Here is a first draft of a proposed revision to the child support code to prevent what happened to Ned Martello in his divorce. In that case, the court ordered 93% of his income taken as interim spousal and child support.

1) Put an upper limit on interim spousal at 1/3 of total income as there is for a final spousal support order.

2) Put an upper limit on child support for each child that a parent has.

3) Put the maximum limit for combined spousal and child support to the 50% limit in the garnishment law.

What else?

Art. 141. Child support; authority of court

A. In a proceeding for divorce or thereafter, the court may order either or both of the parents to provide an interim allowance or final support for a child based on the needs of the child and the ability of the parents to provide support.

B. The court may award an interim allowance only when a demand for final support is pending.

C. The sum awarded under this Article shall not exceed:

(1) 26% of the obligor's net income for the first child.

(2) 11% of the obligor's net income for a second child.

(3) 6% of the obligor's net income for a third child.

(4) 5% of the obligor's net income for any subsequent children.

D. The total sum awarded under this Article in compbinatoin with an award for final (CC 112(C)) or interim spousal support (CC 113) shall not exceed 50% of the obligor's net income.

E. All retroactive awards shall be made payable over time.

(1) The sum awarded retroactively shall not exceed 5% of the obligor's net income.

(2) The amount awarded retroactively shall not be considered as arrears for the purposes of prosecution nor counted as arrears by DSS until the monthly payment is missed and then only by the amount of the payment not obtained.

F. All awards must also comply with any limits set by the maximum garnishment law (R.S. 13: 3881).

Acts 1993, No. 261, §6, eff. Jan. 1, 1994.

=============================================================

Art. 113. Interim spousal support allowance pending final spousal support award

A. Upon motion of a party or when a demand for final spousal support is pending, the court may award a party an interim spousal support allowance based on the needs of that party, the ability of the other party to pay, and the standard of living of the parties during the marriage, which award of interim spousal support allowance shall terminate upon the rendition of a judgment of divorce. If a claim for final spousal support is pending at the time of the rendition of the judgment of divorce, the interim spousal support award shall thereafter terminate upon rendition of a judgment awarding or denying final spousal support or one hundred eighty days from the rendition of judgment of divorce, whichever occurs first. The obligation to pay interim spousal support may extend beyond one hundred eighty days from the rendition of judgment of divorce, but only for good cause shown.

B. The sum awarded under this Article shall not exceed:

(1) 33% of the obligor's net income.

(2) The total sum awarded under this Article in combination with an award for child support (CC 141) shall not exceed 50% of the obligor's net income.

Art. 112. Determination of final periodic support
A. When a spouse has not been at fault and is in need of support, based on the needs of that party and the ability of the other party to pay, that spouse may be awarded final periodic support in accordance with Paragraph B of this Article.

B. The court shall consider all relevant factors in determining the amount and duration of final support. Those factors may include:

(1) The income and means of the parties, including the liquidity of such means.

(2) The financial obligations of the parties.

(3) The earning capacity of the parties.

(4) The effect of custody of children upon a party's earning capacity.

(5) The time necessary for the claimant to acquire appropriate education, training, or employment.

(6) The health and age of the parties.

(7) The duration of the marriage.

(8) The tax consequences to either or both parties.

C. The sum awarded under this Article shall not exceed one-third of the obligor's net income.

D. A final award of spousal support shall always be modifiable. Non-modifiable spousal support awards are expressly disallowed as being against the best interest of the public.

The total sum awarded under this Article in combination with an award for child support (CC 141) shall not exceed 50% of the obligor's net income.



Nick

Reform 2 - Deduct the Self Support Reserve from Net Income

From NET INCOME we need to calculate AVAILABLE INCOME.

So there need to be two line item deductions. The first would be for the 'Self Support Reserve' (SSR). This amount would be to ensure that the paying parent has enough money to live on.

The state needs some leeway to handle those in either 1) unstable employment situations or 2) highly variable income situations. A fixed 'one size fit all' plan does not work those people.

Obviously the legal system is the wrong place to deal with such cases. They need to be handled administratively. The legal system should only be used to appeal or complain about the admin system.

We need a person who gets a surge in income to be automatically paying more; and a drop in income to be automatically paying less. There are industries where that is regular.

A child support order based on a PERCENTAGE OF PAY is appropriate for those cases.

REFORM 1 - USE NET INCOME TABLES

But Nick, the tables are based on GROSS income.

Answer: NO THEY ARE NOT.

The tables are generated by the economists from NET INCOME. It is only at the very LAST step that the NET INCOME numbers are converted over to GROSS INCOME numbers.

To make the tables 'more robust' and suitable for changing economic conditions - such as massive changes in the tax structure on either the state or federal level.

For example, "What if Hillary wins and establishes a National Health Care tax".

For example, "What if a parent is living in a Higher or lower tax state or country than Louisiana?"

Under the current structure, the Child Support Tables are instantly obsolete and need to be redone.

So the tables should be revised to have a spot for GROSS INCOME. Four line items for reductions - Federal Tax, State Tax, FICA and Self Employed FICE, and Other. Guidance should be provided for the proper number to be included in each spot - i.e. refer the judges to current tax law. These items are then deducted from the GROSS INCOME to calculate the NET INCOME.

N.


P.S. The judges should be allowed discretion to deviate on each of these entries from the standard. HOWEVER, all deviations must be reduced to writing and submitted to the LSLI committee on xxxx for use in the next four year update.