All Things Family Law

Discussion of all things related to family law from an Indiana divorce attorney.

This blog provides general family law and divorce law information. If you have a specific issue or case you need assistance with please contact me directly. 

Filtering by Category: controlled expenses

New Child Support Guidelines - Controlled Expenses

The Indiana Supreme Court has amended the Indiana Child Support Guidelines and ordered the changes effective January 1, 2010. The are many important changes. Too many for one blog posting.

One very positive change is that the guidelines are now clear as to who must pay for the 'controlled expenses' associated with raising a child, such as the winter coat and the basic school costs. Furthermore, the definition of 'controlled expenses' should help clear up disputes about who pays for school books and basic clothes. Parents will decide who pays for these costs by designating a 'primary physical custodian,' or if they share equal time with the child(ren), they will need to designate someone as the person who will pay the 'controlled expenses'.

The amended order defines 'controlled expenses' as follows:

Controlled Expenses. This type of expense for children is typically paid by the custodial parent and is not transferred or duplicated. Controlled expenses are items like clothing, education, school books and supplies, ordinary uninsured health care and personal care. For example, the custodial parent buys a winter coat for the child. The noncustodial parent will not buy another one. The custodial parent controls this type of expense. The controlled expenses account for 15% of the cost of raising the child. The parenting time credit is based on the more time the parents share, the more expenses are duplicated and transferred. The controlled expenses are not shared and remain with the parent that does not get the parenting time credit. Controlled expenses are generally not a consideration unless there is equal parenting time.

This definition was much needed. Undoubtedly there will still be disputes over the basic costs associated with raising the child(ren), but the Supreme Court helped the trial courts, attorneys and parents involved with this definition.

IMPORTANT NOTE: The new guidelines do not change the fact that the cost of having your attorney argue over who should pay for the winter coat, is likely more than the winter coat itself. Buy two.

New Child Support Guidelines - "Negative Support Orders"

While the amended child support guidelines are not effective until January 1, 2010, expect "negative support orders", where the custodial parent pays the noncustodial parent, to be more common immediately. Why? Because now that we know what the guidelines will presume in a few months it makes sense to apply the concepts now.

Negative support orders are appropriate under the current guidelines. There were a series of appeal cases under the title Grant v. Hager (first Court of Appeals opinion here, Supreme Court opinion here, and second Court of Appeals opinion here) that addressed whether such an order is allowable. After going back and forth it was decided that courts should be allowed to order the custodial parent to pay the noncustodial parent support if the economics and parenting time suggest that such a payment is equitable. However, such orders were not presumed, but rather, were allowable. In legal matters, this is an important distinction as having a presumption gives a movant big advantage. Now, negative support orders will be presumed to be the proper amount of support.

The Court of Appeals discussed the policy concerns involved:

There are advantages and disadvantages to allowing child support pay-ments to run from a custodial to a noncustodial parent. On the one hand, to do so encourages a noncustodial parent to participate more in his or her children’s lives following divorce, and it results in more similar living environments for children when they go from one parent’s home to the other’s. On the other hand, it also has the potential to increase custody disputes by providing an incentive for a cus-todial parent to fight shared parenting time, and it takes money from the custodial parent, thereby reducing the likelihood that he or she will be able to provide a home more similar to that which the children would have enjoyed had the marriage remained intact.


With the new amendments the former policy interest won out, as the Supreme Court amended the guidelines with the following langugage - The calculated amount establishes the level of child support for both the custodial and non-custodial parent. Absent grounds for a deviation, the custodial parent should be required to make monetary payments of child support, if application of the parenting time credit would so require. For example, if the custodial parent makes $100,000 annually, and the noncustodial parent makes $20,000 annually, and the noncustodial parent exercises enough parenting time with the child, there will be a negative support order. To figure out if this change might effect you, contact an attorney.

Since negative support orders are allowable under the current guidelines, and we know they will mandated under the guidelines on January 1, 2010, expect attorneys and courts to start applying this change now.

For more on the new guidelines, see the September 16, 2009 blog posting.

    The review or transmission of information at this site is not legal advice and does not establish an attorney-client relationship.   All data and information provided on this site is for informational purposes only. I make no representations as to accuracy, completeness, currentness, suitability, or validity of any information on this site and will not be liable for any errors, omissions, or delays in this information or any losses, injuries, or damages arising from its display or use. Should you be seeking legal advice, I recommend you retain an attorney. Please contact me  here.