With the advancement of technology, the legal sphere has been slower to catch up, but there has been some precedent set to settle disputes that arise.

The recent case of Sieglein v. Schmidt dealt with one such example, recently weighed in on by the Maryland Court of Appeals. The case had to do with establishing paternity when a woman who was married to a man who’d had a vasectomy became pregnant via in vitro fertilization (IVF). This is a type of assisted reproductive technology that involves manually combining the sperm and egg in a laboratory dish and then implanting that embryo into the uterus. more

State law provides that when a child is conceived by artificial insemination to a married woman with the consent of her husband, that child is deemed the legitimate child of them both for all purposes. Further, consent of the husband is presumed unless established otherwise.

The father sought to establish that he was not the “father” because the child had no genetic connection to either himself or his wife. He also challenged the court’s interpretation of the legal phrase “voluntary impoverishment.”

According to court records in Sieglein, Husband and Wife were married in 2008. Prior to their marriage, Husband had one biological child, an adult from a previous relationship, as did the wife. She desired another child, but Husband refused to have his vasectomy reversed. However, he did go with her to a reproductive clinic and he also supported the process of obtaining medical assistance to conceive a child. Both parties signed consent forms indicating they approved of IVF treatments, with the documents stating they had been fully advised of IVF’s purpose, risk, and benefits. The records – again, signed by both parties – indicated the decision was made free from pressure or coercion.

Wife gave birth to a son in 2012, with the birth certificate listing both parties as parents.

Shortly after the child was born, the parties separated. Wife filed a complaint for a limited divorce on grounds of “cruelty and vicious conduct” toward her and her children. She requested child support. Husband denied her allegations, and also denied that he was the father of the child.

A circuit judge held a hearing and determined Husband was the legal father of the child and was therefore obligated to pay child support. Although the man brought evidence demonstrating that he didn’t want to be a parent, that does not rebut the presumption of consent to the IVF treatment or consent to create the child. Not only did Husband sign all the IVF treatment forms, he also remained in the marital home with his wife through the pregnancy, and his name is on the birth certificate.

At a subsequent hearing, the wife presented a protective order issued by another court, ordering her husband to cease harassment and contact and also that he stay away from her place of employment. Further, the court determined that the husband, who was unemployed, had “voluntarily impoverished” himself, meaning he was not off the hook for child support payments.

The wife was awarded sole legal and physical custody of the child and Husband was ordered to pay $1,050 in monthly support, plus $7,000 in arrears.

The appeals court, and later the state high court, affirmed the child support amount – finding the father was in fact the legal parent of the child and had chosen not to work in order to avoid paying the boy’s child support payments.

Indiana Family Law Attorney Burton A. Padove handles divorce and child custody matters throughout northern Indiana, including Gary and Hammond.

Additional Resources:

Sieglein v. Schmidt, May 20, 2016, Maryland Court of Appeals

More Blog Entries:

Luttrell v. Cucco – Same-Sex Couple Cohabitation Affects Spousal Support Payments, May 11, 2016, Indiana Family Law Attorney Blog

• Salaries and wages
• Income from overtime and second jobs
• Investment and interest income
• Pension income
• Trust or estate income
• Annuities
• Capital gains
• Social Security benefits
• Veterans’ benefits
• Military personnel fringe benefits
• National Reserve and drill pay
• Workers’ compensation
• Unemployment
• Disability insurance benefits
• Prizes and gifts (including gambling and lottery winnings)
• Income of a new spouse
• Alimony received from another
• Real estate income

more

As our Gary, Indiana child support lawyers can explain, this kind of analysis can lead to unexpected results. It’s imperative to have strong legal representation to ensure your rights and financial future are protected. This is especially important because once the amount is set, obtaining a reversal or modification can be very difficult.

Although there are child support guidelines set for each state, judges have the option to deviate from those guidelines in certain circumstances. This was the case in the Nebraska Supreme Court case of Stekr v. Beecham. Here, it was a non-income real estate property that prompted the court to deviate. The moving party, the father, appealed this decision, but the state supreme court affirmed.

According to court records, the couple in question divorced in 2001 and at that time, the court granted custody of the couple’s daughter to her mother. Father, meanwhile, was ordered to pay $985 monthly in child support. That obligation was raised to $1,800 in 2007.

Three years later, father filed a motion to modify child support, asserting his income had decreased. The court referred the case to a referee (an attorney appointed by judges to act as a judicial hearing officer in certain cases).

At the hearing, father testified that he worked trading and selling bonds and mortgage-backed securities, and had done so since the early 1990s. For about five years, he worked for a large firm, and had the opportunity to earn substantial commissions. One years, his gross income was $130,000. The following year, it was $330,000. The year after that, it was nearly $350,000.

But then, he was laid off. He later found another job with an annual salary of $60,000, and was given a bonus of 5 percent.

He is also the sole shareholder of a small asset management company that has a single asset: A “spec home.” He built it back in 2007, and the goal was to flip it and make money. However, the real estate market collapsed around the same time, so selling proved difficult.

Originally, he listed the house for $950,000. Then he dropped it to $825,000 and, as of the hearing, it was down to less than $800,000. The mortgage on the property was $690,000, and he’d personally made those payments since the house was finished – about $2,400 to $2,600 monthly. No one had ever lived in or rented the home.

Husband also owns two other homes.

Meanwhile, mother lives in Nebraska with her new husband and is a stay-at-home parent.

At the hearing, the referee pointed out that the father was paying monthly mortgages on the home, and pointed out that “the money is coming from somewhere,” and that if he has access to that money, it should be spent on the child.

Father countered it was derived mostly from savings, which were depleted.

Ultimately, the referee recommended the court dismiss father’s complaint for child support modification. Although noting he could be entitle to a modification under the normal guidelines, the referee argued the case was outside the normal financial framework because of father’s real estate holdings. The state supreme court affirmed.

Indiana Family Law Attorney Burton A. Padove handles divorce and child custody matters throughout northern Indiana, including Gary and Hammond.

Additional Resources:

Stekr v. Beecham, Sept. 25, 2015, Nebraska Supreme Court

More Blog Entries:

Adultery Site Ashley Madison Hack Reveals Indiana Government Emails, Sept. 9, 2015, Gary Divorce Lawyer Blog

But Ind. Child Supp. G. 3(F)(2) is clear: If the trial court finds support provided under the guidelines isn’t reasonable, just or appropriate, the court can deviate from those guidelines and administer an amount deemed more appropriate.

In the recent Indiana Supreme Court case of Bogner v. Bogner, the court once again underscored this point, with the justices noting the guidelines are not to be taken as “immutable, black letter law.” Rather, there are some circumstances in which flexibility is required.

In this Indiana child support case, father and mother divorced in 2007, and at that time, shared a 2-year-old child together. The court originally ordered father to pay $162 weekly. The following year, father petitioned court for a modification of payments. At that time, it was agreed he would pay $135 a week. During this time, mother and father alternated years under which they could claim the child as a dependent on tax returns. more Five years later, father again petitioned the court to reduce his child support payments. He sited his increased number of overnight visits with the child, as well as the decreased cost of child care, as the child would be starting kindergarten and no longer in daycare. He noted the child had her own bedroom and all of her own clothing at his home, and he and his new wife had moved in order to be closer to the child.

Per the applicable parenting time credit he received under state guidelines, his child support obligation would have fallen just below $60 a week, or slightly less than $240 a month.

The mother would not agree to this because, she argued, if support was reduced by this amount, she would not be able to properly support their child. She petitioned the court for a deviation from the recommended guidelines. She noted that based upon the recommended guidelines, father would only be contributing $3,070 annually toward his daughter’s care. Meanwhile, her yearly contribution was $6,240. Further, she indicated there was no reason for father to pay so little when he earned $1,240 weekly, while her income was $930 a week and she had the child for the majority of overnights and she covered $850 in uninsured medical expenses for the child, as well as costs for clothes, school books, supplies, clothing and personal care. She stated she needed more from the father to raise the child, especially if father continued claiming the child on tax returns.

The court agreed with mother’s arguments, and while it did lower father’s weekly payments to $105, it granted mother the right to claim the child annually on tax returns.

Father appealed. He argued the court’s findings didn’t support a deviation from the guidelines, nor the mother being allowed to claim the child for tax exemption purposes each year.

Appeals court reversed, but the Indiana Supreme Court backed the trial court’s findings. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that applying the full credits to which father was owed under the guidelines would create a hardship for mother. Further, the fact that a noncustodial parent spends extra time with a child should not be the basis for reducing support obligations. Instead, an increase in parenting time should be a benefit for everyone. But here, it would have left mother with a disparate amount of expenses despite a lesser income.

Thus, the trial court was justified in deviating from the guidelines in this case.

Indiana Family Law Attorney Burton A. Padove handles divorce and child custody matters throughout northern Indiana, including Gary and Hammond.

Additional Resources: Bogner v. Bogner, April 28, 2015, Indiana Supreme Court More Blog Entries: Stacy M. v. Jason M. – No Termination of Child Support Without Termination of Rights, March 20, 2015, Northwest Indiana Divorce Lawyer Blog

In the case of Ball State University v. Irons, before the Indiana Supreme Court, a mother was understandably compelled to act when the university in which her daughter had previously been enrolled refused to provide transcripts to her new school, Indian University Northwest – after the school refused to allow her to enroll without them. Ball State said it had the authority to withhold the transcripts until payment of a debt obligation had been fulfilled. The bill was supposed to be paid by the father under an earlier approved modification of child support.

The mother was pursuing legal action against the father to compel him to pay this outstanding bill, and requested to add Ball State University as a supplemental defendant so that she could demand the transcripts be turned over to the new school. She asserted this action was necessary because otherwise, she would not be able to obtain complete relief in her action against the father. She was seeking unpaid fees to the first university, but also payment of future college expenses. However, she’d be unable to state future college expenses if her daughter wasn’t enrolled – which she couldn’t do without transcripts being held by the first school for non-payment. more Trial court agreed, approving her motion by finding she would not be able to fully adjudicate all issues and receive complete relief for future college expenses until her daughter completed enrollment at the new school. Court conceded the daughter was stuck in limbo.

Ball State responded with a motion to dismiss, indicating it was willing and able to release the transcript – as soon as the tuition was paid. However, it argued, it shouldn’t have to defend itself in an action that is essentially a domestic relations issue between mother and father.

The court denied the motion, and ordered the university to turn over the transcripts. Trial court further ruled the school was not without remedy, as it was free to pursue debt collection through normal collection procedures.

Ball State appealed, but the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal without making any conclusion on the merits, finding it lacked jurisdiction because there had been no final order in the case.

However, the Indiana Supreme Court reversed.

First, the court ruled the university was correct in its assertion that it is holding the transcript in the form of a common law lien – which it has the right to do. What’s more, because ordering the university to release the transcript forfeits the lien, it has financial and legal consequences akin to a final judgment, and thus, the order was appealable.

Secondly, the court agreed with the university’s assertion that it shouldn’t have to appear in court to defend itself in a domestic relations action.

That means the mother will likely have to pursue a second modification for future college expenses after the original debt is paid, the transcripts are released and the daughter can enroll in her new school.

Our Indiana child support lawyers recognize these cases can be challenging for all parties involved. This case shows the sort of unique challenges that can arise, and why it’s imperative to employ an attorney with experience.

Indiana Family Law Attorney Burton A. Padove handles divorce and child custody matters throughout northern Indiana, including Gary and Hammond.

Additional Resources: Ball State University v. Irons, March 18, 2015, Indiana Supreme Court More Blog Entries: Hardman v. Hardman – Allocation of Child Tuition Expenses in Divorce Settlement, Oct. 10, 2014, Northwest Indiana Family Law Attorney Blog

Failure to do may result in a situation similar to what plaintiff in Stacy M. v. Jason M. faced in a family law dispute before the Nebraska Supreme Court.

In that case, a father suspected his youngest son with his wife was not his biological child, but did not raise the issue in subsequent divorce proceedings. Years later, he completed genetic testing that proved his suspicions, and sought to have the child support terminated. However, he did not wish to severe the relationship with the child. The court essentially determined there would be no legal way to accomplish such a request. more In Indiana, child support may be terminated upon court approval if:

• The child has turned 19;
• The child is emancipated prior to age 19;
• The child is at least 18 and hasn’t attended secondary school or post-secondary school and is capable of supporting himself;
• The child is an active military member;
• The child is married;
• The child is not under the care or control of either parent or an individual or agency approved by the court;
• The parent is not the biological parent of the child.

In some cases, courts may still order non-biological parents to pay child support, if they have served as a parent long-term.

In the Nebraska case, father had been ordered to pay $600 monthly for the support of his two youngest children, both born during the marriage. Though he suspected the younger child wasn’t his own, he did not make an issue of it until after the divorce. After receiving genetic testing that confirmed his suspicions, he filed a pleading requesting to suspend child support payments to his ex-wife for the younger child. He alleged she knew who the father was and refused to obtain child support from that individual. Mother denied this, alleging she was drugged after a night out of drinking at a bar with a friend.

While father wanted the child support obligation terminated, he did not wish to terminate his relationship with the youngest child. As he told the court, he always exercised his visitation rights with the child, and they celebrated holidays together, attended church together, went hunting and fishing and enjoyed other activities. He desired for that relationship to continue, but stated he did not feel he should be responsible to pay to support a child who was not biologically his own.

He indicated his income and employment hadn’t changed substantially, and paternity was the sole issue at hand.

The court denied father relief, reasoning a child born in wedlock is presumed to be the legitimate child of the parties, and while the law afforded father the right to disestablish paternity, he hadn’t sought relief under the applicable statute, as it would have caused him to also lose his parental rights.

Father appealed, and the case went directly to the supreme court, due to appellate court docket overloads. The state high court ruled trial court did not abuse its discretion in reaching this finding.

The court was quick to note that just because a man is not the biological father does not mean he isn’t the legal father. Parentage, the court stated, was typically contested during dissolution proceedings, though there are other remedies if it’s not brought up at that time.

However, there is no authority under that state law that would allow father to suspend child support without disestablishing paternity rights. We are similarly aware of no such statute that would apply in Indiana.

Indiana Family Law Attorney Burton A. Padove handles divorce and child custody matters throughout northern Indiana, including Gary and Hammond.

Additional Resources: Stacy M. v. Jason M., Feb. 13, 2015, Nebraska Supreme Court More Blog Entries: Indiana Appeals Court Affirms Loss of Parental Rights, Cite Drug Use, Dec. 20, 2015, Northwest Indiana Divorce Lawyer

Deviation from the Indiana Child Support Guidelines also generally isn’t done without good cause. Of course, there are always exceptions. Whether you’re the one requesting the change or trying to fight it off, an experienced family law attorney can help.

The recent case of Bogner v. Bogner before the Court of Appeals of Indiana reveals how one such battle played out. more According to court records, the parents married in August 2002, had one child together, born in January 2005, and dissolved their marriage in March 2007, when the child was 2. Pursuant to the divorce settlement, father was ordered to pay $160 weekly in child support, and was also allowed to claim the child as a dependent for tax purposes every other year. He was initially allowed 80 overnight visits annually, but mother later agreed to allow him to double that number.

Still, his support obligations remained the same until June 2009, when both parties agreed to reduce it to $135 weekly. Our Gary family law attorneys note each still agreed paid a portion of health insurance and day care costs. Father remarried and moved closer to the child, meaning he unofficially increased his parenting time, helping more with the child before and after school and on mother’s parenting days. Thus,the child did not require daycare before and after school, though he continued to pay the mother child support for two years for this purpose.

In July 2013, he filed a petition to modify, requesting a reduction in support to reflect the decrease in child care costs. He did not claim credit for past daycare expenses for which he’d paid that hadn’t been used, but did seek to lower his weekly support payments to $60.

The trial court and mother conceded the worksheet allowed for a reduction of this degree, but noted the father’s other tax credits (for new wife and child) amounted to $3,800 annually, and she would theoretically have to pay for all uninsured medical expenses for their child. Therefore, she argued the trial court should deviate from the worksheet, and make him pay more. The court agreed, obligating him to pay $105 weekly. The court reasoned that at $60 weekly, the father would paying roughly half the annual expense of the mother.

However, the appellate court reversed, finding this reasoning flawed. While the trial court weighed only that $60 weekly, the evidence did not show this was the only contribution father was making to the child’s care. The court disregarded the increase father’s overnight visits, during which his own costs increased. When the appellate court factored in this element, it turned out that at $60 a week, the father was in fact paying 55 percent of the child’s weekly expenses.

Plus, the court figured that based on the previous payments father had made to the mother for daycare that was never used, he would be owed roughly $92 weekly for those two years.

Finally, the appellate court ruled the trial court erred in eliminating father’s right to claim his child as a dependent on his taxes every other year.

Indiana Family Law Attorney Burton A. Padove handles divorce and child custody matters throughout northern Indiana, including Gary and Hammond.

Additional Resources: Bogner v. Bogner, Sept. 23, 2014, Court of Appeals of Indiana More Blog Entries: Shae v. Shae – Modification of Child Support Orders, Aug. 18, 2014, Gary Child Support Attorney Blog

In matters of divorce, disputes about education (specifically the funding) can become especially heated. The cost of private school can be as much annually as college tuition. And while most parents aren’t legally obligated to pay for either private school or college tuition for their children, that could change in the midst of a divorce.

Increasingly, family courts are allowing for the enforcement of “reasonable” educational costs when one parent argues for it. The decision is typically based on both parents’ income, the kind of education the child was receiving prior to the split and whether there is already a fund established. more A previous Indiana law that specifically allowed for child support orders to include sums for higher learning was later repealed, but family courts do still allow such provisions in certain situations.

Our Hammond child support lawyers know that making such requests, particularly in a contentious split, require a fair degree of diplomacy. It’s possible you and your soon-to-be-ex might be able to reach an agreement on the matter without forcing a judge to resolve it. Either way, the key is to ensure the end result as written in the divorce agreement is thorough, and excludes no pertinent details. It will be key later if your spouse does not uphold his or her end of the bargain.

In the recent case of Hardman v. Hardman, a dispute over child education was at the center of a drawn-out court battle waged all the way to the Georgia Supreme Court.

According to court records, the pair married in 1992 and divorced in 2013. They had three children, including minor twin boys who attended private school. They had joint legal custody, but the mother had primary physical custody. While they were each to participate jointly in discussions regarding education, schools, health care and religion, each parent was given final authority on certain matters in the event of a dispute (the father on education and health care, the mother on religion and extracurricular). Father was ordered to pay $7,000 monthly in alimony/child support. If mother remarried and alimony was terminated, he would still pay $2,000 monthly for child support.

The pair’s oldest child was in college, while the younger were beginning a private school in 6th grade. Private school funding cost $2,600 collectively per month. Prior to divorce, the pair paid for this with joint funds, though father typically wrote the check. After divorce, mother refused to pay the tuition, and indicated she would move children into a public school unless the father paid for it.

The father paid the advanced tuition of $9,500 so the boys could enroll for the year, and then filed a complaint seeking reimbursement and also a declaratory judgment as to whether the mother was required to pay tuition out of her $7,000 monthly payments and whether she was allowed to take them out of private school and enroll them in public education.

The trial court granted mother’s motion for summary judgment, indicating father’s action was barred by res judicata, as he was attempting to re-litigate the terms of the divorce settlement agreement.

The state supreme court reversed, finding the trial court incorrectly applied the doctrine of res judicata strictly in the context of divorce cases because, as the courts recognize, family circumstances are often prone to change, and the child’s best interest should always be the top priority.

Further, the court noted the settlement specifically gave the father final decision-making authority on education issues, and his decisions on those issues – including where they go to school – are binding.

As for who should pay for it, it is generally the responsibility of the custodial parent, using the financial contributions received from the non-custodial parent – unless otherwise stipulated. Exceptions can be made, however, for “extraordinary educational expenses.” However, that would still need to be stipulated in the divorce agreement.

Indiana Family Law Attorney Burton A. Padove handles divorce and child custody matters throughout northern Indiana, including Gary and Hammond.

Additional Resources: Hardman v. Hardman, Sept. 22, 2014, Georgia Supreme Court More Blog Entries: Balogh v. Balogh – Post-Nuptial Agreements Can Protect Property, Sept. 3, 2014, Indiana Family Law Attorney Blog

Our Gary child support lawyers know that family court judges have a fine line to walk in terms of balancing these interests. But making decisions in the best interest of the child is always the primary goal. So when mistakes are made, challenges must be mounted.

The case of Shae v. Shae, weighed recently by the North Dakota Supreme Court, provides an example of how the courts occasionally get it wrong the first time around, and why it can be beneficial to challenge such orders. more This case involves a wealthy man and woman who divorced in 2011, with one adult child, three minor children and various shared properties and accounts. When the husband’s incomes substantially increased the year after the divorce, the wife sought modification of child support, which was granted. However, the state supreme court later reversed on the basis that the calculation used was “clearly erroneous.”

When the couple first divorced, the court ordered the non-custodial husband to pay $2,200 monthly in child support, based on his annual $95,000 salary as an engineer. While the wife earned $125,000 annually, she was responsible for the upkeep of the children’s home, as well as payment for their various sporting activities and health care needs not covered by insurance.

However, less than two years later the wife sought modification of the agreement, based on her ex-spouse’s dramatic increase in income. He quit his job as an engineer to work full-time at a water-hauling company he started. The district court would later find he earned $2.4 million the previous year with his new company. Plus, he had sold a farm (which he retained in the divorce) for $2.9 million, though he later bought a replacement farm for $1.9 million.

The district court granted the mother’s petition for modification, finding it unfair that the wife was unable to provide lavish vacations and expensive gifts, as the father was, due to the fact that she was providing for their basic needs. Therefore, the court determined a deviation from standard child support guidelines was warranted. Based on the husband’s previous year monthly income of $116,600, the court ordered him to pay nearly $40,000 a month in child support, with the ruling being retroactive.

The husband appealed.

In weighing his claim, the high court cited the 1996 Kansas appellate court ruling in the Matter of the Marriage of Patterson, in which the panel indicated that children of high-income parents aren’t expected to live at a minimal level of comfort while the parent enjoys a life of luxury. However, child support payments aren’t intended to be a windfall, but rather adequate payments of support. In other words, upward deviations of support need to be justified by the evidence of what the children need.

The husband argued the district court erred in determining 34 percent of his income should be used for child support, rather than considering a host of other factors – most notably, that the figure was based on a single year of income from a start-up company of which the future may be uncertain.

The state supreme court agreed, ruling the district court failed to make sufficient findings regarding the children’s appropriate needs.

Therefore, the previous ruling was reversed and the case remanded for further consideration.

Indiana Family Law Attorney Burton A. Padove handles divorce and child custody matters throughout northern Indiana, including Gary and Hammond.

Additional Resources: Shae v. Shae, July 2014, North Dakota Supreme Court More Blog Entries: Termination of Parental Rights in Indiana, April 4, 2014, Gary Child Support Lawyer Blog

For those who are owed child support, it’s important to know that hiring an attorney to help with the process can be beneficial for several reasons.

An attorney can file for many of the same actions against a deadbeat parent that government agencies do, including garnishment of wages, requesting license suspensions, filing for property liens and requesting a contempt of court order. However, the difference is that an attorney can help you bypass some of the red tape that is involved when you attempt to navigate the process on your own through the Indiana Department of Child Services and Child Support Bureau.

It’s particularly important in light of a new investigative report by ABC-6 in Indianapolis. Reporter Kara Kenney learned that state and local agencies spent more than $83 million during the most recent fiscal year to enforce and collect child support payments. These are agencies, like the civil divisions of sheriff’s departments, that are already cash-strapped and operating on limited resources.

In a single day when Kenney road along with a sheriff’s department team from Marion County, deputies were grappling with a stack of $263,000 in unpaid child support.

The state has set up a website to help track down the “Most Wanted Child Support Evaders.” Of the 18 listed, the payments range anywhere from $10,000 to $157,000.

One of the problems is actually getting the support order. It’s not a difficult process per se, but the issue is getting both parents there.Typically, all that is required is a paternity test and a brief analysis of the non-custodial parent’s income sources. From there, a formula is applied to determine how much the individual owes per child.

The bigger hurdle is enforcement. ABC-6 reported that the state of Indiana has fallen to 41st in the country in child support enforcement.

Plus, as the Marion County chief deputy prosecutor was quoted as saying, the courts are filled to the brim with cases, so there is a considerable amount of lag time as it relates to the backlog. In just that county, for example, the system handles more than 70,000 cases with about 80 full-time employees. That breaks down to about 875 cases per employee.

Several caseworkers are managing loads of several hundred each.

A number of custodial parents worry about the ability to afford an attorney to help fight their case when they’re fighting to make ends meet. But for many parents, they can’t afford not to. Relying solely on the state could mean you might wait months or years to see progress on your case. We are committed to producing results for you as quickly as possible. more Indiana Family Law Attorney Burton A. Padove handles divorce and child custody matters throughout northern Indiana, including Gary, Hammond and Calumet City.

Additional Resources: Child support $2.3 billion problem in Indiana, Department of Child Services says, Nov. 9, 2012, By Kara Kenney, ABC-6 More Blog Entries: Regaining Indiana Child Custody After Drug Conviction, Nov. 15, 2012, Indiana Divorce Lawyer Blog

For many parents, the issue of support – or rather, refusing to collect it when they could – is a source of pride. It sends a message to the non-involved parent that, “I can do it without you.”

It’s a sentiment that, given the rising cost of so many goods and services, few single parents can afford. Many are finding that they now have no choice but to petition the court for a support order just to make ends meet.

Other single parents may have support orders in place that are not being honored by the non-custodial parent. In these cases, custodial parents can petition the court, with the help of their attorney, for some form of relief from the court. Judges have the authority to order a variety of relief measures, such as wage garnishment, liens or revocation of driving privileges.

To put into perspective what many single parents are dealing with, consider some of the figures from Child Care Aware’s new research:

• The yearly cost for infant care rose by about 2 percent last year – in some cases, by as much as $15,000;
• The yearly cost to care for a 4-year-old spiked by more than 4 percent – in some cases by as much as $11,700.
• In half of all states, the cost of child care for one child exceeded the annual median rent payments;
• When the cost for two children were considered, it exceeded rent in all 50 states;
• In 35 states, the cost for full-time infant care exceeded the cost of in-state tuition and college fees at a four-year university.

Then you factor in a host of other upwardly-spiraling costs, such as a 30-cent spike in gasoline prices and grocery bills that have shot up more than 10 percent in the last month, and it becomes clear the family budget is under pressure from all sides.

A report that was released earlier this summer by a separate non-profit indicated that the cost to raise a child will be $8,000 more for a child born in 2011 than for a child born in 2010.

All this, and we haven’t even talked about the current job market.

The bottom line is this: There is no shame in seeking support for your child – support to which he or she is rightfully entitled.

But you shouldn’t go it alone. We can help. more Indiana Family Law Attorney Burton A. Padove handles divorce and child custody matters throughout northern Indiana, including Gary, Hammond and Calumet City.

Additional Resources: Child care costs exceed rent in most states, By Emily Jane Fox, CNNMoney

More Blog Entries: Many Factors Considered in Indiana Child Custody Cases, August 5, 2012, Indiana Divorce Lawyer Blog

However, the parent paying the support must petition the court to be allowed to terminate those payments – it shouldn’t happen automatically.

Consulting with an experienced child support lawyer will allow you to explore all options available considering your unique situation.

The legislation, Senate Enrolled Act No. 18, was a move to amend Indiana Code concerning juvenile law and family law – specifically, IC 31-13-11-18. The statute was amended to say that effective July 1, 2012, a parent has a duty to pay for child support until the child becomes 19 (instead of 21), unless one of the following two conditions is present:

1. The child is incapacitated, in which case the court would determine how long support should continue; 2. The child is emancipated prior to 19 years of age, excepting for educational needs. Emancipation would be determined by some of the following criteria: the child is at least 18 years-old, isn’t enrolled in school, is capable of supporting him or herself, is on active duty in the U.S. Armed Services, is married, or is no longer under the control of either parent or any individual or agency approved by the court.

With specific regard to educational needs, the new law indicates that any child support orders that were issued prior to the effective date (July 21st) may petition the court for educational coverage until he or she the age of 21. However, any child who is receiving support for an order issued after that date can file a petition for coverage of educational needs only until the child reaches the age of 19.

Indiana legislators reportedly chose age 19, as opposed to age 18, because a small percentage of high school seniors – about 1 percent – are 19 years-old.

But why this move, why now? The main reason for the change is that fathers often didn’t pay past age 18 anyway. Most mothers did not file petitions in court to make them pay, though they legally could have done so. However, this failure to pay rate affected the state’s overall child support payment success rates, often lowering the state’s eligibility to receive federal funding for the program.

There has been some speculation, however, that there may be many legal challenges ahead, specifically as it relates retroactively to cases. The primary argument would be that it may illegally invalidate contracts between parents – particularly agreements that specifically say that one parent must pay the other child support until the child is 21 years-old. It may not have much bearing for individuals whose agreements are more generally worded.

The move is not a major shock, especially considering that Indiana was always among the small percentage of states that allowed child support to go beyond 18 or 19 years-old. In fact, there are now only two remaining states and the District of Columbia that have the 21-year cut-off.

Still, a number of family law judges are expecting a surge of petitions for modifications from both sides – parents who are seeking to have their support amended to the new cut-off age, and those who may seek other modifications to boost payments now in anticipation of the new cut-off.

The implementation of this measure is expected to be somewhat confusing. If you have questions about your rights in light of this new law, please contact our offices. We’ll be happy to help. more Indiana Family Law Attorney Burton A. Padove handles divorce and child custody matters throughout northern Indiana, including Gary, Hammond and Calumet City.

Additional Resources: Indiana lowers cutoff age to 19 for receiving child support, Staff Report, Associated Press

More Blog Entries: Indiana Divorce More Complex For Business Owners, Aug. 15, 2012, Indiana Divorce Lawyer Blog