Child support revision passes - Minnesota

Child support revision passes

This is a much more comprehensive article regarding the legislation in Minnesota...

Excerpts:

For the first time, both parents' incomes would be considered when determining child support payments. Currently only the income of the noncustodial parent, typically the father, is considered.

Support levels would be based on gross income, not net income, which has allowed parents to hide money in 401(k) plans and other shelters. Meanwhile, the state would create a website with a simple child support calculator for parents to use.

The child support formula hasn't been changed in more than 20 years. During legislative testimony, fathers argued that the current rules don't make adjustments for the financial status of their ex-wives or consider the cost of raising a new family after a divorce.

Custodial mothers, meanwhile, have told lawmakers that the actual cost of raising children is far greater than current guidelines recognize. Even if the child spends time with the father, custodial parents still must pay for housing, groceries and the children's other basic needs, they argue.

Considering the income of the custodial parents when deciding payments would put Minnesota in line with 37 other states, said Sen. Linda Berglin, DFL-Minneapolis, who worked with Neuville on key sections of the bill.

A custodial parent with one child would get less support, in most cases, he said. A custodial parent with two or more children would get more support -- until the income of both parents is equal. After that, the support would be lower than today.

The bill also would:

• Reduce support payments for noncustodial parents who have additional children after the divorce or separation.

• Not allow support payments to drive parents into poverty.

• Create a "parental expense adjustment." If parenting time is 10 to 45 percent for the noncustodial parent, there would be a 12 percent reduction of child support. If parenting time is equal between both parents the expenses for the children would be equally shared. And if the adjusted gross incomes of both parents were also equal, then no support would be paid.

Father's rights groups have said the bill doesn't go far enough in equalizing the playing field between both parents.

A companion bill, with some policy differences, is likely to reach the House floor this week.

Senate Approves Child Support Recalculations - Minnesota

WCCO: Senate Approves Child Support Recalculations


St. Paul (AP) The Senate has approved a major reform to the way child support payments are calculated.

The new system would base levels on the incomes of both parents instead of just the noncustodial parent.

Senate members voted 60-to-2 in favor of the measure, saying it more closely reflects the financial realities faced by most families.

The bill would give noncustodial parents a financial break on child support for spending significant amounts of time with their children. It also would reduce child support for noncustodial parents who have more children after their divorce or separation.

A companion bill has been moving through the House.

Is child support debate about fairness, or public subsidies?- MN

St. Paul Pioneer Press 04/05/2005 Is child support debate about fairness, or public subsidies?

Excerpts below:

Proposed by Sen. Tom Neuville, SF630's key provisions would have more fairly divided the financial responsibility for children between divorcing mothers and fathers. Child support would be based on the income of both parents, not just the payee (usually the father).

Enter Sen. Linda Berglin, the powerful chair of the Finance Committee's Health and Human Services Budget Division. She introduced SF1900, which basically gutted SF630. Because of the power structure in the Senate, it was clear to Sen. Neuville early on that he would lose in a tug-of-war over competing bills.

"This is the same legislator that has stood in the way of this bill the past few times it has made it to the Senate," said Rep. Tim Mahoney, who has proposed legislation in the House to make joint physical custody the law of the land in Minnesota. "To expect her to change her habits now would be surprising."

No doubt. What was surprising — or perhaps instructive — was what came out in the debate last Thursday. Sen. Berglin's aim clearly isn't fairness, but using the child-support guidelines to make up for what she sees as shortcomings in the state's social service programs for low-income single mothers.

"The purpose of the family law system is not to subsidize the public welfare system," Sen. Neuville said. "It's to be fair to both parents."

Minnesota collected $590 million in child support last year, according to the Department of Human Services' 2004 report. About $30 million of that went to low-income mothers, according to Sen. Neuville. So Sen. Berglin is gutting a bill that would correct a decades-old, system-wide injustice in the name of 5 percent of the program's recipients. Talk about your special interest.

He and Sen. Berglin are expected to lock themselves in a room later this week with foam bats and see what they can work out. But it's clear that if it makes it to the Senate floor, SF630 will be a shadow of its former self and do little to reform the system — the bill's original intent.

More promising is HF1321, scheduled to be heard today by the House Jobs and Economic Security Committee. Sponsored by Rep. Steve Smith, with input from Rep. Mahoney and Rep. Rob Eastlund, its most important provision is for a presumption of joint physical custody. That's important because under the current system all benefits flow from the designation of "custody." That has often resulted in all-out thermonuclear war between mothers and fathers, with the most harm often done to the children. Under HF1321, joint physical custody would be the default remedy if two parents can't agree on a parenting plan or try to use "custody" as a wedge to extract more money.

"It would have a more profound effect on reducing child support than my bill," Sen. Neuville said of the House legislation. More important, if it passes, it would go to conference committee, along with SF630, and, we can hope, be melded into law.

"My goal all along has been to craft legislation that is fair to both parties and recognizes that it's important that both parents be fully involved in the lives of the children," Sen. Neuville said

Minnesota- Child Support "Income Shares" Model Considered

KAALtv.com - 6 News First Online

Excerpts:

Under the plan, Minnesota could move from basing support on a percentage of a non-custodial parent's income to a model that takes the income of both parents into account.

Republican Representative Steve Smith of Mound says existing child support guidelines are "unfair, outmoded and outdated."

But DFL Senator Linda Berglin of Minneapolis is now sponsoring an income-shares bill she says is less harmful than previous proposals. Her bill could lower payments of parents with one child but raise them for parents of multiple children.

Minnesota - Child-support, custody laws moving along

Excerpts below, full article at the St Paul Pioneer Press

Child-support, custody laws moving along

Sen. Tom Neuville has introduced SF630, which would revamp the child-support laws. A companion bill, HF 1321, authored by Rep. Steve Smith, has been merged with similar bills offered by Reps. Rob Eastlund and Tim Mahoney and is moving through the House.

Neuville's bill would more fairly allocate child support between mother and father. Under current law, child support is based solely on the income of the parent who pays it, usually the father. Under Neuville's proposal, child support would be calculated based on the income of both parents.

Indeed, there are 37 states with "income-share" models that factor in the income of both parents for child support. Neuville's bill also includes adjustments for parenting time, which about a dozen other states already factor in.

"If the father has the kids 25 percent of the time, he's going to pay 25 percent of food, transportation and entertainment," he said. "We have to acknowledge that the noncustodial parent incurs some of those costs."

"Our present system encourages parents to wage war over the 'ownership' of the children," McNabb testified. "It gives financial and emotional rewards to the 'victorious' parent. It puts the children in the middle, where they lose no matter which parent 'wins.'"

In 1998, the Minnesota Supreme Court set up a task force of judges, lawyers, legislators and women's advocates. In January 2000, it issued its report, recommending "separating the amount of child support from parenting-plan issues will prevent parties from using a parenting plan to manipulate the amount of child support."

McNabb also cited Section 518.17 of the Minnesota statute, which reads in part, "In determining custody, the court shall consider the best interests of each child and shall not prefer one parent over the other solely on the basis of the sex of the parent."

Despite these past efforts, the House sponsors feel their bill is necessary because mothers are still predominantly named the custodial parent in Minnesota. After hearing the testimony of McNabb and others, the House committee agreed to an amendment that would make joint physical custody the default position if divorcing parties can't agree to a parenting plan within 270 days of filing for divorce, a change from the 90 days the bill originally proposed.

"We may try and split the difference," said Mahoney. But while he thinks the bill has a good chance of passing the House, he doesn't hold out much hope for the Senate. Neither does Neuville.

Ironically, Neuville's bill doesn't have widespread support from fathers or mothers, either.

"I get it from both sides," he said. "Fathers don't think the bill goes far enough. Mothers' groups and family lawyers don't want to see money leaving the system."

That's too bad. Because both the House and Senate legislation offer common-sense solutions to what has been a historical unfairness. It'd be a shame to see all this legislation result in only minor changes in a system very much in need of widespread reform.

Minnesota 'An event instead of a tragedy'

St. Paul Pioneer Press

Excerpts:

The Collaborative Law Institute of Minnesota (www.collaborativelaw.org) was started here about 15 years ago by Minneapolis attorney Stu Webb. Today, less than 5 percent of the divorces in Minnesota are settled through collaborative law, a school of thought that, according to Hennepin County Family Court Judge Stephen Aldrich, "is making the divorce process an event instead of a tragedy."

According to the group's Web site, collaborative law's values are:

• A focus on solutions that meet the needs of the entire family.

• Recognizing that relationships need to continue after the marriage ends.

• Making decisions that mitigate the impact of divorce on children.

• Developing a "future focused" strategy rather than dwelling on the past.

• To work together respectfully, honestly and in good faith.

But what is attracting a lot of couples to collaborative law is its focus on reducing the impact of divorce on children. As a result, many collaborative law cases result in joint physical custody, a statistical anomaly in Minnesota when divorce is litigated through the courts.

"Sometimes it's just labeled a 'parenting plan,'" said Ousky. "Whatever it's called, it gets parents away from the formulas and guidelines that can trip them up."

There have been collaborative law cases that have resulted in sole physical custody being given to one parent, "but not usually," Ousky said.

"They typically don't want one person identified as the sole custodial parent because they come into it understanding that the kids need both parents to be actively and amicably involved."

"I've litigated for 20-some years and my top-five adversarial clients — the very best and easiest — are probably less satisfied than the average collaborative law client."

And judges like it, too.

"They've been very supportive of it," said Ousky. "Most judges tell clients that they're better off making their own decisions, which is what they're doing in collaborative law."

The debate over joint physical custody

Excerpts below, full article available at St Paul Pioneer Press.

The debate over joint physical custody
MARK YOST
Feb. 01, 2005

Joint physical custody is going to be a hot topic in the current legislative session. Most parents get "joint legal custody," which under Minnesota statute is defined as "both parents have equal rights and responsibilities, including the right to participate in major decisions determining the child's upbringing." "Joint physical custody" means "that the routine daily care and control and the residence of the child is structured between the parties."

Under Minnesota law, parents who file for divorce are required to come up with a parenting plan within 90 days. If they cannot agree to one, the court will devise one for them. In the vast majority of cases, the mother is awarded primary physical custody and the children see their father every other weekend and one night a week.

"Joint physical custody is based on the ability of the parties to cooperate," said Ron Sieloff, a family law attorney who spent 12 years in the Legislature. "If one of the parties refuses to cooperate, it reverts to the old system."

Tim Mahoney, the DFL representative for District 67A, hopes to change that.

"There are a lot of good dads out there who want nothing more than to be a part of their kids' lives," the twice-divorced union pipe fitter said in an interview. "The current system is really unfair in that it limits the amount of time the best of dads get to spend with their kids."

Under Mahoney's bill, joint physical custody would be the default remedy when parents can't agree on a parenting plan. Children would spend roughly half their time with mom and half with dad. The bill contains common-sense provisions in case of domestic violence, child abuse and the like.

"It's a small change," said Mahoney. "But I expect there will be deep opposition to it."

One reason that some will oppose Mahoney's bill is that physical custody and child support are tied at the hip.

"The label 'physical custody' determines child support," Sieloff said. "From it, all else flows."

There's concern that if mothers lose primary physical custody, they'll also lose their child support. The Center for Parental Rights, a Roseville-based group of mostly fathers and some step-moms, supports Mahoney's legislation and has a solution: Separate the two issues.

During their January meeting, members told Mahoney and DFL Sen. Don Betzold, who chairs the Judiciary Committee that will review Mahoney's bill if it passes the House, that they'd be more than willing to continue to pay their full child support in exchange for joint physical custody.

That's what Tom Rubey, a Minnesota Department of Health economist, proposed during his divorce proceedings.

"I didn't want it to be about money," said Rubey.

He proposed paying the full amount dictated by child-support guidelines. The judge denied the motion.

Betzold sees the argument about child support and custody as a canard.

"This is all about child support," Betzold said in an e-mail response. "A lot of the men who were there are angry and upset that they have to pay it. They somehow think that if they had joint physical custody, they won't have to pay child support."

He also believes that joint physical custody isn't in the best interest of the child.

"I'm sure any family law judge would be hard pressed to come up with cases where there was a true joint sharing of physical custody that actually worked," Betzold said. "We're talking about situations where the parents can't set aside their differences and yet the courts must presume that they can share physical custody?"

Mahoney is hoping to give them a chance to try.