial Reform Committee developed

a Commentary that is incorporated into the Guidelines. With the per-
mission of the Judicial Reform Committee, the authors have reprinted

for your benefit much of the Commentary from the Guidelines. ^^ The
following excerpts were written by Judge Bruce Embry, a member of
the Judicial Reform Committee:

1. Lower Limits of the Guidelines

The Guidelines schedules for weekly support payments do not

provide an amount of support for couples with combined weekly

available income of less than $100.00. Consequently, the Guide-

lines do not estabhsh a minimum support obligation. Instead,
the facts of each individual case must be examined and support

set in such a manner that the obligor is not denied a means of

self-support at a subsistence level. It is, however, recommended
that a specific amount of support be set. Even in situations
where the non-custodial parent has no income, courts have rou-

tinely established a child support obligation at some minimum
level. While an obligor cannot be held in contempt for failure

to pay support when he does not have the means to pay, the
obligation accrues and serves as a reimbursement to the custodial

parent or, more Ukely, to the welfare department when he later
acquires the ability to meet his obligation. ^^

2. Upper Limits of the Guidelines

The Guidelines schedules for weekly support payments provide
calculations for the basic support obligation to a combined weekly

62. Because the Commentary to the Guidelines are not generally available in any
widely circulated, published form the remainder of this Article is devoted to reprinting

much of the Commentary

—

Ed.

63. Child Support Guidelines, supra note 3, at 7.



216 INDIANA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 22:203

available income of $2,000.00, or annual available income of

$104,000.00. It is indeed a rare case where a higher figure will

be needed. It is not intended, however, that the obligation for

support be capped at that level. It is instead anticipated that

parties with income in excess of that amount would negotiate

a support figure, or that the court, in the alternative, would

use the mathematical progressions of the Guideline to arrive at

a support obligation.^'*

3. Temporary Maintenance

* It is . . . recommended that temporary maintenance awards not

exceed 35% (thirty-five percent) of the obligor's weekly available
income. The maximum award should be reserved for those in-
stances where the custodial spouse has no income or no means

of support, taking into consideration that spouse's present living

arrangement (i.e., whether or not they are living with someone

who shares or bears the majority of the living expense; whether
they are living in the marital residence with little or no expense;

whether they live in military housing, etc.).

It is further recommended that the total of temporary main-

tenance and child support should not exceed 60% (sixty percent)
of the obligor's weekly available income. In computing temporary

maintenance, in-kind payments, such as the payment of utilities,

house payments, rent, etc., should also be included in calculating

the percentage limitations.

It should also be emphasized that the recommendations con-

cerning maintenance apply only to temporary maintenance, not

spousal maintenance in the final decree. An award of spousal
maintenance in the final decree must, of course, be made in
accordance with I.C. 31-1-1 1.5-1 1(e). These Guidelines do not

alter those requirements. Theoretically, when setting temporary
maintenance, child support should come first. That is, if child
support is set at 40% of the obHgor's weekly available income,
only a maximum of 20% (twenty percent) of that income would
be available for maintenance. That distinction, however, makes

little practical difference.

The worksheet provides a deduction for spousal maintenance
paid as a result of the former marriage (line ID.) Caution should

be taken to assure that any credit taken is for maintenance and

not for periodic payments as the result of a property settlement

pursuant to I.C. 31-1-1 1.5-1 1(b)(2). No such deduction is given

64. Id.



1988] CHILD SUPPORT GUIDELINES 217

for amounts paid by an obligor as the result of a property

settlement resulting from a former marriage, although that is a

factor the court may wish to consider in determining the obligor's
abihty to pay the scheduled amount of support at the present

time. Again, flexibility was intended throughout the Guidelines

and they were not intended to place the obligor in a position

where he or she loses all incentive to comply with the orders

of the court. If an obligor is burdened by support, maintenance

and periodic payments from a former marriage, it is possible

to surpass the point where the obligor cannot subsist. Studies

indicate that when the combined payments exceed 60% (sixty
percent) of income, a level of resistance is reached where an

obligor is Hkely to simply give up.^^

4. When Guidelines are Applicable

It is recommended that the Indiana Child Support Guidelines

be appUed in every instance in which child support is established,

including, but not Hmited to, dissolutions of marriage and pa-

ternity actions.^^

B. Determination of Child Support Obligations

Weekly gross income, potential income, weekly available income and

basic child support obligation are terms that presently are foreign to

Indiana lawyers, but they soon will resound throughout the courtrooms

of the state. An understanding of these new terms is necessary before
child support obligations can be calculated under the new guidelines.

1. Weekly Gross Income.—Weekly gross income^^ is the starting
point in determining the child support obligation. It must be calculated

65. Id. at 8. For the worksheet referred to above, see "Worksheet—Child Support
Obligation" infra p. 227, reproduced as an appendix to this Article with the permission

of the Indiana Judicial Conference [hereinafter Worksheet].

66. Child Support Guidelines, supra note 3, at 9.

67. See Worksheet, supra note 65, at line 1. "Weekly Gross Income" is "actual

weekly gross income of the parent if employed to full capacity, potential income if

unemployed or underemployed, and imputed income based on 'in-kind' benefits." Child

Support Guidelines y supra note 3, at 9. This includes income from any source except for

specific exclusions and includes but is not limited to "income from salaries, wages,

commissions, bonuses, dividends, severance pay pensions, interest, trust income, annuities,

capital gains, social security benefits, workmen's compensation benefits, unemployment

insurance benefits, disability insurance benefits, gifts, prizes, and alimony or maintenance

received from other marriages." Id. Means-tested public assistance programs are specifically

excluded.

Weekly Gross Income from self-employment, operation of a business, rent, and



218 INDIANA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 22:203

for both parents. If one or both parents have no income, potential

income should be calculated and used as weekly gross income. Likewise,

imputed income may be substituted for, or added to, other income in
arriving at weekly gross income. Imputed income includes such items

as free housing, a company car that may be used for personal travel,
reimbursed meals, and other items received by the obligor that reduce

his or her living expenses.

The Commentary suggests beginning with total income from all
sources. ^^ Actual business expenses are deducted from that total figure

but not losses which do not result in actual out-of-pocket expenditures.

It was not the drafters' intent to recognize tax shelters otherwise permitted

by federal tax laws. In addition, public assistance programs based on

income^ are excluded from the computation of weekly gross income,

but other government payments such as Social Security benefits and

veterans pensions are included.

Calculating weekly gross income for the self-employed or for those

who receive rent or royalty income presents unique problems and requires
a careful review of expenses. Actual expenses are excluded, but benefits

that reduce living expenses, such as company cars, free lodging and
reimbursed meals are included in whole or in part. Although income

tax returns may be helpful in arriving at weekly gross income for a
self-employed person, the deductions allowed by the guidelines differ

significantly from those allowed for tax purposes.

Potential income must be determined if a parent has no income, or

only means-tested income, and is capable of earning income or capable

royalties is defined as gross receipts minus ordinary and necessary expenses.

Specifically excluded from ordinary and necessary expenses for the purposes of

these GuideHnes are depreciation, investment tax credits, or any other business

expense determined by the Court to be inappropriate for determining weekly

gross income for the purposes of calculating child support. . . . Expense re-

imbursement or in-kind payments received by a parent in the course of an

employment, self-employment, or operation of a business should be counted as

income.

Id. Potential income is calculated for parents who are voluntarily unemployed or under-
employed. It is determined by establishing the

employment potential, and probable earnings level based on the obligor's work

history, occupational qualifications, prevailing job opportunities, and earning

levels in the community. If there is no work history and no higher education

or vocational training, it is suggested that weekly gross income be at least at

the minimum wage.
Id. at 10.

68. This figure may not be the same as gross income for tax purposes. See l.R.C.
§ 61 (1986); Child Support Guidelines, supra note 3, at 10.

69. Such means-tested programs include Aid to Families with Dependent Children,

Supplemental Security Income, Food Stamps, and General Assistance. Child Support

Guidelines, supra note 3, at 9.



1988] CHILD SUPPORT GUIDELINES 219

of earning more than he or she presently earns. Obviously, this deter-

mination requires a great deal of discretion. One purpose of the potential-
income factor is to discourage a parent from taking a lower paying job

to avoid the payment of significant support. Another purpose is to

allocate the support obligation fairly when one parent remarries and,

because of the income of the new spouse, chooses not be employed.
Attributing potential income to a parent undoubtedly will cause much
stimulating debate. ^^

One situation that must be considered is that of the mother with

one or more young children at home. It was not the intention of the

Judicial Reform Committee to force all custodial parents into the work

force. Therefore, discretion must be exercised on an individual case basis

to determine if it is fair under the circumstances to impute income to

a particular nonworking or under-employed custodial parent. Consid-

eration should be given to the needs of the child or children as well as

the earning potential of the parent. A custodial parent without a high
school education, with no significant skills and with three small children

may not be capable of entering the work force and earning enough even
to cover the cost of day care. This will be a fact-sensitive issue which

must be decided on a case-by-case basis.

2. Income Verification.—The income verification requirement is not
a change in the law but merely a suggestion to judges that they take

care in determining the income of each parent. Some forms of docu-
mentation, such as a single pay stub, can be very misleading. This is

particularly true for salesmen, professionals, and others who receive
commissions or bonuses, or who have the ability to distort the true
picture of their income in the short-term by deferring payments. When
in doubt, income tax returns for the last several years should be re-

viewed.^^

5. Computation of Weekly Available Income.—After weekly gross
income is determined, weekly available income must be computed. ^^

Certain deductions from weekly gross income are allowed in arriving at

weekly available income. For example, an obligor is entitled to deduct

child support for children of other marriages if he or she actually is

paying that support. For purposes of this deduction, the Judicial Reform
Committee recommends a first in time, first in right rule which considers
the children in the order in which they were born. Thus the computation
of support based on the income that would have been available to the
second family, had it remained intact, allows for a deduction for support

70. Id. at n.
7L Id. at 12.
72. Id. at 13. See also Worksheet, supra note 65, at line 2.



220 INDIANA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 22:203

of children from previous relationships. This rationale is in compliance

with Indiana Code section 31-l-11.5-12(a)(2),^^ and therefore prevails

over the argument that the second family has just as much right to the
income of the obligor as the first family.

When considering a petition to modify support arising out of a first
marriage, however, no deduction is allowed for support ordered as the

result of a second or subsequent marriage. A support order for a
subsequent family does not constitute a change in circumstances with

respect to the support of children of the first marriage.^"* Likewise, if

support is being estabUshed or modified for a child born out of wedlock,

the date of birth of the child would determine whether or not a deduction

is allowed in arriving at weekly available income. If the child was born

before the marriage, no deduction for children of the marriage would

be allowed. If the child was born after a marriage from which an

obligation for support arose, a deduction would be allowed. ^^

Although deductions are allowed only for support actually being

paid, some discretion is necessary. If there is a valid court order or

obligation for support which the obligor has not been paying, but for

which enforcement proceedings are imminent, a denial of the deduction

likely would lead to further court proceedings in the form of a petition

to modify. ^^

Deductions also are allowed for funds actually expended on behalf

of children toward whom the obligor has a legal duty of support, even
if that obligation has not been reduced to a court order. Children born

out of wedlock are the obvious example, but this provision covers other

situations as well. A custodial parent who is not receiving support should
be permitted to deduct his or her portion of the support obhgation for

the children in the home from the first marriage. For example, in
computing support for the second dissolution, the custodial parent of

two children from a prior marriage who receives no support from that
former spouse, should be permitted to deduct the support he or she

would be paying if custody of these children had been placed with the

noncustodial spouse. The second dissolution therefore will require a
computation of the support obligation allocated to each spouse for

children of the prior marriage. ^^

The cost of health insurance for the children also is deducted from

weekly gross income in arriving at weekly available income. Computing
the allowable deduction is no problem if a separate policy of insurance

73. Ind. Code § 3 1-1-11. 5-12(a)(2) (1988). See supra text accompanying note 29.
74. Child Support Guidelines, supra note 3, at 13.

75. Id.

76. Id.

77. Id. at 14.



1988] CHILD SUPPORT GUIDELINES 221

is purchased for the children. In most situations, however, employer

group plans provide coverage for the children. No deduction is allowed
if the employer pays the entire cost of coverage. If the employee pays

part of the premium, it may be necessary to obtain from his or her
employer appropriate documentation of the additional cost for the chil-

dren's coverage in order to compute the deduction for purposes of

determining the child support obligation.^^

Another allowable deduction from weekly gross income is alimony

or spousal maintenance arising from a prior marriage. These amounts

are allowable only if they arise as the result of a court order and actually

are being paid, or if enforcement of the obligation appears imminent.

This deduction is intended only for spousal maintenance, not for periodic

payments pursuant to a property settlement under Indiana Code section
31-1-1 1.5-12(b)(2).^^ The result after subtracting allowable deductions will

be a figure representing the weekly available income of each parent.

4. Basic Child Support Obligation.—The next step is to determine
the recommended basic support obligation for the combined incomes of

both parents on the chart in the Guideline schedules for weekly support

payments. ^° It should be remembered that the number of children in

the chart refers only to the number of children of the marriage being

dissolved for whom support is being computed. Furthermore, the Guide-
Hnes do not contain figures for combined weekly available income of

less than $100 or more than $2,000.«i

5. Adjustments to the Basic Child Support Obligation.—Certain
adjustments are applied to the basic child support obligation in arriving

at the total child support obligation. The following items have been and
will continue to be the basis of heated battles between parents. Con-

sequently, the court or the parties may deal with these matters as separate
and distinct issues apart from child support in appropriate situations.

Reasonable child care costs that are incurred by either parent due

to employment, or an attempt to find employment, typically are added

to the basic child support obligation in arriving at the total child support

obligation. Both parents should bear the responsibility for such costs.

If this expense is not included in computing the child support obligation,

the custodial parent may find that it is not economically feasible to be
employed because, after the payment of child care and transportation

expenses, the household income is little more than if that parent had
remained unemployed. ^^

78. Id.

79. IND. Code § 3 1-1-11. 5-1 2(b)(2) (1988). See Child Support Guidelines, supra
note 3, at 14.

80. Child Support Guidelines, supra note 3, at 15.

81. Id. See supra notes 63-64 and accompanying text.

82. Child Support Guidelines, supra note 3, at 17.



222 INDIANA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 22:203

Extraordinary uninsured health care expenses for a child's chronic

or long-term condition also may be added to the basic child support
obligation. Orthodontia, dental treatment, asthma treatment, physical

therapy, counseling, and psychiatric therapy are illustrative but not an

exhaustive list of maladies for which adjustments may be made. The
emphasis is on long-term to avoid frequent modifications of the support

order. ^^ For example, if the cost of extensive orthodontia will be spread

over a three-year period, there is a reasonable basis for including it in

the computation of support. If the condition for which an additional

contribution of support is sought will be shorter in duration, such as

^six months of physical therapy following an accident, the better practice

may be to consider the cost in a separate order which apportions the
obligation between the parents.

Many courts routinely apportion between the parties, usually on an
equal basis, the medical, dental and optical expenses that exceed insur-

ance. The Guideline Schedules were based on data which included a

component for ordinary medical expenses; six percent of the recom-

mended support amount is for health care expense.^ If an apportionment
is made for extraordinary health care expenses, therefore, the custodial
parent should absorb a certain portion of the cost for each illness or

injury before the noncustodial parent is required to contribute. The

balance of these health care expenses then could be apportioned according

to the income share percentages set forth in the tables in the Guidelines.

Extraordinary educational expenses for elementary, secondary or

higher education also may be added to the basic child support obligation,
but they should be limited to expenses which are reasonable and necessary

for attending private or special schools or institutions of higher learning,

or necessary to meet the particular educational needs of the child.

Regardless of the level of schooUng involved, questions of educational

expense are Ukely to be fact-sensitive and cannot be reduced to a specific

formula. ^^ If the expenses sought to be included are for elementary or

secondary education, the court may consider whether the expense is the
result of a personal preference of one parent or both parents concur,

whether the expense was incurred while the family was intact, and whether

education of the same or higher quality is available at less cost. If the

additional expense is for higher education, the court should consider the

availability of scholarships, grants, student loans, summer and school-
year employment, and other cost-reducing programs available to the

student. The student is expected to apply for available aid, and a failure

83. Id.

84. Id. at 18.

85. Id.



1988] CHILD SUPPORT GUIDELINES 223

to do so should be a factor in establishing the parents' obligation for

educational expenses. ^^

These expenses may be covered in a separate order, as for short-
term health care expenses, or included in the child support order. If

they are part of the child support order, it should be remembered that

there is already an allowance for some living expense. The basic child

support obligation, however, does not allow for all the expenses of

separate housing while a student is attending college. If support for

higher education is estabUshed in a separate order, support paid to the

custodial parent should be reduced for the period of time that the student

is away from the household and at school.^^

The addition of work-related child care costs, extraordinary health

care expenses and extraordinary educational expenses to the basic child

support obligation produces the total child support obligation of both

parents. This total obligation approximates the cost of supporting the

same children if the marriage had remained intact.

6. Computation of Child Support.—After the total child support
obhgation is determined, it is apportioned between the parents. First,

the weekly available income of each parent is divided by the total available

income to determine each parent's share of weekly income. The child

support obligation of each parent is the same percentage share of the

total child support obligation. The noncustodial parent is ordered to

pay his or her proportionate share of support to the custodial parent.

Support orders are not entered against custodial parents because they

are presumed to meet their obligations by direct expenditures on behalf

of their children. ^^

C. Modification

To modify a child support order, Indiana requires a showing of a
substantial and continuing change in circumstances that makes the present

order unreasonable.^^ The Guidelines suggest that if the new total support
obligation is significantly higher than the present obligation, a new order
may be warranted. The increase may result from a change in the income
of either parent or from changes in the child-rearing expenses which are

covered specifically in the Guidelines. If the new support obligation is
significantly higher than the prior obligation and requires a drastic

reduction in the obligor's standard of living, the additional support

86. Id.

87. Id.

88. Id. at 19.

89. IND. Code § 31-1-11.5-17 (1988).



224 INDIANA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 22:203

required under the Guidelines should be phased in.^^ This approach

would allow the obHgor time to make adjustments in his or her standard
of Hving. It was not the drafters' intent to drive obligors into noncom-

pliance by reducing their spendable income below subsistence level.

D. Additional Considerations

1. Shared or Joint Custody.—The Indiana Guidelines do not confront
the problem of establishing a support order in situations of shared or

joint custody. This type of determination is left to the sound discretion

of the trial court on a case-by-case basis because of the infinite variations

in the amount of time a child may spend in the custody of each parent
and other considerations such as the cost of travel between parents.^'

2. Split Custody.—In those situations where each parent has physical
custody of one or more children, support could be computed under the

Guidelines in the following manner. First, the support which the husband

would pay the wife for the children in her custody should be computed

as if they were the only children of the marriage. The support which

the wife would pay to the husband for the children in his custody then

should be computed as if they were the only children of the marriage.

The lesser amount should be subtracted from the greater amount, and

the spouse who owes the greater amount of support will pay the dif-
ference. This method of computation takes into account the fact that

the first child in each home is always the most expensive to support. ^^

3. Abatement of Support During Extended Visitation.—Many of the
same problems encountered in establishing support in shared and joint

custody arrangements exist in determining whether, or how much, to
abate support during periods of extended visitation. Factors which should

be considered include travel costs, length of stay, savings to the custodial

parent, the respective incomes of the parents, and ongoing expenses of

the custodial parent while the children are with the noncustodial parent. ^^

If the support obligation of the noncustodial parent is minimal, the

custodial parent may not be able to meet the ongoing expenses arising
from custody of the children if support is abated completely during

extended visits. Total abatement of support rarely would be equitable

to the custodial parent. Nonetheless, if a complete abatement of support

is ordered during visitation, the court should consider increasing the

support obligation slightly above the recommended amount during the
remainder of the year so that the average support over the entire year

90. Child Support Guidelines, supra note 3, at 20.

91. Id. at 21. See also Ind. Code § 31-1-11.5-21(0 and (g) (1988).
92. Child Support Guidelines, supra note 3, at 21.

93. Id.



1988] CHILD SUPPORT GUIDELINES 225

allows the custodial parent to meet the fixed expenses of the children. ^"^

4. Blended-Rate Schedules for Weekly Support Payments.—The rates
of support shown in the Guideline schedules for weekly support payments

do not relate directly to the age of the child. Other jurisdictions have

adopted schedules based either on the ages of all the children in the

family, or on the age of the oldest child.^^ Typically, the age groupings

are birth to six years of age, six to twelve years, and twelve years and

over. Indiana's Judicial Reform Committee reviewed extensive economic

data and concluded that the most significant change in the cost of child-

rearing comes when a child enters school. The Committee therefore

adopted a schedule that was not based on age, but which allows for

the increased ordinary expenses of school-age children, ^^ A blended rate
was devised which averages the different ordinary expenditures incurred

from birth to the age of eighteen. This blended rate may result in a
slight bonus to custodial parents with children under the age of six, but

this advantage was deemed preferable to the complex problems in applying

age-based rates. ^^ It can be said, therefore, that children's ages are taken

into consideration in the Guidelines, even though the support computation

does not specifically account for age.

5. Tax Consequences.—It is not necessary to compute or to be
concerned with tax consequences when using the Guidelines because these
considerations were factored into the rates in the Guideline schedule for

weekly support payments. Future changes in the tax laws should be

monitored for impact on the Guidehnes, and rates will have to be

adjusted accordingly.

6. Gradual Implementation.—Some courts may prefer to implement
orders made under the new Guidelines gradually, especially when the
support computed under the Guidelines is considerably higher than the

amount that was being paid, or was anticipated, under the former system
for establishing support in a particular jurisdiction.

IV. Conclusion

The adoption of the Child Support Guidelines could be one of the

most significant developments in Indiana law for women and children.
Basing support on the actual cost of raising children will improve the

economic status of children of a dissolved marriage. The recognition by
lawyers and judges that families with greater incomes spend more on
their children also will enhance the standard of living for all socio-

94. Id.

95. Id. at 22.

96. Id.

97. Id.



226 INDIANA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 22:203

economic groups involved in the dissolution of marriage and the estab-

lishment of child support.

The "income shares model" approach adopted by Indiana provides

a fair and reasonable approach to providing support for children by

both parents. In the past, Indiana law has provided a subjective "need-

based" test for establishing child support. The removal of this subjective

test enhances fairness and equitable treatment of litigants in determining

child support obligations.

Courts previously have not had a system or method for dealing with

extraordinary medical and educational expenses. The new Guidelines

spread these unusual costs between the parents, based upon the parties'

abilities to pay. The guideline method of establishing child support is

a more predictable means of determining the funds available for the

support of children, the types of income, and the extraordinary needs

of children, so that even though the mother and father may be divorcing,
the children of our society will not suffer.



1988] CHILD SUPPORT GUIDELINES 227

APPENDIX

IN RE:

FATHER

MOTHER

WORKSHEET - CHILD SUPPORT OBLIGATION

Children DOB Children DOB

1. WEEKLY GROSS INCOME
FATHER MOTHER COMBINED

A. Minus Child Support — Court Order

B. Minus Child Support — Legal Duty

C. Minus Health Ins. Prem. for Child Only

D. Minus Maintenance Paid

2. WEEKLY AVAILABLE INCOME

3. PERCENTAGE SHARE OF INCOME

(Line 2, Each Parent's Weekly Available Income divided

by Combined Weekly Available Income)

% %

4. BASIC CHILD SUPPORT OBLIGATION

(Apply Line 2 to Child Support Schedule)

A. Plus Work-Related Child Care Costs +

B. Plus Extraordinary Healthcare Expenses

(Uninsured only) +

C. Plus Extraordinary Education Expense

(Agreed or ordered by Court) +

5. TOTAL CHILD SUPPORT OBLIGATION

(Add Line 4, plus 4 A, B, and C)

6. EACH PARENT'S CHILD SUPPORT OBLIGATION

(Multiply Line 3 times Line 5 for each parent)

(State exceptions and attach supporting documents to reverse

of page)

7. ENTER RECOMMENDED CHILD SUPPORT ORDER

Comments, calculations, or rebuttals to schedule:

PREPARED BY: DATE: