Back To School! Who Pays for School Supplies, Clothes and Fees? Indiana Child Support Guidelines

It’s time to go back to school and a survey found that the average amount spent on back-to-school supplies and clothes is approximately $600.00 per child.  In terms of consumer spending, back-to-school shopping is only eclipsed by holiday shopping.

When parents are divorced, or were never married and live separately, who pays for the school supplies and clothes?

Some court/support orders set out who pays for what specifically in the order, but most do not.  For those that do not, the default is that the primary custodial parent pays for these items. Why? Because that parent generally is the parent who receives support (for an exception read this ) the child support guidelines assume that the custodial parent bears these costs. In fact, the purchase of these items is one of the reasons the primary custodial parent receives child support.

However, if the parents share physical custody and there is not a primary custodian, then they must decide who is going to be responsible for the "controlled expenses". The guidelines define controlled expenses as follows:

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

If you have a child in private school or some other type of special school these costs are considered separately.   The guidelines call these "extraordinary educational expenses" and provide as follows: 

Extraordinary educational expenses may be for elementary, secondary or post secondary education, and should be limited to reasonable and necessary expenses for attending private or special schools, institutions of higher learning, and trade, business or technical schools to meet the particular educational needs of the child. 

Elementary and Secondary Education.  If the expenses are related to elementary or secondary education, the court may want to consider whether the expense is the result of a personal preference of one parent or whether both parents concur; if the parties would have incurred the expense while the family was intact; and whether or not education of the same or higher quality is available at less cost.

In any case, the best practice as to school costs is to have the payment of these costs detailed in the support order.  Otherwise, if the costs are to be shared, make sure the costs are discussed prior to  being incurred so that each parent knows their responsibility. If an impasse occurs, mediation is a great way to resolve the dispute. 

If you would like to discuss this matter further, please contact me at rcassman@chwlaw.com.

Public Hearing On The Indiana Child Support Guidelines - Indiana Child Support Guidelines 2014

This blog receives many emails questioning specific provisions and reasoning behind the child support guidelines.   I like the feedback and welcome the emails, but I am not positioned to do too much with it other than listen.  Well, the domestic relations committee is the place to go as it is THE committee that works on drafts of the child support and parenting time guidelines.  The committee is very important as it shapes many of the family law policies and laws that affect parents in Indiana.  

The Indiana Law Blog (a great source for Indiana legal news) reports the "members of the public, judicial officers, attorneys, and parents are invited to attend the hearing, which will also be webcast.  It will be Friday, May 16th, 10:00 a.m. – 12:00 noon E.D.T., Supreme Court Courtroom."

For more details, or to watch live on May 16, check this webpage.

Same-Sex "Parents" - Visitation and Parenting Time - Indiana Law

On October 31, 2013 the Court of Appeals decided an important case in Indiana holding that a person who is the non-biological, same-sex parent of a child has standing to seek a visitation order with the child.  In doing so the Court of Appeals challenges the legislature to review its definition of "parent" (see below) 

In reaching the holding the Court  of Appeals details the policy reasons and merits of allowing visitation to grandparents, opposite-sex stepparents, foster parents and third parties in general.  Summarizing its reasoning the Court stated:

"By recognizing a right to third-party visitation, this court has acknowledged that a child's interest in maintaining relationships with those who have acted in a parental capacity will sometimes trump a natural parent's right to direct the child's upbringing. Moreover, although the reasons our Supreme Court articulated in Worrell for denying standing to former foster parents are beyond dispute, the rationale for limiting third-party visitation to stepparents alone is less clear. It appears to us that the Court viewed a stepparent relationship as a strong indicator that a custodial and parental relationship exists. But surely custodial and parental relationships may exist with third parties other than stepparents. Indeed, the situation presented here is characterized by even stronger indicia of a custodial and parental relationship. This is so because the parties originally intended for the biological mother's partner to fulfill the role of the child's second parent and actively encouraged the development of a parental bond between the partner and the child."

Importantly, the Court explained that a same-sex partner is not automatically entitled to visitation:

"Thus, in the particular factual circumstances of this case, a partner who did not give birth to the child has standing to seek visitation with the child. This is not to say that a former domestic partner is automatically entitled to visitation in these circumstances—it must still be established that visitation is in the child's best interests. We therefore reverse the trial court's conclusion that Partner lacked standing to seek visitation with Child and remand with instructions to reconsider Partner's request for visitation under the standard set forth in our third-party visitation cases."

So, while a same-sex partner may have visitation, Indiana has not held that they are entitled to visitation per the Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines. Yet. 

Finally, one of most interesting parts of the opinion is where the Court of Appeals urges the legislature to address this issue:

"Since King, the status of the law surrounding a lesbian partner's right, if any, to enjoy the rights of a legal parent of a child born to her partner under the circumstances presented here remains uncertain.[5] When this court decided In re A.B., we solicited guidance from the General Assembly on this issue. In the years that have passed since then, none has been forthcoming. The existing statutory framework does not contemplate the increased use of assisted reproductive technologies. Accordingly, it provides no guidance in situations where an intended parent lacks a genetic connection to the child. That deficiency is exacerbated by the growing recognition of less traditional family structures. Our system of government entrusts the General Assembly, not the courts, to fashion a framework for deciding matters as tethered to social mores and sensibilities as this subject is. We feel the vacuum of such guidance even more acutely now than we did eight years ago, when King was decided. Indeed, what began as a trickle is rapidly becoming a torrent, and the number of children whose lives are impacted by rules that have yet to be written only increases with the passage of time. They, and we, would welcome a legislative roadmap to help navigate the novel legal landscape in which we have arrived."

To discuss this please contact me. To see all of my postings on this topic search here.