OCR Text |
Show Legal Lines ' : ( f : k " f , i, ,... . i -4&mnmnm . j .. "J i 4 fx. ,' ; - ' "j " "" "' ' "H.. . , -: il 'I it'l uphill i Mi i(f .AA.A.v. A.-.M 0 Improvements seen in child care support Editor's Note: Legal Lines author Tamara J. Hauge is a practicing attorney with the legal firm Dan Adamson and Associates. She specializes in domestic law, as well as general practice. Tamara is featured regularly on the KALL radio program "Legal Eagles," and is counsel for several parental right groups in the Salt Lake Valley. She can be reached at her firm, 5250 S. 300 W., Suite 255, Salt Lake City, Utah 84107, or by telephoning 262-5885. Her column is a regular feature of the Davis County Clipper. The new proposed Uniform Child Support Schedule is available for public perusal, and public hearings are scheduled in the next two months to allow for comment on the proposed schedule. The new schedule has been designed to raise child support by about 20 percent over what the old schedule recommended, but it will probably only affect a minority of parents now paying child support. If the new chart is implemented, no one's child support will be automatically increased. It is up to the custodial parent to bring the noncustodial parent back to court and prove a "substantial change of circumstances" before ajudge will change the level of support. Therefore, the chart will primarily affect parents now contemplating con-templating divorce, or now contemplating a modification of an existing divorce decree. Parents in that group would do well to examine the new Child Support Schedule and express their opinions at the public hearings. The new chart has this to recommend it: it takes into consideration consider-ation the income of the custodial parent, something the old Uniform Child Support Schedule did not do. One attorney I know represented a woman who had not worked during the 20-year marriage, and whose husband made $36,000 a year. Just ahead of this woman's case on the calendar was a case in which the woman made $36,000 a year and the husband made $36,000 a year. Both of the cases were heard, and both women received exactly the same amount of child support. Obviously this is unfair, but who is the victim of the inequity? The new chart gets around this dilemma by combining the gross monthly income of both mother and father and then suggesting an amount of child support per child per month. This is best illustrated by giving an example: Ms. Mother makes a gross monthly income of $1400 per month. Mr. Father makes $2,000 per month. Their combined incomes are $3,400 per month. The new Uniform Child Support Schedule suggests an amount of $247 per child for children between the ages of 0-6. This couple has two children in that age group so the total figure is $594. The new schedule also figures in the cost of child care. This couple pays $200 a month for child care. Therefore the grand total is $794. Before anyone experiences a dizzy spell, from seeing this figure, let me assure you that this is not the amount that the noncustodial parent will pay! The chart provides for one final step which is to figure what percent of the combined gross monthly, income each parent contributes. That sounds complicated, compli-cated, but it's really not difficult. Out of a combined gross monthly income of $3,400, Ms. Mother contributes 42 percent. Mr. Father contributes 58 percent. If Mr. Father were the custodial parent, he would receive 42 percent of $794. Does this seem better or worse than the old uniform child support chart which would have provided for child support in the amount of $23 from Ms. Mother or $348 from Mr. Father? This is a debate about fairness that will probablv never be resolved. In the meantime, public hearings are being held to discuss the proposed Uniform Child Support schedule. If you have an opinion, this is your last chance to put your comments on the record. |