Report to the Kansas Supreme Court from the - kscourts.org · Report to the Kansas Supreme Court from the ... (SRS) Child Support ... telephone conference call in June and through

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


Count


(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


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.”



Count

This section applies to my child support order 52.8%

(28)

39.6%

(21)

7.5%

(4)

53



58.0%

(29)

30.0%

(19)

12.0%

(6)

50

Question Strongly


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)



Count


(52)

61.5%

(142)

16.0%

(37)

231



21.6%

(48)

56.8%

(126)

21.6%

(48)

222

Question Strongly


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.”



Count


(27)

38.9%

(21)

11.1%

(6)

54



52.0%

(26)

34.0%

(17)

14.0%

(7)

50

Question Strongly


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)



Count


(42)

57.6%

(125)

23.0%

(50)

217



18.3%

(39)

55.9%

(119)

25.8%

(55)

213

Question Strongly


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.”



Count


(22)

43.4%

(23)

15.1%

(8)

53



50.0%

(24)

35.4%

(17)

14.6%

(7)

48

Question Strongly


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)



Count


(83)

48.1%

(103)

13.1%

(28)

214



41.3%

(88)

42.3%

(90)

16.4%

(35)

213

Question Strongly


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.”



Count


(28)

21.6%

(11)

23.5%

(12)

51



53.1%

(26)

18.4%

(9)

28.6%

(14)

49

Question Strongly


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)



Count


(123)

22.1%

(46)

18.8%

(39)

208



57.1%

(120)

21.4%

(45)

21.4%

(45)

210

Question Strongly


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.”



Count


(19)

38.8%

(19)

22.4%

(11)

49



41.3%

(19)

32.6%

(15)

26.1%

(12)

46

Question Strongly


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)



Count


(84)

40.7%

(85)

19.1%

(40)

209



42.4%

(89)

34.3%

(72)

23.3%

(49)

210

Question Strongly


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.”



Count


(33)

18.8%

(9)

12.5%

(6)

48



70.8%

(34)

16.7%

(8)

12.5%

(6)

48

Question Strongly


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)



Count


(144)

20.3%

(42)

10.1%

(21)

207



69.4%

(143)

18.4%

(38)

12.1%

(25)

206

Question Strongly


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


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


Gross Income (Line

D.2 is between

$4,690 and $8,125)

Percentage

Adjustment from


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


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


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


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.

Documents

Report to the Kansas Supreme Court from the - kscourts.org · Report to the Kansas Supreme Court from the ... (SRS) Child Support ... telephone conference call in June and through