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 of the Office of Child Support Enforcement of the United States Department of Health and Human Services. Many of our states use this model to determine child support in child custody cases.
The Income Shares model is based 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. In an intact household, the income of both parents is generally pooled and spent for the benefit of all household members, including any children Thus, the income shares model calculates support as the share of each parent’s income estimated to have been allocated to the child if the parents and child were living in an intact household. This principle is consistent with the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act, enacted in many states.
Using the Income Shares model, computation of child support is basically a four-step process:
1. The income of the parents is determined and added together.
2. A “basic child support obligation” is computed based on the combined income of the parents, using a table or grid in the guidelines. The amounts in the table are derived from economic data of household expenditures on children.
3. A “presumptive child support obligation” is then computed by adding expenditures for work related child care expenses and extraordinary medical expenses to the basic child support obligation. Other obligations may be added or deducted from the calculations.
4. The presumptive child support obligation is prorated between each parent based on his or her proportionate share of total income. The non-custodian’s obligation is payable as child support, while the custodian’s obligation is retained and presumed to be spent directly on the child.
In Ohio, as governed by Section 3119.22 of the revised Ohio state statutes, the Court may consider any of the following factors in determining child support: special and unusual needs of the children; extraordinary obligations for minor children or obligations for handicapped children; other court-ordered payments; extended parenting time or extraordinary costs associated with parenting time; the obligor obtaining additional employment after a child support order is issued in order to support a second family; the financial resources and the earning ability of the child; disparity in income between parties or households; benefits that either parent receives from remarriage or sharing living expenses with another person; the amount of federal, state, and local taxes actually paid or estimated to be paid by a parent or both of the parents; significant in-kind contributions from a parent; the relative financial resources, other assets and resources, and needs of each parent; the standard of living and circumstances of each parent and the standard of living the child would have enjoyed had the marriage continued or had the parents been married; the physical and emotional condition and needs of the child; the need and capacity of the child for an education and the educational opportunities that would have been available to the child had the circumstances requiring a court order for support not arisen; the responsibility of each parent for the support of others; and any other relevant factor.
There are both strengths and weaknesses in the Income Shares Model. First of all, the main distinguishing feature of the income shares model is that it embodies the underlying economic assumption that as income increases, the proportion of income spent on child support decreases.
Secondly, Critics have charged that the income shares model is based on faulty underlying economic research. One study has suggested that the underlying economic data failed to reflect true child related expenditures in upper income families including such non-consumer expenditures as principal on home, savings, and trusts for the benefit of children. Thus, the income shares model does not accomplish the goal of ensuring that parents, after they break up, continue to spend on their children the same percentage of income that they would have spent if they were together.
Thirdly, Another distinguishing feature of the income shares model is that it illustrates graphically that both parents are sharing in the support of the child. Where the perception of fairness is as important as fairness itself, this feature is its greatest asset.
A final distinguishing feature of the income shares model is that it can more easily than the flat percentage model take into consideration adjustments for shared and split custody, health care needs, child care expenses, serial family development, and children’s ages by the manipulation of income, additions and deductions and by then allocating these costs between the parents.
Because these factors can be built into the income shares formula, there is less reason for deviation from the guideline’s presumptive award. Limiting deviation meets the ideal of perceived fairness, as well as the federal requirement that the number of cases in which deviation is granted be limited. Limited deviation also meets the goals of consistency and predictability. Given that the ultimate goal of child support guidelines is increased compliance through perceived fairness, the income shares model meets this goal.
The Income Shares Model is used in places like Youngstown, Warren, and other cities in Ohio for determining child support. If you are facing a divorce, and you have children, contact us today at www.divorceattorneyhome.com, and we will help you find a divorce lawyer in your area that understands family law. They will be able to answer any legal questions you may have about child support laws.
Latest posts by admin (see all)
- Getting a divorce in Madison - November 30, 2011
- Florida reader asks: What do I do when my spouse won’t sign the papers? - November 30, 2011
- Getting a divorce in Laredo - November 30, 2011