How is Child Support Calculated in VA

No Major Bills Affecting Fathers Pending in Richmond, But CS Review Panel Has Yet to Address CS `Cliff Effect' The Virginia General Assembly (legislature) convened January 14 for what is expected to be a short legislative session (45 days). So far legislators appear unlikely to adopt any domestic relations bills that would have a major impact on fathers. Unlike previous legislative sessions, no presumptive joint custody bills are on the agenda for the 2015 session. Likely to be of more interest to fathers during 2015 is what goes on in the Child Support Guidelines Review Panel. At the end of 2013 the panel issued an interim report that ultimately resulted in 2014 legislation increasing child support. Currently, according to the panel's website, no meetings are yet scheduled for 2015. However, at least one issue of crucial importance to fathers, the so-called "cliff effect' feature of the CS guideline, remains to be addressed by the panel. The cliff effect stipulates that the amount of CS payable is unaffected by the amount of time that children spend with the non-custodial parent (nearly always the father) until they are with him for more than 90 days each year. The cliff effect restricts fathers' visitation time with their children, because custodial parents are unlikely to agree to visitation periods that would reduce the amount of child support they receive from the non-custodial parent. Fathers' representatives maintain that this 90-day threshold is outdated, since computerized programs have now greatly simplified the calculation of CS, and have made obsolete earlier objections to a sliding scale method. The purpose of the cliff effect was supposed to be to keep CS calculations from becoming too complex, as supposedly they would be if CS amounts were precisely related to the amount time spend with each parent. Domestic Relations Bills in General Assembly A full list of the domestic relations bills introduced in the General Assembly is available at http://virginiageneralassembly.gov/. The following are official summaries of the domestic relations bills that, if enacted, seem likely to affect fathers: * HB 1549 Revocation of concealed handgun permit; delinquency in child support payments. Provides for the revocation of an individual's concealed handgun permit if such individual (i) has failed to comply with a subpoena, summons, or warrant relating to paternity or child support proceedings or (ii) is delinquent in the payment of child support by 90 days or more or in an amount of $5,000 or more. If the obligor remedies the delinquency, reaches an agreement with the obligee or Department of Social Services to remedy the delinquency, or complies with the subpoena, summons, or warrant, he may reapply for a concealed weapons permit. * HB 1601 Uniform Interstate Family Support Act. Amends the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA) to comply with amendments to the Hague Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance that were adopted in 2008. The amendments modify the current version of UIFSA's international provisions to comport with the obligations of the United States under the 2007 Hague Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance. The bill contains an emergency clause. * HB 1602 Proration of child support. Directs the Department of Social Services, upon receiving child support payments pursuant to one or more judicial or administrative orders, to prorate payments on the basis of amounts due for current support and, upon satisfaction of all amounts due for current support, prorate the remainder on the basis of amounts due for accrued arrearages. The bill directs the Department to allocate payments received pursuant to federal tax refund offset pursuant to subsection h of 45 C.F.R. 303.72. * HB 2034 Temporary delegation of parental or legal custodial powers; child-placing agency. Allows a parent or legal custodian of a minor to delegate to another person by a properly executed power of attorney any powers regarding care, custody, or property of the minor for a period not exceeding one year. The bill also exempts from the requirement to obtain a license as a child-placing agency a private, nonprofit organization that does not accept public funds and that assists parents with the process of delegating parental and legal custody of their children, including assistance with identifying appropriate placements for their children, or that provides services and resources to support parents and legal guardians to whom custody has been transferred pursuant to a temporary delegation of parental or legal custodial powers. * HB 2105 Denial of spousal support to spouses convicted of certain violations. Provides that a court shall not award spousal support to a spouse if such spouse was convicted of any violation of Article 4 (Assaults and Bodily Woundings) or Article 7 (Criminal Sexual Assault) of Chapter 4 of Article 18.2, provided that (i) such violation was against the spouse from whom support is being sought and (ii) the conviction occurred within the five-year period immediately preceding the filing of the petition for divorce or at any time thereafter, unless the spouse seeking support proves by a preponderance of the evidence that a denial of support would be unconscionable. * HB 2190 Child support; incarcerated obligor. Provides that a court shall recalculate the child support obligation of an obligor who is incarcerated during the support period, the recalculation being retroactive to the date of incarceration. The bill also provides that prisoners are exempt from various fees and costs that may be collected by the Department of Social Services in enforcing support obligations. The bill further provides that reductions in the child support arrearages owed by prisoners be granted for timely payments of support * SB 788 Public assistance; changes in custody. Requires any circuit or district court entering an order changing or establishing custody to forward a copy of the order to the local board of social services in the city or county in which any person receiving public assistance on behalf of the child resides. The bill also directs local boards of social services to reconsider public assistance grants upon receipt of such orders and, upon any change or withdrawal of public assistance, notify the new custodial parent of his potential eligibility for such assistance. * SB 913 Filing fees; motions to modify custody or visitation orders. Provides for a $25 filing fee for a petition for the modification of a custody or visitation order filed in the juvenile and domestic relations district court. * SB 923 Child support for disabled child over the age of 18 (Conner's Law). Provides that a court may order child support for any child over the age of 18 who is severely and permanently mentally or physically disabled if such disability existed prior to the child reaching the age of 18 or the age of 19 if the child was a full-time high school student, not self-supporting, and was living in the home of the parent seeking child support. Current requirements that the child also be unable to live independently, unable to support himself, and reside in the home of the parent seeking child support remain unchanged. * SB 957 Child support for disabled child over the age of 18 (Conner's Law). Provides that a court may order child support for any child over the age of 18 who is severely and permanently mentally or physically disabled if such disability existed prior to the child reaching the age of 18 or the age of 19 if the child was a full-time high school student, not self-supporting, and was living in the home of the parent seeking child support. Current requirements that the child also be unable to live independently, unable to support himself, and reside in the home of the parent seeking child support remain unchanged. * SB 1180 Custody and visitation agreements; best interests of the child. Requires the court to consider any history of abuse of persons other than family members when determining the best interests of the child for the purposes of custody and visitation arrangements. The bill removes the requirement that in order for a court, on the basis of certain offenses, to enjoin a parent from filing a custody or visitation petition, the victim of the offense must have been his child, a child with whom he resided at the time, or the other parent of the child. Kenneth H. Skilling January 23, 2015

DATES FOR FATHERS UNITED AND WOMEN'S COALITION LEGAL CLINIC 2014-2015

Thursday November 20 2014 Thursday December 4 2014 Thursday December 18 2014 Thursday January 8 2015 Wednesday January 21 2015 Thursday January 22 2015 Thursday Febuary 5 2015 Thursday Febuary 19 2015 Thursday March 5 2015 Thursday March 19 2015 Thursday April 2 2015 Thursday April 16 2015 Thursday April 30 2015 Thursday May 14 2015 Thursday May 28 2015 Thursday June 11 2015 Thursday June 25 2015 Thursday July 9 2015 Thursday July 23 2015 Thursday August 6 2015 Thursday August 20 2015 Thursday September 3 2015 Thursday September 17 2015 Thursday October 1 2015 Thursday October 15 2015 Thursday October 29 2015 Thursday November 12 2015 Thursday December 10 2015 Thursday January 7 2016

REPORT FROM FATHERS FROM VA ON NEW PROPOSED CHILD SUPPORT LAW

House Subcommittee Endorses Child Support Increases The outcome of the Jan. 15 subcommittee consideration of HB 933, a bill that would increase the child support amounts in the statutory CS guideline, is very disappointing to fathers. By a substantial majority, the House Courts of Justice Civil Subcommittee in Richmond voted to approve the bill and send it on to the full Courts of Justice Committee. The subcommittee made their decision despite testimony against the bill by FFV's Kenneth Skilling and by Virginia Beach mediator Diane Poljacik. The official record of the subcommittee's decision is below. Subcommittee members had no comments on the testimony of those who opposed the bill, although these opponents raised significant objections to HB 933. By contrast, there was significant interaction between subcommittee members and those who supported the bill. FFV is now trying to discover from sources in Richmond what will happen next. Specifically, we want to know when the bill will be taken up in the main Courts of Justice Committee, chaired by Del. Dave Albo (R-Springfield). As yet, it is unclear whether the full committee will simply rubber-stamp the subcommittee's decision, or conduct a comprehensive re-examination of HB 933. At the moment, FFV is thinking of a lobbying campaign that would focus on individual members of the full committee. Jan. 20 ("lobby day" in Richmond) seems to be a suitable day for conducting this campaign. However, much depends on the timing of the full committee's consideration of the bill. On Jan. 15 HB 933 was introduced in the subcommittee by Del. Vivian Watts (D-Fairfax County), who participated in the Child Support Guideline Review Panel, and is a member of the House Courts of Justice Committee. In mid-December, the panel produced a report that was the basis of HB 933. In her introduction of the bill, Watts focused on the fact that the Virginia guideline had not been changed for many years. She claimed that the changes in HB 933 were based on a carefully conducted study of the costs of raising children. She was questioned by panel members about some aspects of this study, and asked about the treatment of CS for mothers who had several children by several different fathers (an issue that was left for later consideration by the review panel, and not included in HB 933). Watts said the CS guideline was considered "tremendously helpful" by divorce lawyers. Craig Burshem, a senior official of the Division of Child Support Enforcement and also a member of the review panel, supported the adoption of the new CS schedule. So too did representatives of the Virginia Bar and the Virginia Poverty Law Center, in very brief statements to the subcommittee. Diane Poljacik criticized the CS guideline as insufficiently flexible and as encouraging a one-size-fits all mentality. In addition, she said, some elements of the guideline embody double counting of child-rearing expenses, and custodial parents benefit from this. Kenneth Skilling told the panel that the present CS schedule is self-updating, because the CS amounts are related to income, and as income rises so too does the amount of money payable to the custodial parent. In addition, he said, the panel had been told that other states (many advised by the same consultant who had advised Virginia) had raised their CS amounts. However, the CS review panel did not consider Massachusetts, a state roughly comparable to Virginia, which recently significantly reduced the CS amounts in its CS schedules. Skilling also noted that the CS review panel had decided to extend its work into 2014 and beyond -- an unprecedented decision, since all previous CS review panels had gone out of existence after they submitted their reports. In the panel's report to the General Assembly, there was no mention of its decision to extend its life. In addition, Skilling said, there is no recommendation in the panel's report for any change to the "cliff effect," the feature that specifies that a noncustodial parent's visitation time is not reflected in the CS he pays until after the children have been with him for more than 90 days each year. In this context, Skilling stressed that the CS review panel acknowledged that it had not finished its work. So, he said, it's premature to act on a panel report that covers only some of the issues under examination -- particularly since all the actions proposed in HB 933 are disadvantageous to noncustodial parents, whereas those that might benefit noncustodial parents (such as ending the cliff effect) have been left for later consideration. Subcommittee members commented on the views of those who supported enactment of HB 933 and questioned some aspects of their testimony. However, there was no interaction with those who opposed the bill. Their statements were simply listened to without comment, before the subcommittee proceeded to a vote. House Subcommittee Endorses Child Support Increases The outcome of the Jan. 15 subcommittee consideration of HB 933, a bill that would increase the child support amounts in the statutory CS guideline, is very disappointing to fathers. By a substantial majority, the House Courts of Justice Civil Subcommittee in Richmond voted to approve the bill and send it on to the full Courts of Justice Committee. The subcommittee made their decision despite testimony against the bill by FFV's Kenneth Skilling and by Virginia Beach mediator Diane Poljacik. The official record of the subcommittee's decision is below. Subcommittee members had no comments on the testimony of those who opposed the bill, although these opponents raised significant objections to HB 933. By contrast, there was significant interaction between subcommittee members and those who supported the bill. FFV is now trying to discover from sources in Richmond what will happen next. Specifically, we want to know when the bill will be taken up in the main Courts of Justice Committee, chaired by Del. Dave Albo (R-Springfield). As yet, it is unclear whether the full committee will simply rubber-stamp the subcommittee's decision, or conduct a comprehensive re-examination of HB 933. At the moment, FFV is thinking of a lobbying campaign that would focus on individual members of the full committee. Jan. 20 ("lobby day" in Richmond) seems to be a suitable day for conducting this campaign. However, much depends on the timing of the full committee's consideration of the bill. On Jan. 15 HB 933 was introduced in the subcommittee by Del. Vivian Watts (D-Fairfax County), who participated in the Child Support Guideline Review Panel, and is a member of the House Courts of Justice Committee. In mid-December, the panel produced a report that was the basis of HB 933. In her introduction of the bill, Watts focused on the fact that the Virginia guideline had not been changed for many years. She claimed that the changes in HB 933 were based on a carefully conducted study of the costs of raising children. She was questioned by panel members about some aspects of this study, and asked about the treatment of CS for mothers who had several children by several different fathers (an issue that was left for later consideration by the review panel, and not included in HB 933). Watts said the CS guideline was considered "tremendously helpful" by divorce lawyers. Craig Burshem, a senior official of the Division of Child Support Enforcement and also a member of the review panel, supported the adoption of the new CS schedule. So too did representatives of the Virginia Bar and the Virginia Poverty Law Center, in very brief statements to the subcommittee. Diane Poljacik criticized the CS guideline as insufficiently flexible and as encouraging a one-size-fits all mentality. In addition, she said, some elements of the guideline embody double counting of child-rearing expenses, and custodial parents benefit from this. Kenneth Skilling told the panel that the present CS schedule is self-updating, because the CS amounts are related to income, and as income rises so too does the amount of money payable to the custodial parent. In addition, he said, the panel had been told that other states (many advised by the same consultant who had advised Virginia) had raised their CS amounts. However, the CS review panel did not consider Massachusetts, a state roughly comparable to Virginia, which recently significantly reduced the CS amounts in its CS schedules. Skilling also noted that the CS review panel had decided to extend its work into 2014 and beyond -- an unprecedented decision, since all previous CS review panels had gone out of existence after they submitted their reports. In the panel's report to the General Assembly, there was no mention of its decision to extend its life. In addition, Skilling said, there is no recommendation in the panel's report for any change to the "cliff effect," the feature that specifies that a noncustodial parent's visitation time is not reflected in the CS he pays until after the children have been with him for more than 90 days each year. In this context, Skilling stressed that the CS review panel acknowledged that it had not finished its work. So, he said, it's premature to act on a panel report that covers only some of the issues under examination -- particularly since all the actions proposed in HB 933 are disadvantageous to noncustodial parents, whereas those that might benefit noncustodial parents (such as ending the cliff effect) have been left for later consideration. Subcommittee members commented on the views of those who supported enactment of HB 933 and questioned some aspects of their testimony. However, there was no interaction with those who opposed the bill. Their statements were simply listened to without comment, before the subcommittee proceeded to a vote.