Kenya N. Rahmaan
Ohio was one of the first states to implement the changes to the child support system after former President Bill Clinton passed legislation to change the welfare system laws. Discovering that the Buckey state was a pioneer may surprise some; however, it doesn’t surprise those aware that Ohio was the pilot state to implement the child support system for low-income welfare recipients in the late 1990s. Both the welfare and child support systems changed significantly after the 1990s. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) (2017), Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) recipients must assign their rights to child support payments to the state. During the implementation, the government mandated TANF recipients who were custodial parents (primarily mothers) to sign up for child support or risk losing their public benefits.
States have the option of allowing some of the child support payments to be passed-through to the parent and child (NCSL, 2017). During the initial rollout, signing up for child support meant an extra $50 added to the monthly welfare checks in Ohio. Most parents didn’t know they were signing up to sue the non-custodial parent for child support. Currently, the pass-through amount, or the portion of child support paid to TANF families, varies from state to state.
Currently, 28 states, including Ohio, pay $0 since the government refuses to pay any portion of the child support payment received on behalf of TANF families to receive public benefits. The lack of payments to families is due to the child support system being a welfare recovery program. However, the reasons for this require a more detailed explanation than what is detailed in this article. Find out more about child support being a welfare recovery program by visiting: https://youtu.be/sE5EnetBlnk
Ohio did not mention the pass-through regulation recently passed in Ohio. However, considering that Ohio children could have benefited from every penny of their child support money (as is the case with every child around the nation), it most certainly should have been included. According to Jim Siegel of The Columbus Dispatch (2018), House Bill 366:
As the country begins to embrace the inevitability of child support reform, we must understand what reformations the state that piloted the child support system plans on implementing all these years later. Based on history, the other states will follow suit.
First, the updates to the tables used to calculate payments could mean that parents could possibly pay less support. As the staff at WTOL of Toledo, Ohio (2018) explained, the reasoning behind these possible decreased payments is that the Ohio Department of Jobs and Family Services (ODJFS) is rewriting the starting point for payments. Ohio is offering a reduction in payments so that low-income and poor parents have money left over to cover basic needs after making child support payments. Currently, too many parents are left with next to nothing (if anything) to meet their basic living expenses after child support deductions and garnishments.
According to The Ohio Bar Association or the OSBA (2016), under the previous law, the total of this adjusted gross income (combined mother and father’s income minus certain allowable deductions from their gross income) of both parents is then applied to a chart, which identifies the amount of support required to raise children in their parents’ income category. Child support is calculated today in Ohio and every other state because the non-custodial parent pays child support. The state should base the order amount on income, which is not always the case, especially with default judgments.
A default judgment occurs when the defendant fails to appear at the child support hearing, the child support case is established, and the income is estimated based on employment demographics (and other criteria) specific to that area. As it stands, even if the non-custodial parent earns significantly less money than the custodial parent, they would still be required to pay child support. For example, if a father earns $10,000 annually and the mother earns $30,000 (with no deductions for either parent), the father or the non-custodial parent would still be required to pay $139.34 monthly or $1,639.33 annually in child support. The amount is based on the father paying for health insurance and 2% extra for processing.
The annual amount increases to $201.77 monthly and $2,373.75 annually (including the 2% processing fee) for two children. The new child support law would only be beneficial if both parents were equally responsible for providing for their children despite what parent claims primary custody.
The new law claims that spending more time with a child may decrease the amount of monthly child support that the government orders the paying parent to pay. Reducing child support based on time spent is a significant change as the demand for shared parenting steadily increases across the nation. According to the NCSL (2016), approximately 36 states and Washington D.C. have an adjustment in the child support guidelines for parenting time. The current guidelines in Ohio have received a grade of ‘C- ‘by the National Parents Organization (NPO) in its 2014 shared parenting report card.
When considering parental rights and responsibilities for the care of children, shared parenting, according to Ohio Revised Code §3109.04, one provision is:
contingent on whether either parent has failed to make all child support payments, including arrears that are required, pursuant to the child support order where the non-custodial parent has been named the obligor
The new law is unclear if delinquency with child support payments will still affect the shared parenting clause and possible decreases in monthly payments. However, that should have certainly been one of the main changes included in the new guidelines. One of the most consistent arguments against the child support and child custody systems is the separation of the two when parents come before a family court judge. By separating custody and child support cases, the government can generate more money for the state and attorneys.
However, since Ohio attempts to leave the non-custodial parent with a financial ‘cushion’ after child support is paid while simultaneously reducing payments when a parent spends time with their child, late payments seem irrelevant to the shared-parenting conversation. Ideally, the law will separate child support and shared parenting now so that it benefits non-custodial parents, just as it has been separated for decades to financially help custodial parents, attorneys, and government agencies before this new law. In examining these ‘new’ laws, some could say that by calling this concept of child support, payments decreased based on time spent at the least misleading, if not downright deceptive. The Ohio Revised Code §3119.24 (2001) states, in part, that:
in shared-parenting orders, judges may order an amount of child support to be paid under the child support order that is calculated in accordance with the worksheet set forth in Section 3119.022 of the revised code through the line establishing the actual obligation, except that, if that amount would be unjust or inappropriate to the children or either parent.
Of course, people in Ohio and across the nation are either party to or know of a parent with an inappropriate child support order that has left them without money to provide for their basic needs. Unfortunately, local caseworkers have ignored this guideline, as the policy states that the Ohio court may deviate from the child support amount under extraordinary circumstances. The guidelines list four specific events that meet this criterion, and number one on this list is ‘the amount of time the children spend with parent’ (Ohio Revised Code, 2001). Implementing this law is unnecessary as it is already law and lends some deceit by the government to parents eagerly fighting for significant child support reform.
All officials need to enforce the shared-parenting law already enacted. As we fight for meaningful and comprehensive child support reform, it is critical that we, The People, hold legislators accountable for their actions. If they propose and pass bills, these bills must benefit the children and the parents and not just regurgitate laws already on the books that the child support program enforcers ignore. Ohio Child Support Bill 366 addresses the need for parents to ensure that each child has medical insurance while there is court-ordered child support judgment in place. In most cases, Jack’s Law Office reported that the court would order both parents to carry health insurance for the child.
As with every state, if the custodial parent is considered low-income and meets the criteria to qualify for state-funded insurance, the child(ren) will receive Medicaid, free of charge, to the custodial parent. Again, in every state, unless the government grants a ‘good cause’ waiver, the custodial parent must sue the non-custodial parent for the costs to recover monies spent on Medicaid for the children. One of the biggest problems with this, argues child support reform advocates, is that public benefits are grants and not loans. These benefits have already been paid for by tax dollars and do not require repayment. However, that is another subject. https://bit.ly/2P5orfi
If the non-custodial parent is employed, they may be required to carry medical insurance through their employer for their child(ren). Even though according to ODJFS, the non-custodial parent could deduct the cost from their annual income when calculating their child support. Unless the parent receives state-funded medical insurance, both parents are generally responsible for equally paying for medical insurance. According to OSBA, uncovered medical costs are usually ordered to be paid in pro-rated shares of the parent’s income after the residential parent pays the first $100 per year.
In addition to medical insurance, parents are responsible for any costs not covered by medical insurance. Current law holds both parents responsible for medical insurance. However, the ODJFS states that the parent ‘must file with the court and ask them to issue a judgment for the other parent to pay the exact amount owed for the medical bills. Nothing in the new law addresses if this procedure will change or if more court proceedings will be necessary for the non-custodial parent to recover money spent.
In Ohio, a section of the law concerning additional medical payments when a child support order is in place. A couple of scenarios pertain to medical support payments under the current law, both of which require the obligor or non-custodial parent to pay money to the custodial parent or the welfare department for reimbursement for medical expenses. However, both parents should pay a certain percentage of the child’s remaining medical costs. Cash medical support is the amount ordered toward the cost of health insurance provided by a public entity, another parent, or a person with whom the child resides, through employment or otherwise, or for other medical costs not covered by insurance (ODJFS).
As made clear through the different regulations, medical insurance and cost recovery are very complicated issues. Still, through each of the current laws, both parents are, in some instances, responsible for covering the child’s medical insurance and costs. Even if the non-custodial parent covers the child on their medical insurance in full, ODJFS states that the parent ‘must file with the court to ask them to issue a judgment for the other parent to pay the exact amount owed for the medical bills. It never seems to matter if the government made a mistake in the form of an overpayment or in the case of seeking reimbursement for medical insurance. The only remedy ever offered to the non-custodial parent seems to involve facing a judge’s bench.
This single ‘suggested’ solution can be costly, time-consuming, and may yield an unfavorable outcome for the non-custodial parent. Of course, this is typical when the overseers force non-custodial parents to deal with the child support/family court systems. With the ‘new’ law, several questions need to be asked and answered by the legislators concerning medical insurance and cash medical support. Firstly, will the child support orders be modified to exclude the language referring to medical insurance and cash payments since the parent receiving child support is now responsible for medical insurance? Secondly, will the custodial parent face any penalties if they fail to provide medical insurance or cash payments?
Though Federal tax law provides the custodial parent, state courts have the power to allocate the exemption to the non-custodial parent through a dependent exemption if it will result in net tax savings that will benefit the child. Very rarely are non-custodial parents granted exemptions regarding children residing outside of their homes. Exemptions happen even though many pay at least 65% (sometimes more) of their income in weekly or biweekly child support payments. When cash medical support is affected, the child support order has a sum due to the custodial parent and a separate sum (the cash medical support order) designed to contribute to medical expenses (ODJFS).
The contribution is not benefiting the non-custodial parent if they are at all, responsible for any portion of medical insurance or cash payments. And, of course, if the case is a Title IV-D/welfare case, the cash payments will be retained by the government for welfare’ reimbursement.’ It cannot be mentioned too many times that this money has already been paid for tax dollars. Moving on to a much-discussed and highly controversial topic in America is the issue of child care and the associated costs.
Child support will pay for daycare with the new law, but a cap will be put in place when calculating child support payments. As of August 2018, the child support guidelines in Ohio state that credit is provided for the child care expenses for the child in the child support order to the parent that is paying for the child care (ODJFS). Unfortunately, the non-custodial parent cannot claim the childcare credit on their taxes for several different reasons. The first reason is that for a person to claim any tax credits, the child must reside with that parent for at least half of a year to meet that requirement.
The non-custodial parent cannot treat the child as a qualifying person even if that parent is entitled to claim the child as a dependent under the special rule indicated in the IRS specifications for a child of divorced or separated parents. The second reason a non-custodial parent could not claim a child care credit for their child on their taxes would be if their child spends equal time with the custodial parent and the custodial parent has a higher adjusted income. More than likely, the custodial parent is the mother, and if there are other children, there may be other Earned Tax Credits (ETC) for those children and possibly other low-income credits. The breakdown of the ETC means that the non-custodial parent, usually the father, will be ineligible to claim these childcare credits.
There is almost nothing more concerning than finding and affording child care for working-class parents with young children. This cap (depending on the amount) may be more detrimental to the childcare industry and may be an attempt to lessen rising childcare costs. This proposed cap does nothing to ensure that non-custodial parents can utilize the opportunity to claim childcare expenses and receive credit on their taxes. It could take several years to measure any beneficial results to the ‘reform’ of the current child support guidelines and, more importantly, to the non-custodial parent’s pockets.
Finally, the new child support law states that in cases of multiple child support orders, non-custodial parents may see higher payments. Increased payments, of course, are of no benefit to the non-custodial parent and may be of no use to the children. Currently and traditionally, the child named on the first child support order is the child that receives the most money. Any child support orders filed after are usually lower because agencies base amounts on incomes calculated minus the initial child support order amount. According to The WTOL Staff (2018), under the new law, each child would receive a standard amount, rather than the current system that gives a larger amount to the first child whose parent files for support.
While it does mention that the non-custodial parent may pay more, the new guideline says nothing about the cap on income garnishments that are federal law. According to the Department of Labor (DOL) (2016), the garnishment law allows up to 50 percent of a worker’s disposable earnings to be garnished. The high allowable garnishment percentage hardly leaves a non-custodial parent making minimum wage (or close to minimum wage) anywhere close to a livable income. In many instances, that amount could increase to 65% or more in garnishments that could be deducted from the non-custodial parents’ disposable income leaving even less to live on from paycheck to paycheck.
The garnishment laws create a new class of ‘working poor. It is excellent news to the child support reform movement when any state passes reforms to the unconstitutional child support system. However, organizations must investigate each claim of reform so that parents know if they are benefiting from the changes or being handed the same, only recycled, laws for the sake of silencing the outcries of injustice. After reviewing the ‘new’ rule, a reviewer can quickly determine that at least two of the changes implemented may differ from what is on record.
Still, the other two changes are already guidelines in Ohio. If we get significant and comprehensive child support reform, the legislators must admit that there is a need for such reform. The legislators must then realize that substantial reform will mean significantly fewer Title IV-D incentives and other monies for the government. Only then will real legislative reform be introduced, passed, and implemented that will genuinely benefit the parents, the country, and most importantly, the children.
References:
129th General Assembly. (2001). Child support guideline advisory council to review basic schedule and worksheet.Title [31] XXX1 Domestic Relations-Children- Chapter 3119, 024(1). Retrieved from http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/3119.024v1
Department of Labor. (n.d.). Fact sheet – Wage and hour division (WHD) – U.S. department of labor. Retrieved from https://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/whdfs30.htm
Jack’s Law Office. (n.d.). Child support in Ohio and what you need to know. Retrieved fromhttps://ohioexecutivedivorce.com/blog/child-support-ohio-and-what-you-need-to-know/
National Conference of State Legislatures. (2018, July 18). Child support pass-through and disregard policies for public assistance recipients. Retrieved fromwww.ncsl.org/research/humanservices/state-policy-pass-through-disregard-child-support.aspx
National Parents Organization. (2014, December 3). 2014 Shared parenting report card. Retrieved from
Ohio State Bar Association. (2016, June 25). OSBA | How do courts determine child support? Retrieved fromhttps://www.ohiobar.org/forpublic/resources/lawyoucanuse/pages/lawyoucanuse-45.aspx
Siegel, J. (2018, June 7). After a two-month hiatus, Ohio House votes on a whopping 28 bills. The Columbus Dispatch. Retrieved fromhttp://www.dispatch.com/news/20180607/after-two-month-hiatus-ohio-house-votes-on-whopping-28-bills://
WTOL Staff. (2018, July 5). Ohio parents: Major changes coming to child support laws. Retrieved from
