report to the kansas supreme court from the - kscourts.org · report to the kansas supreme court...
TRANSCRIPT
Page 1 of 26
Report to the Kansas Supreme Court from the
Kansas Supreme Court Child Support Guidelines Advisory Committee
December 5, 2011
Introduction
The Code of Federal Regulations (45 C.F.R. § 302.56) requires the child support
guidelines of each state be reviewed at least once every four years to ensure the application of
the guidelines results in determinations of appropriate child support amounts. To meet this
requirement, the Kansas Supreme Court convenes the Kansas Child Support Guidelines
Advisory Committee every four years for the purpose of reviewing the existing guidelines and
suggesting changes to the Kansas Supreme Court. The last review of the guidelines concluded in
2007. Supreme Court Administrative Order No. 180, implementing the revised guidelines,
became effective January 1, 2008. The strikeout version of the recommended revised Kansas
Child Support Guidelines is attached as Appendix A.
45 C.F.R. § 302.56 states, in part:
(h) As part of the review of a State’s guidelines required under paragraph (e) of
this section, a State must consider economic data on the cost of raising children
and analyze case data, gathered through sampling or other methods, on the
application of, and deviations from the guidelines. The analysis of the data must
be used in the State’s review of the guidelines to ensure that deviations from the
guidelines are limited.
All members of the Kansas Child Support Guidelines are appointed by the Chief Justice
of the Kansas Supreme Court. Current members and their date of initial appointment are listed
below:
Table 1
Kansas Child Support Guidelines Advisory Committee
Advisory Committee Member Date of Initial Appointment
Hon. Thomas E. Foster May 24, 2001
John T. Bird April 7, 1989
Professor Linda Elrod April 7, 1989
Charles F. Harris April 7, 1989
Sherri Loveland April 7, 1989
Representative Thomas C. Owens April 7, 1989
Larry Rute April 7, 1989
Roy F. Brungardt July 6, 1993
Dave Gregory May 24, 2001
Page 2 of 26
Advisory Committee Member Date of Initial Appointment
Representative Lana Gordon December 27, 2006
Gary Pomeroy July 1, 2005
Sen. Tom Holland July 1, 2009
Hon. Constance Alvey July 1, 2009
Hon. Amy Harth July 1, 2009
Office of Judicial Administration Staff to the Committee
Mark Gleeson, Director of Trial Court Programs
Elizabeth Reimer, Attorney, Court Analyst
Economic Data and the Cost of Raising Children
Dr. Jodi Messer-Pelkowski, Professor of Economics at Wichita State University, served
as the economist during this review and is responsible for the current Kansas Child Support
schedules. Dr. Messer-Pelkowski worked with Dr. William Terrell during the 2004 and 2007
reviews of the Child Support Guidelines. Dr. Terrell, a retired professor from Wichita State
University, was the economist responsible for the economic analysis underlying the current child
support schedules.
The economic data supports an increase in the Kansas child support schedules based on
Consumer Expenditure Survey data for 2007-2008 published by the United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA). The USDA reports spending on children for the following major budget
items: housing, food, transportation, clothing, health care, child care, education, and
miscellaneous goods and services. Almost all income levels will see a slight modification in
their child support obligation. The average increase in the oldest age group ranges from 2% to
4% in most income groups and there is little variation in this regardless of the number of children
in the family. The percentage increase is greater for the younger two age categories (0 through 5
years of age and 6 through 11 years of age) based on data showing an increase in spending for
children in those age groups. These percentages range from 7% to 12% depending on the
income category and number of children in the home. Spreadsheets showing the percentage
change for one child through six children tables and for each income range up to $14,000
combined income per month are attached in Appendix B of this report.
Recognizing the impact families have experienced since the beginning of the recent
economic crisis, the committee carefully considered the evidence demonstrating the need to
increase the child support schedules. The committee paid particular attention to the increase for
the younger age groups and the opinion of the Economist that the increase was “indeed a
continuing trend and not an anomaly.”
Page 3 of 26
Two factors contributed to the committee’s unanimous support for adjusting the child
support schedules as recommended by the Economist: (1) public demands to make decisions
based on data; and (2) the likelihood that failing to make the adjustment now would result in a
much greater adjustment in the future.
The other visible, although less significant, change to the child support schedules is
increasing the highest combined monthly income reported in the tables to $15,500. This
expansion of the schedules beyond the current $14,600 is made possible because the economic
data on the higher income levels is now available. Practitioners requested this adjustment as they
are seeing more families with incomes about $14,600 per month and including the additional
income data on the schedules makes it easier to determine the correct child support obligation.
This should, however, be considered a technical change in the guidelines. The formulas for
computing the child support obligations beyond the top income on the schedule have always
been available at the bottom of each schedule.
A detailed analysis of the economic data from Dr. Messer-Pelkowski is included as
Appendix C of this report.
Application Of and Deviations From the Guidelines
The second requirement of 45 C.F.R. § 302.56 is to “…analyze case data, gathered
through sampling or other methods, on the application and deviations from the guidelines. The
analysis of the data must be used in the State’s review of the guidelines to ensure that deviations
from the guidelines are limited.”
Kansas allows judges to deviate from the basic child support obligation (Line D.9 of the
Child Support Worksheet) and apply one or more “adjustments” to increase or decrease one or
more parties’ child support obligation. Adjustments apply when requested by a party. All
requested adjustments are discretionary with the court. Six categories of adjustments are
available to the parties: (1) Long-Distance Parenting Time Costs; (2) Parenting Time
Adjustment; (3) Income Tax Considerations; (4) Special Needs; (5) Support of Children Beyond
the Age of Majority; and (6) Overall Financial Conditions of the Parties.
The Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services conducted a study of
adjustments on 64,500 Kansas orders with current support obligations, approximately half of all
child support orders in Kansas. All of the cases included in the study are classified as IV-D,
which means that all of the cases receive child support enforcement services through the Kansas
Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services (SRS) Child Support Enforcement (CSE)
Division. The CSE caseload includes families who have received public assistance and families
who do not receive public assistance. Some high income families receive CSE services.
Although the number of high income cases receiving CSE services is small, it is probable that
the number of high income cases throughout the state represents a small portion of total child
Page 4 of 26
support obligations. Therefore, the absence of these high income cases is not likely to diminish
the value of the findings in this study.
It is important to note that although this study was conducted pursuant to the Code of
Federal Regulations, there is no federal standard suggesting how many deviations, or
adjustments, are “too many.” The report prepared by SRS in September 2010, shows that of the
11,665 child support orders either established or modified in 2010, 21% contained a deviation.
The adjustment with the most frequent use was the Income Tax Adjustment (79.6% for payors
and 83.5% for payees). The least frequent adjustment was the Agreement to support the child
past the age of majority with no cases adjusted.
Another task was to determine the frequency of deviation from the guidelines. Only
3.8% of the 64,500 cases in the study were found to include an adjustment at some time during
the study period (June 1, 2009, through May 31, 2010). This demonstrates the limited use of the
adjustments in cases enforced by the Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services
IV-D permitted by the Kansas guidelines. It may, in fact, demonstrate adjustments are not used
in cases where an adjustment would be appropriate.
The memo submitted by SRS with the results of the study is attached as Appendix D.
Process for Reviewing the Kansas Child Support Guidelines
Committee Meeting Process
The committee met on an almost monthly basis beginning on May 2010. Meetings were
open to the public and notices of meetings were published in the Kansas Register. All meetings
were held in the Kansas Judicial Center, Topeka, Kansas, with the exception of the June 2011
meeting which was held in the Wyandotte County Courthouse. The minutes of the Kansas Child
Support Guidelines Advisory Committee are subject to the Kansas Open Records Act. Although
the meetings are not subject to the Kansas Open Meetings Act, all of the meetings were open to
the public and several measures were made to include the public in the meeting process.
Public Input Throughout the Process and on the Committee Recommendations
Public input on the recommended changes to the Kansas Child Support Guidelines was
accomplished through five methods. 1) In-person attendance at regular meetings; 2) attendance
at meetings in June, August, and October 2011 via internet based meeting and presentation
software; 3) internet access to recommendations and reports; 4) public access survey; and 5)
communication via e-mail and phone with OJA staff. Formal public hearings outside of the
regular meeting process were not held. Committee members were unanimous in their belief that
public hearings were not an effective method for obtaining input on their recommendations from
the public or the legal community. The Supreme Court considered this as well and approved the
Page 5 of 26
recommendation to forgo holding public hearings across the state. The committee considered
using video technology as a way to inform the public about their recommendations. The
committee recommendations, however, were developed too late to be incorporated into a video
format.
All meetings of the committee were announced through publication in the Kansas
Register. An e-mail distribution list of persons interested in information about the committee
process was maintained by OJA staff and persons on this list were notified regarding the
meetings. Committee meetings in June, August, and October 2011 were broadcast on the
internet and individuals who were able to join were able to participate directly through a
telephone conference call in June and through the “chat” function during the August and October
meetings. Although improvements need to be made in the audio quality for these broadcasts, use
of this technology appears to be a good alternative for those who are not able to attend in person.
All approved minutes of committee meetings and critical documents reviewed by the
committee were posted on the Kansas Judicial Branch website. In addition to the minutes of
each meeting, a strikeout version of the proposed Kansas Child Support Guidelines, the
Economist’s Report, a report on the proposed Revised Shared Expense Formula and the revised
Child Support Worksheet were all posted on the Judicial Branch website. Once the survey was
closed, the results of the survey, along with redacted comments, were also posted on the internet.
Child Support Surveys
Payors, payees, judges, and attorneys were surveyed, although payors and payees were
directed to one set of questions and judges and attorneys were directed to another. The survey
was created using Survey Monkey© software and sought feedback on the same issues from all
participants. The survey was open for over six weeks, closing on Monday, October 24, 2011.
The survey was completed by 468 people; 396 payors, payees, or others not working in the area
of child support along with 72 attorneys and judges. See Table 2 - Distribution of Respondents
Table 2
Distribution of Survey Respondents
Description Percentage Total
Child Support Payor 15.2% 71
Child Support Recipient 65.8% 308
Other - not working in child support 3.6% 17
District Judge 0.9% 4
Magistrate Judge 0.6% 3
Hearing Officer 0.0% 0
Attorney employed by SRS 1.7% 8
Attorney in private practice 9.2% 43
Page 6 of 26
Attorney working as Court Trustee 1.5% 7
Other - working professionally in the
area of child support
1.5% 7
Total 100% 468
Survey Distribution Method
The public was informed about the survey through a press release, by posting an
announcement on the Kansas Payment Center website, and through a flier provided to Chief
Judges and Clerks of the District Court. The public was also informed about the survey through
e-mail if they had previously requested notice regarding the survey, by going to the Kansas
Judicial Branch website or by viewing the Kansas Payment Center website. It is presumed that
both payors and recipients go to the Kansas Judicial Branch web site and to the Kansas Payment
Center web site to view payment status although the rate at which payors and recipients go to the
web site may be different.
Judges, court trustees, hearing officers, and attorneys were notified about the survey via
e-mail through the Office of Judicial Administration or the Kansas Bar Association. The Kansas
Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services notified their attorneys about the survey.
Limitations of the Survey
The primary limitation of the survey is the lack of random sampling which makes it
difficult to compare responses from various subgroups. The sampling problem can be easily
seen in the difference between the payors and payees. Payee responses are over four times the
number of payor responses. Unfortunately, this has been the response pattern for virtually every
review in which a general survey has been employed and is a direct result of the method of
notifying payors and payees.
The number of payors and recipients responding to the current survey (396) is slightly
less than the number of payors and recipients who participated in the 2008 review (418). This
reduction in the number of participants from the 2008 review may be due to changes in how both
payors and recipients were notified. It is notable that the while the total number of responses is
down only slightly, the number of payors who responded is down sharply. In 2008, payors
responded at a much higher rate (218) than recipients (149). During the current review, only 71
payors responded while 308 recipients responded to the survey.
During the 2004 and 2008 reviews, recipients were informed about the survey through a
short statement on the Child Support check they received in the mail. Virtually all recipients at
this time received their child support via check. Also, in 2004 and 2008, payors were invited to
Page 7 of 26
participate in the surveys through a random selection of 1,000 payors from the Kansas Payment
Center database. Postcards were distributed to these individuals with approximately half of the
postcards returned as “undeliverable” resulting in only a small percentage of the total payors
actually receiving a notice regarding the survey. Despite the far greater number of recipients
receiving notice, the distribution of payors and recipients who responded to the survey was
relatively even.
Another new factor to consider during this review has been the creation of social media.
There has, in fact, been a group with a Facebook page called “Ksparents4equality,” or Kansas
Parents for Fair Child Support and Mandated Equal Parenting Time. This group has provided
numerous comments on the committee membership, process, and recommendations. It is also
noteworthy that the introduction of social media did not generate more responses to the survey.
The Kansas Payment Center’s (KPC) Six Month Key Operating Statistics Disbursement
Report shows that for the most recent six months (June through November 2011) 70.1% of child
support recipients received child support payments through an electronic deposit to their
checking, savings, or debit card account. The KPC is actively encouraging more clients to opt in
to electronic payment and deposit. By the time child support is reviewed for 2016, it is expected
that virtually all child support will be paid and disbursed electronically. This will likely be an
advantage as the Kansas Payment Center will be capable of providing e-mail notification of the
survey to all payors and recipients resulting in a better balance in how the survey is distributed.
The Office of Judicial Administration contacted the Kansas Payment Center this year and
requested that all payors and recipients be notified of the survey via e-mail during this review.
This was, however, not possible. It is expected that for the 2016 review that all payors and
recipients will receive a notification of the survey via e-mail through the Kansas Payment
Center.
Overview of Public Surveys
Public surveys have been a very useful way to gauge input from payors and recipients. It
is important, however, to not compare the numeric responses of payors and recipients due to the
sampling method. To account for the sampling method, responses to each question are described
separately for each group.
The introduction of the survey included an instruction to not include information that
could be used to identify an individual. Despite this warning, some persons included such
information. All information that could be used to identify an individual has been redacted.
Redacted information typically includes names, addresses, phone numbers, e-mail addresses, and
the ages of children. References in some comments were redacted if that reference could be
paired with one or more other pieces of information to identify an individual or case. None of
the redacted information changed the meaning of the comment.
Page 8 of 26
Questions were typically in a Likert Scale format asking the respondent to indicate if they
strongly agree, agree, are neutral, disagree, or strongly disagree. The results are shown in tables
(see below) that report the number and percentage of each response. Using a Likert scale has
many advantages. Most importantly, a Likert scale produces a numbered value that is useful in
validating narrative comments, which cannot be quantified. Another significant advantage to
using a 5-point Likert scale is the ability to view the distribution of responses and to combine the
two response options at both ends of the scale (i.e. strongly disagree combined with disagree;
strongly agree combined with agree). Respondents were also given the opportunity to provide a
narrative comment on each of the eight principle recommendations. Examining the percentage
of participants who agreed or disagreed along with the average score (rating average) and the
narrative comments gives the results a high degree of reliability.
1. Imputed Income
2. Sharing Equal or Nearly Equal Time and Expenses
3. Removing the Equal Parenting Time Adjustment (80/20 rule)
4. Special Needs or Extraordinary Expenses
5. Change of Circumstance - Duty to Notify
6. Change of Circumstance - Termination of Employment for Incarceration
7. Updated Child Support Schedules
8. General Comments
For each recommendation, respondents were asked to indicate if the recommendation
applied to their child support order, and if the change would have a direct impact on their child
support order by selection one of three responses: Yes, No, or Uncertain. Additionally, they
were asked to indicate their level of agreement (Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neutral, Agree, or
Strongly Agree) with the statement: “I agree with the recommended change.” The complete
survey is provided in Appendix E. Appendix F reports survey responses from judges and
attorneys. Appendix G reports responses from payors and Appendix H reports responses from
recipients.
Survey Responses
The tables below contain the responses to each recommendation that can be reduced to a
percentage or a score. The narrative above Tables 3 – 9 was copied from the actual survey.
Participants were instructed to go to the actual strikeout version of the survey for a full
explanation of the recommended change. The intent was to provide as little explanation as
possible on the survey in order to minimize the risk of misinterpreting the committee’s
recommended revision.
Separate responses are provided for payors and recipients. It is important to remember
that comparing responses from payors and recipients must be done with consideration for the
sampling method. Although it is possible to compare the responses of payors to payees, any
Page 9 of 26
comparison between the two groups must take into account the absence of a valid sampling
method.
The “rating average” in the second table with the statement, “I agree with the
recommended change,” is an average score for all responses to that question. A “0” would
represent all respondents strongly disagree with the statement. A “5” would indicate all
respondents strongly agreed with the statement and a “3” would suggest the average of all
responses is neutral.
The Response Count is the number of persons responding to each particular question. It
was permissible to skip a question.
The following tables reflect the question as it was presented on the survey, and the
responses to each item on the survey. The references to section or appendix correspond to the
Section or Appendix of the Child Support Guidelines
Page 10 of 26
Table 3
Section II.F Imputed Income
“Income may be imputed to either parent in appropriate circumstances, including when a
parent is deliberately unemployed or underemployed. The recommended change clarifies the
definition to include situations when a parent is incarcerated or terminated from employment for
misconduct.”
Child Support Payors
Question Yes No Uncertain Response
Count
This section applies to my child support order. 31.6%
(18)
52.6%
(30)
15.8%
(9)
57
The recommended change could have a direct
impact on my child support order.
42.0%
(21)
38.0%
(19)
20.0%
(10)
50
Question Strongly
Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree
Strongly
Agree
Rating
Average
Response
Count
I agree with the
recommended change.
27.3%
(15)
7.3%
(4)
32.7%
(18)
16.4%
(9)
16.4%
(9)
2.87 55
Child Support Recipients
Question Yes No Uncertain Response
Count
This section applies to my child support order. 48.4%
(118)
27.0%
(66)
24.6%
(60)
244
The recommended change could have a direct impact
on my child support order.
51.9%
(123)
21.5%
(51)
26.6%
(63)
237
Question Strongly
Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree
Strongly
Agree
Rating
Average
Response
Count
I agree with the
recommended change.
6.1%
(15)
5.3%
(13)
25.7%
(63)
33.5%
(82)
29.4%
(72)
3.75 245
Page 11 of 26
Table 4
Section III.B.7 Sharing Equal or Nearly Equal Time and Expenses
“These changes recognize the benefits and challenges for parents who choose to share
time and/or expenses. The first recommendation is to eliminate the Equal Parenting Time
Adjustment, also known as the 80/20 rule. Eliminating the Parenting Time Adjustment removes
a formula that has, in some circumstances, provided a significant advantage to one parent over
the other.
The second recommendation is to create an alternative for parents who share time on an
equal or nearly equal basis, but for whom sitting down together to exchange receipts on a regular
basis is not a viable option. The new Equal Parenting Time Formula eliminates the requirement
for parents to keep receipts, agree on expenses (for instance, type and style of clothing), and
write checks to one another on a regular basis.
The Equal Parenting Time Formula is a three-step process that uses half of the difference
between the payor’s and payee’s child support obligation, applies a percentage (13%, 15%, or
18%) based on the parties’ total combined monthly income of the parties to the difference, and
adds the result back to the basic obligation. Although it sounds complicated, the formula is
relatively simple when used with the Child Support Worksheet.”
Child Support Payors
Question Yes No Uncertain Response
Count
This section applies to my child support order 52.8%
(28)
39.6%
(21)
7.5%
(4)
53
The recommended change could have a direct impact
on my child support order.
58.0%
(29)
30.0%
(19)
12.0%
(6)
50
Question Strongly
Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree
Strongly
Agree
Rating
Average
Response
Count
I agree with the
recommended change.
9.6%
(5)
7.7%
(4)
28.8%
(15)
26.9%
(14)
26.9%
(14)
3.54 52
Page 12 of 26
Table 4 (continued)
Child Support Recipients
Question Yes No Uncertain Response
Count
This section applies to my child support order. 22.5%
(52)
61.5%
(142)
16.0%
(37)
231
The recommended change could have a direct impact
on my child support order.
21.6%
(48)
56.8%
(126)
21.6%
(48)
222
Question Strongly
Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree
Strongly
Agree
Rating
Average
Response
Count
I agree with the
recommended change.
9.3%
(21)
11.0%
(25)
50.2%
(114)
18.9%
(43)
10.6%
(24)
3.11 227
Table 5
Section IV.2.c Removing the Equal Parenting Adjustment (80/20 Rule)
“Removing this section acknowledges that the Equal Parenting Time Adjustment (the
80/20 Rule), although well intended, resulted in unexpected consequences.”
Child Support Payors
Question Yes No Uncertain Response
Count
This section applies to my child support order. 50.0%
(27)
38.9%
(21)
11.1%
(6)
54
The recommended change could have a direct impact
on my child support order.
52.0%
(26)
34.0%
(17)
14.0%
(7)
50
Question Strongly
Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree
Strongly
Agree
Rating
Average
Response
Count
I agree with the
recommended change.
6.0%
(3)
4.0%
(2)
42.0%
(21)
14.0%
(7)
34.0%
(17)
3.66 50
Page 13 of 26
Table 5 (continued)
Child Support Recipients
Question Yes No Uncertain Response
Count
This section applies to my child support order. 19.4%
(42)
57.6%
(125)
23.0%
(50)
217
The recommended change could have a direct impact
on my child support order.
18.3%
(39)
55.9%
(119)
25.8%
(55)
213
Question Strongly
Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree
Strongly
Agree
Rating
Average
Response
Count
I agree with the
recommended change.
7.0%
(15)
8.9%
(19)
61.0%
(130)
16.0%
(34)
7.0%
(15)
3.07 213
Table 6
Section IV.E.4 Special Needs or Extraordinary Expenses
“The special needs section has not changed. Extraordinary expenses have been added to
this section. Examples of extraordinary expenses cited in the Guidelines are the cost of private
school, Premier sports, and instruction or performance-related expenses in the arts, which are not
considered elsewhere in the support order or in computations of the worksheet.”
Child Support Payors
Question Yes No Uncertain Response
Count
This section applies to my child support order. 41.5%
(22)
43.4%
(23)
15.1%
(8)
53
The recommended change could have a direct impact
on my child support order.
50.0%
(24)
35.4%
(17)
14.6%
(7)
48
Question Strongly
Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree
Strongly
Agree
Rating
Average
Response
Count
I agree with the
recommended change.
51.0%
(25)
4.1%
(2)
34.7%
(17)
6.1%
(3)
4.1%
(2)
2.08 49
Page 14 of 26
Table 6 (continued)
Child Support Recipients
Question Yes No Uncertain Response
Count
This section applies to my child support order. 38.8%
(83)
48.1%
(103)
13.1%
(28)
214
The recommended change could have a direct impact
on my child support order.
41.3%
(88)
42.3%
(90)
16.4%
(35)
213
Question Strongly
Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree
Strongly
Agree
Rating
Average
Response
Count
I agree with the
recommended change.
3.3%
(7)
3.3%
(7)
36.5%
(77)
27.0%
(57)
29.9%
(63)
3.77 211
Table 7
Section V. Change of Circumstances – Duty to Notify
“The recommendation is to give the judge the direction and authority to impose sanctions
on a party who fails to disclose a material change of circumstances.”
Child Support Payors
Question Yes No Uncertain Response
Count
This section applies to my child support order. 54.9%
(28)
21.6%
(11)
23.5%
(12)
51
The recommended change could have a direct impact
on my child support order.
53.1%
(26)
18.4%
(9)
28.6%
(14)
49
Question Strongly
Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree
Strongly
Agree
Rating
Average
Response
Count
I agree with the
recommended change.
35.3%
(18)
3.9%
(2)
23.5%
(12)
15.7%
(8)
21.6%
(11)
2.84 51
Page 15 of 26
Table 7 (continued)
Child Support Recipients
Question Yes No Uncertain Response
Count
This section applies to my child support order. 59.1%
(123)
22.1%
(46)
18.8%
(39)
208
The recommended change could have a direct impact
on my child support order.
57.1%
(120)
21.4%
(45)
21.4%
(45)
210
Question Strongly
Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree
Strongly
Agree
Rating
Average
Response
Count
I agree with the
recommended change.
2.9%
(6)
1.9%
(4)
18.8%
(39)
34.1%
(71)
42.3%
(88)
4.11 208
Table 8
Section V. Change of Circumstances – Termination of Employment for Incarceration
“The recommendation is to clarify that termination from employment for incarceration
shall not constitute a material change of circumstance, and; that termination from employment
for misconduct will not ordinarily constitute a material change of circumstance.”
Child Support Payors
Question Yes No Uncertain Response
Count
This section applies to my child support order. 38.8%
(19)
38.8%
(19)
22.4%
(11)
49
The recommended change could have a direct impact
on my child support order.
41.3%
(19)
32.6%
(15)
26.1%
(12)
46
Question Strongly
Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree
Strongly
Agree
Rating
Average
Response
Count
I agree with the
recommended change.
35.6%
(16)
8.9%
(4)
28.9%
(13)
20.0%
(9)
6.7%
(3)
2.53 45
Page 16 of 26
Table 8 (continued)
Child Support Recipients
Question Yes No Uncertain Response
Count
This section applies to my child support order. 40.2%
(84)
40.7%
(85)
19.1%
(40)
209
The recommended change could have a direct impact
on my child support order.
42.4%
(89)
34.3%
(72)
23.3%
(49)
210
Question Strongly
Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree
Strongly
Agree
Rating
Average
Response
Count
I agree with the
recommended change.
3.9%
(8)
4.9%
(10)
26.3%
(54)
27.8%
(57)
37.1%
(76)
3.89 205
Table 9
Appendix II Updated Child Support Schedules
“The child support schedules have been updated to reflect the increased amount parents
are spending on children. This is generally an increase of between 2% and 4% across income
categories. The top income amount in the tables has been raised to $15,500 per month so that
high-income earners do not have to compute the child support obligation through the formula.
Finally, the percentage adjustment for the two younger age groups (0 - 5 years of age and 6 - 11
years of age) has increased to reflect the increase in spending on younger children compared to
spending on children four years ago.”
Child Support Payors
Question Yes No Uncertain Response
Count
This section applies to my child support order. 68.8%
(33)
18.8%
(9)
12.5%
(6)
48
The recommended change could have a direct impact
on my child support order.
70.8%
(34)
16.7%
(8)
12.5%
(6)
48
Question Strongly
Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree
Strongly
Agree
Rating
Average
Response
Count
I agree with the
recommended change.
45.8%
(22)
16.7%
(8)
25.0%
(12)
4.2%
(2)
8.3%
(4)
2.13 48
Page 17 of 26
Table 9 (continued)
Child Support Recipients
Question Yes No Uncertain Response
Count
This section applies to my child support order. 69.6%
(144)
20.3%
(42)
10.1%
(21)
207
The recommended change could have a direct impact
on my child support order.
69.4%
(143)
18.4%
(38)
12.1%
(25)
206
Question Strongly
Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree
Strongly
Agree
Rating
Average
Response
Count
I agree with the
recommended change.
5.3%
(11)
1.0%
(2)
17.4%
(36)
29.5%
(61)
46.9%
(97)
4.12 207
Judge and Attorney Responses to the Child Support Survey
Judges and attorneys were directed to a different section of the survey that asked them to
indicate their level agreement or disagreement to the committee proposals on the following
items. All respondents were directed to the Child Support Guidelines proposed
recommendations on the Kansas Judicial Branch web site.
As with the public survey, this was a Likert Scale question matrix with 1 indicating the
respondent strongly disagreed with the proposed recommendation to 5 indicating the respondent
strongly agreed with the recommendation. The average rating reports the average score for each
item and the response count reports the number of responses on which the average score is
based. All rating average scores were between neutral (3.0) and Agree (4.0). The strongest
support was for the Section V, Change of Circumstance proposals at 3.65 and 3.67. The lowest
support was for the Section III.B.7 Sharing Equal or Nearly Equal Time and Expenses.
Appendix E shows the comments from all judges and attorneys. Their comments are
very useful in understanding the agreement or disagreement with the committee’s
recommendations.
Page 18 of 26
Judges and Attorneys Survey Response
Table 10
Question Strongly
Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree
Strongly
Agree
Rating
Average
Response
Count
Section II.F Imputed
Income
13.5%
(5)
13.5%
(5)
16.2%
(6)
27.0%
(10)
29.7%
(11)
3.48 37
Section III.B.7 Sharing
Equal or Nearly Equal Time
and Expenses
11.1%
(4)
25.0%
(9)
8.3%
(3)
52.8%
(19)
2.8%
(1)
3.11 36
Section IV.2.c Removing
the Equal Parenting Time
Adjustment (80/20 Rule)
19.4%
(7)
11.1%
(4)
19.4%
(7)
36.1%
(13)
13.9%
(5)
3.14 36
Section IV.E.4 Special
Needs and Extraordinary
Expenses
16.2%
(6)
16.2%
(6)
18.9%
(7)
29.7%
(11)
18.9%
(7)
3.19 37
Section V Change of
Circumstances – Duty to
Notify
11.1%
(4)
8.3%
(3)
8.3%
(3)
47.2%
(17)
25.0%
(9)
3.67 36
Section V change of
Circumstances –
Termination of Employment
for Incarceration or
Misconduct
13.5%
(5)
10.8%
(4)
8.1%
(3)
32.4%
(12)
35.1%
(13)
3.65 37
Appendix II Updated Child
Support Schedules
13.5%
(5)
2.7%
(1)
40.5%
(15)
24.3%
(9)
18.9%
(7)
3.32 37
Recommendations
The following recommendations and the rationale for each recommendation are discussed
below. Recommendations of a technical nature are not included if the change does not impact
the substance of the Kansas Child Support Guidelines. A strikeout version of the recommended
revised Kansas Child Support Guidelines is found in Appendix H.
Section II.F. Imputed Income
The recommendation is to amend the definition of Imputed Income in Section II.F1.a in
order to clarify that incarceration does not constitute substantial justification. In other words, the
judge would be able to base child support as if the inmate was earning a federal minimum wage
working 40 hours per week.
Page 19 of 26
The recommendation is to add a new definition under Imputed Income in Section II.F.1.c
to give judges guidance on imputing income when a parent is terminated from employment for
misconduct. If a parent is terminated from employment for misconduct, the judge may input
their previous wage, but the imputed shall not be less than federal minimum wage.
Section III.B.7 Shared Expense Formula and the Equal Parenting Time Formula
The current Shared Expense Formula is described as an alternative method of paying
expenses and requires parents to communicate and cooperate regularly. The Shared Expense
Formula requires the existence of six conditions among which are (1) Parents have equal or
nearly equal parenting time, and (2) they have a detailed written agreement to share the direct
expenses for the child. The committee heard many examples of parents who met the conditions
for sharing expenses and time, but who were not able to cooperate or communicate in a manner
required to qualify for or sustain their qualification for the Shared Expense Formula.
The recommendation is to change the name of this section to “Sharing Equal or Nearly
Equal Time and Expenses,” and to add a new formula to be applied when parents share time and
expenses equally or nearly equally, but who do not agree on the detailed written agreement to
share the direct expenses for the child. Recommended amendments to this section are
conditional on removing the Equal Parenting Time Adjustment (80/20 Rule) currently found in
Section IV.E.2.c. This new formula would be used if the judge finds that (1) a shared residential
custody arrangement is in the best interest of the child, (2) the parents share the child’s time
equally or nearly equally, and (3) the parties do not agree to use the Shared Expense Formula or
that applying the Shared Expense Formula would not be in the best interests of the child.
Further, the committee heard that expecting the child to shuttle clothing between
households created substantial conflicts and often results in one parent being primarily
responsible for purchasing clothing for the child. To account for this, the committee
recommends an additional reduction in the child support obligation if the parents agree to
maintain clothing for the child at each household.
The new formula adds a percentage of the parents’ total combined gross income to the
difference in the parents’ adjusted subtotal (Line F.3 on the Child Support Worksheet). The
percentage adjustment is 13% if the total combined income is less than $4,690; 15% if the total
combined income is between $4,690 and $8,125, and 18% if the total combined monthly income
is greater than $8,125.
This new formula was created by Dr. Messer-Pelkowski. In her note to the committee
regarding the new formula she states:
“The party receiving the revised shared accommodation is to provide funds for all
school expenses, including school lunches, public school enrollment fees/tuition,
Page 20 of 26
field trips, books and supplies, and all extracurricular activity expenses, including
all school activity clothing and equipment. In addition, the receiving party is
expected to pay for uniforms, equipment and fees for extracurricular activities
outside of school, including but not limited to, Boy Scouts/Girl Scouts, musical
lessons, dance lessons, club ball, recreation center fees, etc.
The receiving party shall be responsible for the cost of the children’s clothing,
haircuts, makeup, and personal items. It is expected that clothing and items
provided to each household by the receiving party be of similar quality. The
distribution of new items should be shared equally across households. Clothing
expenses consist of children’s apparel such as diapers, shirts, pants, dresses and
suits, footwear, and clothing services such as dry cleaning, alterations, and
repair.
The data and estimation method used to base the child support obligations do not
provide for the distinction of expenditures on specific items. The estimate of
expenditures on direct expenses of education expenses, clothing expenses, and
miscellaneous expenses, derive from the work of Mark Lino, Ph.D., in the Center
for Nutrition Policy and Promotion, U.S. Department of Agriculture. The advisory
commission examined his estimated expenditures on children by categories of
household expenditures for years 2005 through 2009. Upon inspection of the data
in Lino’s report, the percentages for these three expenses (education, clothing,
and miscellaneous) that are typically addressed in the shared parenting plans are
estimated as being approximately 26% of the obligation for households with total
combined monthly income of less than $4,690); 30% with total combined monthly
income between $4,690 and $8,125); 36% with total combined monthly income
greater than $8,125. For shared residency, these expenditures have historically
been shared. Therefore, the accommodation is for half of these expenditures:
13%, 15%, 18%.”
If the parents agree to maintain clothing for the child at each household, the percentages
would be reduced to 11%, 13%, and 16% of the total combined monthly income at the respective
income levels. An example of the new formula is found in new Appendix XI. In the same report
to the committee, Dr. Pelkowski wrote the following explanation regarding the 2% reduction
regarding the parties providing their own clothing for the child at each household:
“If the parties agree, it is in the best interest to provide their own clothing at each
household, the percentage shall be reduced by 2%, i.e,. 11% total combined
monthly income of less than $4,690; 13% total combined monthly income between
$4,690 and $8,125; 16% total combined monthly income greater than $8,125.
The parties shall permit clothing to pass between households on a reasonable
basis. Shoes and coats shared across household will still be provided by the
receiving party.”
Page 21 of 26
The committee adopted the recommendation for the Equal Parenting Time Formula
including the 2% reduction of the parents who provide the child’s clothing at each household.
The obligation to commit to provide clothing a their own home must be included in the direct
expense sharing plan. Table 11 below shows the difference in the percentage adjustment in the
two Equal Parenting Time Formulas at the three income levels.
Table 11
Comparison of Equal Parenting Time Options
Equal Parenting
Time Options
Percentage
Adjustment from
Line D.3 if combined
Gross Income (Line
D.2 is less than
$4,690)
Percentage
Adjustment from
Line D.3 if combined
Gross Income (Line
D.2 is between
$4,690 and $8,125)
Percentage
Adjustment from
Line D.3 if combined
Gross Income (Line
D.2 is greater than
$8,125)
Parent receiving
support is
responsible for all
direct expenses
13%
15%
18%
The direct sharing
plan directs each
parent to provide
clothing for the child
in their own homes.
11%
13%
16%
Table 12 below shows the differences in the child support obligation for the recipient and
the payor. Figures are taken from the examples provided in the Appendix VII worksheet and the
Appendix XI Shared Expense Formula Example. In all of these examples, the mother (recipient)
has domestic gross income of $893 per month and father (payor) has domestic gross income of
$1,766 per month. Assuming the proposed child support schedules are adopted, the total
combined child support would be $670. Based on their percentage of total domestic gross
income, mother 33.5% and father 66.5%, and factoring in health insurance premiums and work
related child care costs, mother would provide $192 in support and father would provide $478
without further adjustment. This would result in father paying mother $286 each month ($478 -
$192).
Page 22 of 26
Table 12
Comparing Shared Expense formula, the Equal Parenting Time Formula and
The Equal Parenting Time Formula with Clothing Modification
Title Unique Characteristic Recipient Payor
Basic Child Support,
Adjusted Subtotal from
Line F.3
No adjustments. Parents
do not share equal time
or expenses.
$192
$478
Amount from payor = $286
Shared Expense Formula Parents have written
agreement to share time
and expenses and divide
direct expenses on a
regular basis.
$192
(($478-$192) *.5) = $143
Amount from payor = $143
Equal Parenting Time
Formula
Parents share equal time
and parent receiving
support is responsible
for all direct expenses.
$192
1. (($478 - $192) *.5) =
$143
2. $670 * .13 = $87
3. $143 + $87 = $230
Amount from payor = $230
Equal Parenting Time
Formula – Modified for
Clothing
Parents share equal time
and parent receiving
support is responsible
for all direct expenses
except the child has
comparable clothing at
both homes.
$192
1. (($478 -$ 192) *.5) =
$143
2. $670 * .11 = $78
3. $143 + $78 = $221
Amount from payor = $221
Feedback on this issue indicates general support from payors and slightly less support
from recipients. Payors indicated the recommendation is in the right direction, but suggested it
did not go far enough. Judges and attorneys expressed concern that the recommendation further
complicates an already complicated section of the Child Support Guidelines. Appendix XI in the
recommended revised Kansas Child Support Guidelines shows an example for applying the new
formula. Although the formula is not particularly intuitive, the families to whom this formula
would apply are already living in difficult and complex circumstances. Despite the complexity
of the recommendation, the benefit of having a formula supported by economic data may
outweigh the difficulty of getting a correct amount from a multiple-step formula.
Page 23 of 26
Section IV.E.2.c Equal Parenting Time Adjustment
The recommendation is to eliminate the Equal Parenting Time Adjustment. Although the
new Equal Parenting Time Formula is intended to replace the Equal Parenting Time Adjustment,
eliminating the Equal Parenting Time Adjustment is not contingent on accepting the Equal
Parenting Time Formula discussed above. The Equal Parenting Time Adjustment was created in
2004 in an effort to provide parents not having primary residency, but providing equal parenting
time and paying the child’s direct expenses, a 20% reduction on the basic child support.
Although this seemed to be a logical extension of the Time Formula Adjustment in the prior
section (Section IV.E.2.b), which provides adjustments of 5%, 10%, and 15%, for parenting time
between 35% and 49%, the adjustment was flawed in two respects. First, it was not based on
economic data, and second the creation of the Shared Expense Formula in 2008 created an
incentive for litigation as the two formulas often delivered two widely different results from the
same circumstance. While the Child Support Guidelines serve to reduce litigation when they are
adaptable to different circumstances, they do the opposite when two formulas serve one
circumstance, yet produce a highly beneficial result to one party, to the detriment to the other.
This was the result of having both the Shared Expense Formula and the Equal Parenting
Time Adjustment. For this reason, the recommendation is to eliminate the Equal Parenting Time
Adjustment, amend the Shared Expense Formula, and rename the section as the “Sharing Equal
or Nearly Equal Time and Expenses,” and add the new Equal Parenting Time Formula.
Section IV.E.3 and Appendix V Income Tax Considerations and Appendix
The recommendation is to update the Income Tax Tables, instructions and examples.
This section retains the instruction that parents regarding the custodial parent’s decision to
alternate or not alternate the income tax exemption by executing IRS Form 8332. References to
the term “sharing” the exemption have been removed to be consistent with the federal tax code.
Section IV.E.4 Special Needs
The recommendation is to retain the language pertaining to Special Needs, and to add
instructions on handling “extraordinary expenses.” Extraordinary expenses are defined as “items
which exceed the usual and ordinary expenses normally incurred, included but not limited to, the
cost of private school, premier sports, instruction or performance related expenses in the arts,
which are not considered elsewhere in the support order or in computations of the worksheet.”
The court shall have discretion to award extraordinary expenses, so long as they are reasonable.
This section was considered by the committee during the 2008 review, and was a difficult
section to craft. It has as many admirers as it has detractors. While there is little disagreement
that the expenses for extracurricular activities for some children are truly extraordinary, coming
up with a clear and certain definition was, by the committee’s own admission, a significant
Page 24 of 26
challenge. It should be noted that the expenses referenced in the definition are those expenses of
the child and not expenses of the parents in support of the child. Examples of expenses of the
parents include: tithing to a religious institution as a requirement for enrollment and meals
consumed by parents when traveling to sporting events.
Section V Change of Circumstance
The recommendation is to renumber the subsections and identify them as follows: 10%
Rule; Duty to Notify; Age Change; Court Ordered Emancipation, Incarceration or Termination
from Employment; and Failure to Comply. The 10% Rule, Age Change, and Failure to Comply
are reflected in the current guidelines and the only change is to identify those as separate
subsections. The Duty to Notify, Court Ordered Emancipation, and the Incarceration or
Termination from Employment are new recommendations.
Recommended Section V.2., Duty to Notify, addresses a parent’s failure to disclose a
material change of circumstance, and gives the judge the authority to determine the value of a
party’s failure to disclose and to impose penalties in the form of a credit, along with other
sanctions.
Recommended Section V.4., Court Ordered Emancipation, or as provided by Kansas
Statute, simply defines those conditions as a change of circumstance.
Recommended Section V.5., Incarceration or Termination from Employment would give
the court separate instructions for termination from employment, due to the incarceration of a
parent and termination from employment for misconduct. Termination from Employment
resulting from the parent’s incarceration shall not constitute a material change of circumstance
that justifies a reduction in child support. Termination from Employment for misconduct will
not ordinarily constitute a material change of circumstance that justifies a reduction in child
support.”
Review of the Guidelines
The recommendation is to eliminate a date certain on which the review of the guidelines
is to be complete and, instead, reference the requirements for review as set forth by Chapter 45,
Code of Federal Regulations, Section 302.56.
Child Support Schedules
The recommendation is to adopt the tables as recommended by the Economist. A full
discussion of the recommendation is provided above. The report is attached as Appendix C.
Page 25 of 26
Interstate Pay Differential
A new source for calculating the Interstate Pay Differential has been provided. The
tables National and State Average Weekly Pay and Differential of Each State’s Average Weekly
Pay Compared to Kansas Average Weekly Pay have been updated.
Appointment of Lay Persons to the Committee
The recommendation is to appoint at least four individuals, two payors and two
recipients, to the Kansas Supreme Court’s Child Support Guidelines Advisory Committee. One
payor and one recipient should be representative of middle to high income earners. One payor
and one recipient should represent low income earners. Consideration should be given to
encouraging employers of lay members to accommodate the attendance of these individuals at
committee meetings during regular business hours.
Lay members should not be attorneys, judges, legislators, or otherwise be employed by or
benefit from the business of establishing or enforcing child support obligations. Public sentiment
was very clear on this recommendation and many members who responded to the survey or
otherwise provided feedback to the committee, suggested that the majority of the committee
consist of persons who either pay or receive child support, and who are not judges, attorneys, or
legislators. This recommendation from the public for the appointment of lay members is
strongly supported by members of the committee.
The committee that created the first Child Support Guidelines and all but the present
Child Support Guidelines Advisory Committee had representation from the general public. Most
recently, a former legislator who was a parent not having primary residency of his children
served on the committee. He resigned in January 2011, leaving the committee with no one who
met the recommended criteria.
Consideration should be given to the selection process for all members of the committee.
Selection could be through application and interviews or through a nomination process. It is
recommended that any member of the committee be current on support obligations, be a resident
of Kansas, and be subject to a criminal history background investigation similar to that of the
normal screening process for judges, attorneys, and individuals appointed as volunteers in the
Kansas Judicial Branch.
Page 26 of 26
Further Recommendations
1. Work with the Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services (SRS) and
the Kansas Payment Center (KPC) to create a method of providing information about
the Kansas Child Support Guidelines directly to payors and payees. The Kansas
Payment Center has been requested to provide e-mail addresses of all payors and
recipients to facilitate distribution of surveys and other information about the Kansas
Child Support Guidelines. This is increasingly important as number of electronic
payments could approach 100% by the next review.
2. Repeat the analysis of deviations conducted by SRS.
3. Educate judges and attorneys on the changes to the Kansas Child Support Guidelines.
4. Expand the use of modern media to educate and obtain feedback from the public
regarding the Kansas Child Support Guidelines.
5. Update the tax sections of the Kansas Child Support Guidelines to reflect changes in
tax law.
6. An order signed by December 31, 2011, would satisfy the federal requirement to
review the child support guidelines every four years.
7. An effective date implementing the revised child support guidelines should not be
before April 1, 2012, and not after July 1, 2012. Three or four months between the
time the order is signed and the effective date of the order provides sufficient time to
update software and to educate the public, judges, and attorneys.