Indiana Child Support Rules and Guidelines

Preparing to load PDF file. please wait...

0 of 0
Indiana Child Support Rules and Guidelines

Transcript Of Indiana Child Support Rules and Guidelines

Indiana Rules of Court Child Support Rules and Guidelines
Adopted Effective October 1, 1989 Including Amendments Received Through January 1, 2020
Find child support forms at

Rules 1. Adoption of Child Support Rules and Guidelines 2. Presumption 3. Deviation from Guideline Amount
Guidelines 1. Preface. 2. Use of the Guidelines. 3. Determination of Child Support Amount.
A. Definition of Weekly Gross Income. 1. Definition of Weekly Gross Income. 2. Self-Employment, Business Expenses, InKind Payments and Related Issues. 3. Unemployed, Underemployed, and Potential Income.
B. Income Verification. 1. Submitting Worksheet to Court. 2. Documenting Income.
C. Computation of Weekly Adjusted Income. 1. Adjustment for Subsequent born or Legally Adopted Child(ren). 2. Court Orders for Prior-born Child(ren). 3. Legal Duty of Support for Prior-born Child(ren) When No Court Order Exists. 4. Alimony or Maintenance.
D. Basic Child Support Obligation. E. Additions to the Basic Child Support
Obligation. 1. Work-related Child Care Expense. 2. Cost of Health Insurance for Child(ren). 3. Extraordinary Health Care Expense. 4. Extraordinary Educational Expense. F. Computation of Parent’s Child Support Obligation. 1. Division of Obligation Between Parents. 2. Deviation from Guideline Amount.

Guidelines (cont’d) G. Adjustments to Parent’s Child Support Obligation. 1. Obligation from Post-Secondary Education Worksheet. 2. Weekly Cost of Work-related Child Care Expenses. 3. Weekly Cost of Health Insurance Premiums for Child(ren). 4. Parenting Time Credit. 5. Effect of Social Security Benefits.
4. Modification. 5. Federal Statutes. 6. Parenting Time Credit. 7. Health Care/Medical Support.
Accessibility Reasonable cost Cash medical support Explanation of 6% rule/uninsured health care expenses Birth expense 8. Extraordinary Expenses. Extraordinary educational expenses Other extraordinary expenses 9. Accountability, Tax Exemptions, Rounding Child Support Amounts. Accountability of the custodial parent for support received Tax exemptions Rounding child support amounts
Additional Documents
• Child Support Obligation Worksheet (CSOW) • Parenting Time Credit Worksheet • Post-Secondary Education Worksheet (PSEW) • Guideline Schedules for Weekly Support Payments

Support Rule 1. Adoption of Child Support Rules and Guidelines The Indiana Supreme Court hereby adopts the Indiana Child Support Guidelines, as drafted by the Judicial
Administration Committee and adopted by the Board of the Judicial Conference of Indiana and all subsequent amendments thereto presented by the Domestic Relations Committee of the Judicial Conference of Indiana, as the Child Support Rules and Guidelines of this Court.
Support Rule 2. Presumption In any proceeding for the award of child support, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the amount of the
award which would result from the application of the Indiana Child Support Guidelines is the correct amount of child support to be awarded.

Support Rule 3. Deviation from Guideline Amount If the court concludes from the evidence in a particular case that the amount of the award reached through
application of the guidelines would be unjust, the court shall enter a written finding articulating the factual circumstances supporting that conclusion.
Guidelines to determine levels of child support and educational support were developed by the Judicial Administration Committee of the Judicial Conference of Indiana and adopted by the Indiana Supreme Court. The guidelines are consistent with the provisions of Indiana Code Title 31 which place a duty for child support and educational support upon parents based upon their financial resources and needs, the standard of living the child would have enjoyed had the marriage not been dissolved or had the separation not been ordered, the physical or mental condition of the child, and the child's educational needs.
The Guidelines have three objectives:
(1) To establish as state policy an appropriate standard of support for children, subject to the ability of parents to financially contribute to that support;
(2) To make awards more equitable by ensuring more consistent treatment of people in similar circumstances; and,
(3) To improve the efficiency of the court process by promoting settlements and giving courts and the parties guidelines in settling the level of awards.
The Indiana Child Support Guidelines are based on the Income Shares Model, developed by the Child Support Project of the National Center for State Courts. The Income Shares Model is predicated on the concept that the child should receive the same proportion of parental income that he or she would have received if the parents lived together. Because household spending on behalf of children is intertwined with spending on behalf of adults for most expenditure categories, it is difficult to determine the proportion allocated to children in individual cases, even with exhaustive financial information. However, a number of authoritative economic studies provide estimates of the average amount of household expenditure on children in intact households. These studies have found the proportion of household spending devoted to children is related to the level of household income and to the number and ages of children. The Indiana Child Support Guidelines relate the level of child support to income and the number of children. In order to provide simplicity in the use of the Guidelines, however, child support figures reflect a blend of all age categories weighted toward school age children.
Based on this economic evidence, the Indiana Child Support Guidelines calculate child support as the share of each parent's income estimated to have been spent on the child if the parents and child were living in an intact household. 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.
History of Development. In June of 1985, the Judicial Reform Committee (now the Judicial Administration Committee) of the Judicial Conference of Indiana undertook the task of developing child support guidelines for use by Indiana judges. While the need had been long recognized in Indiana, the impetus for this project came from federal statutes requiring guidelines to be in place no later than October 1, 1987. P.L. 98-378. Paradoxically, guidelines did not need to be mandatory under the 1984 federal legislation to satisfy federal requirements; they were only required to be made available to judges and other officials with authority to establish child support awards. 45 CFR Ch. III, § 302.56.
The final draft was completed by the Judicial Reform Committee on July 24, 1987, and was presented to the Judicial Conference of Indiana Board of Directors on September 17, 1987. The Board accepted the report of the Reform Committee, approved the Guidelines and recommended their use to the judges of Indiana in all matters of child support.
Family Support Act of 1988. On October 13, 1988, the United States Congress passed the "Family Support Act of 1988," P.L. 100-485 amending the Social Security Act by deleting the original language which made application of the Guideline discretionary and inserted in its place the following language:
"There shall be a rebuttable presumption, in any judicial or administrative proceeding for the award of child support, that the amount of the award which would result from the application of such guidelines is the correct amount of child support to be awarded. A written finding or specific finding on the record that the application of the guidelines

would be unjust or inappropriate in a particular case, as determined under criteria established by the State, shall be sufficient to rebut the presumption in that case." P.L. 100-485, § 103(a)(2).
The original Guidelines that went into effect October 1, 1987 and their commentary were revised by the Judicial Administration Committee to reflect the requirement that child support guidelines be a rebuttable presumption. The requirement applies to all cases where support is set after October 1, 1989, including actions brought under Title IV-D of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.A. § 651-669). Also, after October 1, 1989, counties and individual courts may not opt to use alternate methods of establishing support. The Indiana Child Support Guidelines were required to be in use in all Indiana courts in all proceedings where child support is established or modified on and after October 1, 1989.
Periodic Review of Guidelines and Title IV-D Awards. The "Family Support Act of 1988" also requires that the Guidelines be reviewed at least every four years "to assure their application results in the determination of appropriate child support award amounts." P.L. 100-485, § 103(b). Further, each state must develop a procedure to ensure that all Title IV-D awards are periodically reviewed to ensure that they comply with the Guidelines. P.L. 100-485, § 103(c).
Compliance With State Law. The Child Support Guidelines were developed specifically to comply with federal requirements, as well as Indiana law.
Objectives of the Indiana Child Support Guidelines. The following three objectives are specifically articulated in the Indiana Child Support Guidelines:
1. To establish as state policy an appropriate standard of support for children, subject to the ability of parents to financially contribute to that support. When the Guidelines were first recommended for use by the Indiana Judicial Conference on September 17, 1987, many courts in the state had no guideline to establish support. Many judges had expressed the need for guidelines, but few had the resources to develop them for use in a single court system. The time, research and economic understanding necessary to develop meaningful guidelines were simply beyond the resources of most individual courts.
2. To make awards more equitable by ensuring more consistent treatment of people in similar circumstances. This consistency can be expected not only in the judgments of a particular court, but between jurisdictions as well. What is fair for a child in one court is fair to a similarly situated child in another court.
3. To improve the efficiency of the court process by promoting settlements and giving courts and the parties guidelines in settling the level of awards. In other words, when the outcome is predictable, there is no need to fight. Because the human experience provides an infinite number of variables, no guideline can cover every conceivable situation, so litigation is not completely forestalled in matters of support. If the Guidelines are consistently applied, however, those instances should be minimized.
Economic Data Used in Developing Guidelines. What does it take to support a child? The question is simple, but the answer is extremely complex. Yet, the question must be answered if an adequate amount of child support is to be ordered by the court. Determining the cost attributable to children is complicated by intertwined general household expenditures. Rent, transportation, and grocery costs, to mention a few, are impossible to accurately apportion between family members. In developing these Guidelines, a great deal of reliance was placed on the research of Thomas J. Espenshade, (Investing In Children, Urban Institute Press, 1984) generally considered the most authoritative study of household expenditure patterns. Espenshade used data from 8,547 households and from that data estimated average expenditures for children present in the home. Espenshade's estimates demonstrate that amounts spent on the children of intact households rise as family income increases. They further demonstrate at constant levels of income that expenditures decrease for each child as family size increases. These principles are reflected in the Guideline Schedules for Weekly Support Payments, which are included in the Indiana Child Support Guidelines. By demonstrating how expenditures for each child decrease as family size increases, Espenshade should have put to rest the previous practice of ordering equal amounts of support per child when two or more children are involved. Subsequent guidelines reviews have considered more current economic studies of child-rearing expenditures (e.g., Mark Lino, Expenditures on Children by Families: 2006 Annual Report, United States Department of Agriculture, 2007; David Betson, State of Oregon Child Support Guidelines Review: Updated Obligation Scales and Other Considerations, report to State of Oregon Department of Justice, 2006). These periodic guidelines reviews have concluded that the Indiana Guidelines based on the Espenshade estimates are generally within the range of more current estimates of child-rearing expenditures. A notable exception at high incomes leveled off the child support schedule for combined weekly adjusted incomes above $4,000. In 2009 this exception was removed. The increase is now incorporated into the schedule up to combined weekly adjusted incomes of $10,000 and a formula is provided for incomes above that amount. Previously, a formula was provided for combined weekly adjusted incomes above $4,000.
Income Shares Model. After review of five approaches to the establishment of child support, the Income Shares Model was selected for the Indiana Guidelines. This model was perceived as the fairest approach for children because it is based on the premise that children should receive the same proportion of parental income after a dissolution that they would have received if the family had remained intact. Because it then apportions the cost of

children between the parents based on their means, it is also perceived as being fair to parents. In applying the Guidelines, the following steps are taken:
1. The gross income of both parents is added together after certain adjustments are made. A percentage share of income for each parent is then determined.
2. The total is taken to the support tables, referred to in the Indiana Guidelines as the Guideline Schedules for Weekly Support Payments, to determine the total cost of supporting a child or children.
3. Work-related child care expenses and the weekly costs of health insurance premiums for the child(ren) are then added to the basic child support obligation.
4. The child support obligation is then prorated between the parents, based on their proportionate share of the weekly adjusted income, hence the name "income shares."
The Income Shares Model was developed by The Institute for Court Management of the National Center for State Courts under the Child Support Guidelines Project. This approach was designed to be consistent with the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act, the principles of which are consistent with IC 31-16-6-1. Both require the court to consider the financial resources of both parents and the standard of living the child would have enjoyed in an intact family.
Gross Versus Net Income. One of the policy decisions made by the Judicial Administration Committee in the early stages of developing the Guidelines was to use a gross income approach as opposed to a net income approach. Under a net income approach, extensive discovery is often required to determine the validity of deductions claimed in arriving at net income. It is believed that the use of gross income reduces discovery. (See Commentary to Guideline 3A). While the use of gross income has proven controversial, this approach is used by the majority of jurisdictions and, after a thorough review, is considered the best reasoned.
The basic support obligation would be the same whether gross income is reduced by adjustments built into the Guidelines or whether taxes are taken out and a net income option is used. A support guideline schedule consists of a column of income figures and a column of support amounts. In a gross income methodology, the tax factor is reflected in the support amount column, while in a net income guideline, the tax factor is applied to the income column. In devising the Indiana Guidelines, an average tax factor of 21.88 percent was used to adjust the support column.
Of course, taxes vary for different individuals. This is the case whether a gross or net income approach is used. Under the Indiana Guideline, where taxes vary significantly from the assumed rate of 21.88 percent, a trial court may choose to deviate from the guideline amount where the variance is substantiated by evidence at the support hearing.
Flexibility Versus the Rebuttable Presumption. Although application of the Guideline yields a figure that becomes a rebuttable presumption, there is room for flexibility. Guidelines are not immutable, black letter law. A strict and totally inflexible application of the Guidelines to all cases can easily lead to harsh and unreasonable results. If a judge believes that in a particular case application of the Guideline amount would be unreasonable, unjust, or inappropriate, a finding must be made that sets forth the reason for deviating from the Guideline amount. The finding need not be as formal as Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law; the finding need only articulate the judge's reasoning. For example, if under the facts and circumstances of the case, the noncustodial parent would bear an inordinate financial burden, the following finding would justify a deviation:
"Because the noncustodial parent suffers from a chronic medical condition requiring uninsured medical expenses of $357.00 per month, the Court believes that setting child support in the Guideline amount would be unjust and instead sets support in the amount of $___per week."
Agreed Orders submitted to the court must also comply with the "rebuttable presumption" requirement; that is, the order must recite why the order deviates from the Guideline amount.
1. Phasing in Support Orders. Some courts may find it desirable in modification proceedings to gradually implement the Guideline order over a period of time, especially where support computed under the Guideline is considerably higher than the amount previously paid. Enough flexibility exists in the Guidelines to permit that approach, as long as the judge's rationale is explained with an entry such as:
"The Guideline's support represents an increase of 40%, and the court finds that such an abrupt change in support obligation would render the obligor incapable of meeting his/her other established obligations. Therefore, the Court sets support in the amount of $_____ and, on October 1, 20___, it shall increase to $_____ and, on September 1, 20__, obligor shall begin paying the Guideline amount of $_____."
2. Situations Calling for Deviation. An infinite number of situations may prompt a judge to deviate from the Guideline amount. For illustration only, and not as a complete list, the following examples are offered:
• One or both parties pay union dues as a condition of employment. • A party provides support for an elderly parent.

• The noncustodial parent purchases school clothes. • The noncustodial parent has extraordinary medical expenses for himself or herself. • A parent is a member of the armed forces and the military provides housing. • The obligor is still making periodic payments to a former spouse pursuant to a prior Dissolution Decree. • One of the parties is required to travel an unusually long distance in the course of employment on a
regular or daily basis and incurs an unusually large expense for such travel, and • The custodial or noncustodial parent incurs significant travel expense in exercising parenting time.
Again, no attempt has been made to define every possible situation that could conceivably arise when determining child support and to prescribe a specific method of handling each of them. Practitioners must keep this in mind when advising clients and when arguing to the court. Many creative suggestions will undoubtedly result. Judges must also avoid the pitfall of blind adherence to the computation for support without giving careful consideration to the variables that require changing the result in order to do justice.
The Guideline Schedules provide calculated amounts of child support. For obligors with a combined weekly adjusted income, as defined by these Guidelines, of less than $100.00, the Guidelines provide for case-by-case determination of child support. When a parent has extremely low income the amount of child support recommended by use of the Guidelines should be carefully scrutinized. The court should consider the obligor's income and living expenses to determine the maximum amount of child support that can reasonably be ordered without denying the obligor the means for self-support at a minimum subsistence level. A numeric amount of child support shall be ordered; however, there are situations where a $0.00 support order is appropriate.
Temporary maintenance may be awarded by the court not to exceed thirty-five percent (35%) of the obligor's weekly adjusted income. In no case shall child support and temporary maintenance exceed fifty percent (50%) of the obligor's weekly adjusted income. Temporary maintenance and/or child support may be ordered by the court either in dollar payments or "in-kind" payments of obligations.
Federal law requires the Indiana Child Support Guidelines be applied in every instance in which child support is established including, but not limited to, dissolutions of marriage, legal separations, paternity actions, juvenile proceedings, petitions to establish support and Title IV D proceedings.
Indiana requires worksheets, including a Child Support Obligation Worksheet, to assist judges, practitioners, and parents in calculating the presumptive amount of child support under the Guidelines.
Minimum Support. The Guideline's schedules for weekly support payments do not provide an amount of support for couples with combined weekly adjusted income of less than $100.00. Consequently, the Guidelines do not establish a minimum support obligation. Instead the facts of each individual case must be examined and support set in such a manner that the obligor is not denied a means of self-support at a subsistence level. For example, (1) a parent who has a high parenting time credit; (2) a parent who suffers from debilitating mental illness; (3) a parent caring for a disabled child; (4) an incarcerated parent; (5) a parent or a family member with a debilitating physical health issue; or, (6) a natural disaster are significant but not exclusive factors for the court to consider in setting a child support order. The court should not automatically attribute minimum wage to parents who, for a variety of factors, are not capable of earning minimum wage.
Where parents live together with the child and share expenses, a child support worksheet shall be completed and a $0.00 order may be entered as a deviation.
Temporary Maintenance. It is recommended that temporary maintenance not exceed thirty-five percent (35%) of the obligor's weekly adjusted income. The maximum award should be reserved for those instances where the custodial spouse has no income or no means of support, taking into consideration that spouse's present living arrangement (i.e., whether or not he or she lives with someone who shares or bears the majority of the living expense, lives in the marital residence with little or no expense, lives in military housing, etc.).
It is further recommended that the total of temporary maintenance and child support should not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the obligor's weekly adjusted income. In computing temporary maintenance, in-kind payments, such as the payment of utilities, house payments, rent, etc., should also be included in calculating the percentage limitations. Care must also be taken to ensure that the obligor is not deprived of the ability to support himself or herself.
Spousal Maintenance. It should also be emphasized that the recommendations concerning maintenance apply only to temporary maintenance, not maintenance in the Final Decree. An award of spousal maintenance in the

Final Decree must, of course, be made in accordance with Indiana statute. These Guidelines do not alter those requirements. Theoretically, when setting temporary maintenance, child support should come first. That is, if child support is set at forty percent (40%) of the obligor's weekly adjusted income, only a maximum of ten percent (10%) of the obligor's income would be available for maintenance. That distinction, however, makes little practical difference. As with temporary maintenance, care should be taken to leave the obligor with adequate income for subsistence. In many instances the court will have to review the impact of taxes on the obligor's income before entering an order for spousal maintenance in addition to child support to avoid injustice to the obligor.
The worksheet provides a deduction for spousal maintenance paid (Line 1D). Caution should be taken to assure that any credit taken is for maintenance and not for periodic payments as the result of a property settlement. No such deduction is given for amounts paid by an obligor as the result of a property settlement, although that is a factor the court may wish to consider in determining the obligor's ability to pay the scheduled amount of support at the present time. Again, flexibility was intended throughout the Guidelines and they were not intended to place the obligor in a position where he or she loses all incentive to comply with the orders of the court.
Guidelines to be Applied in all Matters of Child Support. The Indiana Child Support Guidelines shall be applied in every instance in which child support is established including, but not limited to, dissolutions of marriage, legal separations, paternity actions, juvenile proceedings, petitions to establish support and Title IV-D proceedings.
The Indiana legislature requires the Indiana Child Support Guidelines be applied and the Child Support Worksheet be used in determining the manner in which financial services to children that are CHINS (Child in Need of Services) or delinquent are to be repaid. Similarly, the legislature requires the court to use the Guidelines to determine the financial contribution required from each parent of a child or the guardian of the child’s estate for costs associated with the institutional placement of a child.
A. Definition of Weekly Gross Income.
1. Definition of Weekly Gross Income (Line 1 of Worksheet). For purposes of these Guidelines, "weekly gross income" is defined as actual weekly gross income of the parent if employed to full capacity, potential income if unemployed or underemployed, and the value of "in-kind" benefits received by the parent. Weekly gross income of each parent includes income from any source, except as excluded below, and includes, but is not limited to, income from salaries, wages, commissions, bonuses, overtime, partnership distributions, dividends, severance pay, pensions, interest, trust income, annuities, structured settlements, capital gains, social security benefits, worker’s compensation benefits, unemployment insurance benefits, disability insurance benefits, gifts, inheritance, prizes, and alimony or maintenance received.
Social Security disability benefits paid for the benefit of the child must be included in the disabled parent’s gross income. The disabled parent is entitled to a credit for the amount of Social Security disability benefits paid for the benefit of the child.
Certain Exclusions from Income. Specifically excluded are benefits from means-tested public assistance programs, including, but not limited to, Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF), Supplemental Security Income, and Food Stamps. Also excluded are survivor benefits received by or for other children residing in either parent’s home.
2. Self-Employment, Business Expenses, In-Kind Payments and Related Issues. Weekly Gross Income from self-employment, operation of a business, rent, and royalties is defined as gross receipts minus ordinary and necessary expenses. In general, these types of income and expenses from self-employment or operation of a business should be carefully reviewed to restrict the deductions to reasonable out-of-pocket expenditures necessary to produce income. These expenditures may include a reasonable yearly deduction for necessary capital expenditures. Weekly Gross Income from self-employment may differ from a determination of business income for tax purposes.
Expense reimbursements or in-kind payments received by a parent in the course of employment, self-employment, or operation of a business should be counted as income if they are significant and reduce personal living expenses. Such payments might include a company car, free housing, or reimbursed meals.
The self-employed shall be permitted to deduct that portion of their FICA tax payment that exceeds the FICA tax that would be paid by an employee earning the same Weekly Gross Income.
3. Unemployed, Underemployed and Potential Income. If a court finds a parent is voluntarily unemployed or underemployed without just cause, child support shall be calculated based on a determination of potential income. A determination of potential income shall be made by determining employment potential and probable earnings

level based on the obligor's employment and earnings history, occupational qualifications, educational attainment, literacy, age, health, criminal record or other employment barriers, prevailing job opportunities, and earnings levels in the community. If there is no employment and earnings history and no higher education or vocational training, the facts of the case may indicate that Weekly Gross Income be set at least at the federal minimum wage level, provided the resulting child support amount is set in such a manner that the obligor is not denied a means of self-support at a subsistence level.
Weekly Gross Income.
1. Child Support Calculations Generally. Weekly Gross Income, potential income, weekly adjusted income and basic child support obligation have very specific and well-defined meanings within the Indiana Child Support Guidelines. Their definitions are not repeated in the Commentary, but further explanation follows.
2. Determination of Weekly Gross Income. Weekly Gross Income is the starting point in determining the child support obligation, and it must be calculated for both parents. If one or both parents have no income, then potential income may be calculated and used as Weekly Gross Income. Likewise, imputed income may be substituted for, or added to, other income in arriving at Weekly Gross Income. It includes such items as free housing, a company car that may be used for personal travel, and reimbursed meals or other items received by the obligor that reduce his or her living expenses.
The Child Support Obligation Worksheet does not include space to calculate Weekly Gross Income. It must be calculated separately and the result entered on the worksheet.
In calculating Weekly Gross Income, it is helpful to begin with total income from all sources. This figure may not be the same as gross income for tax purposes. Internal Revenue Code of 1986, § 61. Means-tested public assistance programs (those based on income) are excluded from the computation of Weekly Gross Income, but other government payments, such as Social Security benefits and veterans pensions/retired pay, should be included. However, survivor benefits paid to or for the benefit of their children are not included. In cases where a custodial parent is receiving, as a representative payee for a prior born child, Social Security survivor benefits because of the death of the prior born child’s parent, the court should carefully consider Line 1 C of the basic child support obligation worksheet, Legal Duty of Support for Prior-born Children. Because the deceased parent’s contribution for the support of the prior born child is being partially paid by Social Security survivor benefits that are excluded from Weekly Gross Income, the court should not enter, on Line 1C, an amount that represents 100% of the cost of support for the prior born child. The income of the spouses of the parties is not included in Weekly Gross Income.
A court may not consider the incarceration of a parent as voluntary unemployment and his or her potential income should not be assessed for the establishment or modification of child support. I.C. 31-16-8-1 (d).
a. Self-Employment, Rent and Royalty Income. Calculating Weekly Gross Income for the self-employed or for those who receive rent and royalty income presents unique problems, and calls for careful review of expenses. The principle involved is that actual expenses are deducted, and benefits that reduce living expenses (i.e. company cars, free lodging, reimbursed meals, etc.) should be included in whole or in part. It is intended that actual out-of-pocket expenditures for the self-employed, to the extent that they are reasonable and necessary for the production of income, be deducted. Reasonable deductions for capital expenditures may be included. While income tax returns may be helpful in arriving at Weekly Gross Income for a self-employed person, the deductions allowed by the Guidelines may differ significantly from those allowed for tax purposes.
The self-employed pay FICA tax at twice the rate that is paid by employees. At present rates, the self-employed pay fifteen and thirty one-hundredths percent (15.30%) of their gross income to a designated maximum, while employees pay seven and sixty-five one-hundredths percent (7.65%) to the same maximum. The self-employed are therefore permitted to deduct one-half of their FICA payment when calculating Weekly Gross Income.
b. Overtime, Commissions, Bonuses and Other Forms of Irregular Income. There are numerous forms of income that are irregular or nonguaranteed, which cause difficulty in accurately determining the gross income of a party. Overtime, commissions, bonuses, periodic partnership distributions, voluntary extra work and extra hours worked by a professional are all illustrations, but far from an all-inclusive list, of such items. Each is includable in the total income approach taken by the Guidelines, but each is also very fact sensitive.
Each of the above items is sensitive to downturns in the economy. The fact that overtime, for example, has been consistent for three (3) years does not guarantee that it will continue in a poor economy. Further, it is not the intent of the Guidelines to require a party who has worked sixty (60) hour weeks to continue doing so indefinitely just to meet a support obligation that is based on that higher level of earnings. Care should be taken to set support based on dependable income, while at the same time providing children with the support to which they are entitled.
When the court determines that it is not appropriate to include irregular income in the determination of the child support obligation, the court should express its reasons. When the court determines that it is appropriate to

include irregular income, an equitable method of treating such income may be to require the obligor to pay a fixed percentage of overtime, bonuses, etc., in child support on a periodic but predetermined basis (weekly, bi-weekly, monthly, quarterly) rather than by the process of determining the average of the irregular income by past history and including it in the obligor's gross income calculation.
One method of treating irregular income is to determine the ratio of the basic child support obligation (line 4 of the worksheet) to the combined weekly adjusted income (line 3 of the worksheet) and apply this ratio to the irregular income during a fixed period. For example, if the basic obligation was $110.00 and the combined income was $650.00, the ratio would be .169 ($110.00 / $650.00). The order of the court would then require the obligor to make a lump sum payment of .169 of the obligor's irregular income received during the fixed period.
The use of this ratio will not result in an exact calculation of support paid on a weekly basis. It will result in an overstatement of the additional support due, and particularly so when average irregular income exceeds $250.00 per week or exceeds 75% of the regular adjusted Weekly Gross Income. In these latter cases the obligor may seek to have the irregular income calculation redetermined by the court.
Another form of irregular income may exist when an obligor takes a part-time job for the purpose of meeting financial obligations arising from a subsequent marriage, or other circumstances. Modification of the support order to include this income or any portion of it may require that the obligor continue with that employment just to meet an increased support obligation, resulting in a disincentive to work.
Judges and practitioners should be innovative in finding ways to include income that would have benefited the family had it remained intact, but be receptive to deviations where reasons justify them. The foregoing discussion should not be interpreted to exclude consideration of irregular income of the custodial parent.
c. Potential Income. Potential income may be determined if a parent has no income, or only means-tested income, and is capable of earning income or capable of earning more. Obviously, a great deal of discretion will have to be used in this determination. One purpose of potential income is to discourage a parent from taking a lower paying job to avoid the payment of significant support. Another purpose is to fairly allocate the support obligation when one parent remarries and, because of the income of the new spouse, chooses not to be employed. However, attributing potential income that results in an unrealistic child support obligation may cause the accumulation of an excessive arrearage, and be contrary to the best interests of the child(ren). Research shows that on average more noncustodial parental involvement is associated with greater child educational attainment and lower juvenile delinquency. Ordering support for low-income parents at levels they can reasonably pay may improve noncustodial parent-child contact; and in turn, the outcomes for their children. The six examples which follow illustrate some of the considerations affecting attributing potential income to an unemployed or underemployed parent.
(1) When a custodial parent with young children at home has no significant skills or education and is unemployed, he or she may not be capable of entering the work force and earning enough to even cover the cost of child care. Hence, it may be inappropriate to attribute any potential income to that parent. It is not the intention of the Guidelines to force all custodial parents into the work force. Therefore, discretion must be exercised on an individual case basis to determine if it is fair under the circumstances to attribute potential income to a particular nonworking or underemployed custodial parent. The need for a custodial parent to contribute to the financial support of a child must be carefully balanced against the need for the parent's full-time presence in the home.
(2) When a parent has some history of working and is capable of entering the work force, but without just cause voluntarily fails or refuses to work or to be employed in a capacity in keeping with his or her capabilities, such a parent's potential income shall be included in the gross income of that parent. The amount to be attributed as potential income in such a case may be the amount that the evidence demonstrates he or she was capable of earning in the past. If for example the custodial parent had been a nurse or a licensed engineer, it may be unreasonable to determine his or her potential at the minimum wage level. Discretion must be exercised on an individual case basis to determine whether under the circumstances there is just cause to attribute potential income to a particular unemployed or underemployed parent.
(3) Even though an unemployed parent has never worked before, potential income should be considered for that parent if he or she voluntarily remains unemployed without justification. Absent any other evidence of potential earnings of such a parent, the federal minimum wage should be used in calculating potential income for that parent. However, the court should not add child care expense that is not actually incurred.
(4) When a parent is unemployed by reason of involuntary layoff or job termination, it still may be appropriate to include an amount in gross income representing that parent's potential income. If the involuntary layoff can be reasonably expected to be brief, potential income should be used at or near that parent's historical earning level. If the involuntary layoff will be extensive in duration, potential income may be determined based upon

such factors as the parent's unemployment compensation, job capabilities, education and whether other employment is available. Potential income equivalent to the federal minimum wage may be attributed to that parent.
(5) When a parent is unable to obtain employment because that parent suffers from debilitating mental illness, a debilitating health issue, or is caring for a disabled child, it may be inappropriate to attribute any potential income to that parent.
(6) When a parent is incarcerated and has no assets or other source of income, potential income should not be attributed.
d. In-Kind Benefits. Whether or not the value of in-kind benefits should be included in a parent’s weekly gross income is fact-sensitive and requires careful consideration of the evidence in each case. It may be inappropriate to include as gross income occasional gifts received. However, regular and continuing payments made by a family member, subsequent spouse, roommate or live in friend that reduce the parent's costs for housing, utilities, or groceries, may be included as gross income. If there were specific living expenses being paid by a parent which are now being regularly and continually paid by that parent’s current spouse or a third party, the value of those assumed expenses may be considered to be in-kind benefits and included as part of the parent’s weekly gross income. The marriage of a parent to a spouse with sufficient affluence to obviate the necessity for the parent to work may give rise to a situation where either potential income or the value of in-kind benefits or both should be considered in arriving at gross income.
e. Return from Individual Retirement Accounts and other retirement plans. The annual return of an IRA, 401(K) or other retirement plan that is automatically reinvested does not constitute income. Where previous withdrawals from the IRA or 401(K) have been made to fund the parent’s lifestyle choices or living expenses, these withdrawals may be considered “actual income” when calculating the parent’s child support obligation. The withdrawals must have been received by the parent and immediately available for his or her use. The court should consider whether the early withdrawal was used to reduce the parent’s current living expenses, whether it was utilized to satisfy on-going financial obligations, and whether the sums are immediately available to the parent. This is a factsensitive situation. Retirement funds which were in existence at the time of a dissolution and which were the subject of the property division would not be considered “income” when calculating child support.
B. Income Verification.
1. Submitting Worksheet to Court. In all cases, a copy of the worksheet which accompanies these Guidelines shall be completed and filed with the court when the court is asked to order support. This includes cases in which agreed orders are submitted. Worksheets shall be signed by both parties, not their counsel, under penalties for perjury.
2. Documenting Income. Income statements of the parents shall be verified with documentation of both current and past income. Suitable documentation of current earnings includes paystubs, employer statements, or receipts and expenses if self-employed. Documentation of income may be supplemented with copies of tax returns.
Worksheet Documentation.
1. Worksheet Requirement. Submission of the worksheet became a requirement in 1989 when use of the Guidelines became mandatory. The Family Support Act of 1988 requires that a written finding be made when establishing support. In Indiana, this is accomplished by submission of a child support worksheet. The worksheet memorializes the basis upon which the support order is established. Failure to submit a completed child support worksheet may, in the court’s discretion, result in the court refusing to approve a child support order or result in a continuance of a hearing regarding child support until a completed worksheet is provided. At subsequent modification hearings the court will then have the ability to accurately determine the income claimed by each party at the time of the prior hearing.
If the parties disagree on their respective gross incomes, the court shall include in its order the gross income it determines for each party. When the court deviates from the Guideline amount, the order or decree should also include the reason or reasons for deviation. This information becomes the starting point to determine whether or not a substantial and continuing change of circumstance occurs in the future.
2. Verification of Income. The requirement of income verification is not a change in the law but merely a suggestion to judges that they take care in determining the income of each party. One pay stub standing alone can be very misleading, as can other forms of documentation. This is particularly true for salesmen, professionals and others who receive commissions or bonuses, or others who have the ability to defer payments, thereby distorting the true picture of their income in the short term. When in doubt, it is suggested that income tax returns for the last two or three

years be reviewed.

C. Computation of Weekly Adjusted Income (Line 1E of Worksheet).
After Weekly Gross Income is determined, certain reductions are allowed in computing weekly adjusted income which is the amount on which child support is based. These reductions are specified below.
1. Adjustment for Subsequent-born or Legally Adopted Child(ren) (Line 1A of Worksheet). There shall be an adjustment to Weekly Gross Income of parents who have a legal duty or court order to support children (1)born or legally adopted subsequent to the birthdates(s) of the child(ren) subject of the child support order and (2)that parent is actually meeting or paying that obligation.
2. Court Orders for Prior-born Child(ren) (Line 1B of Worksheet). The amount(s) of any court order(s) for child support for prior-born children shall be deducted from Weekly Gross Income. This should include court ordered post-secondary education expenses calculated on an annual basis divided by 52 weeks. A credit shall not be given for any portion of the order addressing arrearages.
3. Legal Duty of Support for Prior-born Child(ren) When No Court Order Exists (Line 1C of Worksheet). Where a party has a legal duty to financially support children born prior to the child(ren) for whom support is being established, and no court order exists, an amount reasonably necessary for such support actually paid, or funds actually spent shall be deducted from weekly gross income to arrive at weekly adjusted income. This deduction is not allowed for step-children.
4. Alimony or Maintenance (Line 1D of Worksheet). The amount(s) of alimony ordered in decrees from foreign jurisdictions or maintenance should be deducted from Weekly Gross Income.

Determining Weekly Adjusted Income. After Weekly Gross Income is determined, the next step is to compute weekly adjusted income (Line 1E of the Worksheet). Certain deductions, discussed below, are allowed from Weekly Gross Income in arriving at weekly adjusted income.
1. Adjustment of Weekly Gross Income for Subsequent-born or Legally Adopted Child(ren). The adjustment should be computed as follows:

STEP 1: Determine the number of children born or legally adopted by the parents subsequent to the birthdate(s) of the child(ren) subject of the child support order and for whom the parent has a legal duty or court order to support. The parent seeking the adjustment has the burden to prove the support is actually paid if the subsequent child does not live in the respective parent’s household.

STEP 2: Calculate the subsequent child credit by multiplying the parent’s Weekly Gross Income by the appropriate factor listed in the table below and enter the product on Line 1A on the Worksheet.

Appropriate factors are:

1 Subsequent child


2 Subsequent children .097

3 Subsequent children .122

4 Subsequent children .137

5 Subsequent children .146

6 Subsequent children .155

7 Subsequent children .164

8 Subsequent children .173

EXAMPLE: A noncustodial parent has a Weekly Gross Income, before adjustment, of $500.00. The custodial parent has a Weekly Gross Income, before adjustment, of $300.00. An adjustment shall be made to the parents’ respective Weekly Gross Incomes for the two (2) children born to the noncustodial parent after the birthdates(s) of the child(ren) subject of the child support order and the one (1) adopted child of the custodial parent, legally adopted after the birthdate(s) of the child(ren) subject of the child support order. The respective subsequent child adjustment to be entered on Line 1A of the Worksheet would be as follows:
Noncustodial………….$500.00 x .097 = $48.50 adjustment
Custodial……………...$300.00 x .065 = $19.50 adjustment