Arizona Divorce & Family Law Blog : Commentary on Arizona divorce, child custody, paternity, child support & family law litigation. : Arizona Family Law Lawyer & Attorney : Nirenstein Garnice Soderquist, PLC

In Arizona, the family law court has the authority to award child support to an adult child.  Usually child support ends when a child turns 18 years old, unless they are still in high school in which case support continues until the child graduates high school, but only until the child reaches the age of 19.  However, pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes section 25-320(E), the court can award child support to a child over the age of majority.

A.R.S. 25-320 states:

“E. Even if a child is over the age of majority when a petition is filed or at the time of the final decree, the court may order support to continue past the age of majority if all of the following are true:

1. The court has considered the factors prescribed in subsection D of this section.
2. The child is severely mentally or physically disabled as demonstrated by the fact that the child is unable to live independently and be self-supporting.
3. The child's disability began before the child reached the age of majority.”

Thus, in order for the Court to award child support to an adult child, the child must have a disability  which makes the child unable to live independently or be self-supporting. Additionally, the disability must have began while the child was still a minor. 

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Arizona legislature is in the process of reviewing the Arizona Child Support Guidelines. This review process occurs approximately every 4 years in order to insure that the Arizona Child Support Guidelines are in sync with the current economic situation.  The review process is required by federal law, which requires states to have child support lawsthat are: (a) applicable state wide; (b) take into consideration the non-custodial parents earnings and income; (c) are based on specific numeric and descriptive criteria; (d) results in a computation of the child support obligation; and (e) are reviewed and if necessary, revised, at least once every four years.

It is appears that there will be changes to the maximum combined gross income for child support and there will be changes to definitions to gross income when calculating Arizona child support awards. For example, one proposal is to indicate that cash value may be assigned to in-kind or other non-cash benefits for recurring contributions from any sources that reduce living expenses as opposed to making that a "shall" provision. A revised chart is being proposed for use in terms of defining adjustments for support of other children. These would be children for which the parent is legally obligated to support including children being supported by court order. There will also be provisions as proposed in the new guidelines to discuss situations when a parent's income as the obligor is over $12,000 monthly. Recognition of possible changes to Arizona Child Support Guidelines is important.

As more information becomes available, we will continue to let you know how these changes could affect you.  In the meantime, if you need any assistance with Arizona child support issues, contact Nirenstein Garnice Soderquist PLC.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

NEW YORK (CNN) -- Nonnie Dotson, a nurse in the U.S. Air Force, was decompressing from a hard-fought child support battle when she disappeared hundreds of miles from her home base.

Dotson, 33, was staying with her brother at his home outside Denver, Colorado, when she vanished on November 19, 2006. She was supposed to meet friends at the mall for a smoothie.

She never showed.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In California, an Order modifying child support is reversed where the court erred in imputing $3,000 of non-taxable income per month based on husband's mortgage-free housing. For information on Arizona child support issues, contact NRG Family Law at www.nrglaw.net. Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

Arizona ranks among the lowest in ability to collect child support arrears. Click here for the U.S. Department of Child Support Enforcement's list.

http://www.nrglaw.net
http://www.azfamilylawblog.com

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

Generally, in order for someone to claim a child as a dependent, he or she must provide at least 50% of the child's support during the tax year. For couples who are still married and living together, claiming kids as dependents is usually a slam-dunk.

Things get complicated, however, when parents divorce or separate. Now, only one of you can claim the dependent exemption. (The IRS will come down hard if both of you try to claim it; they cross-reference dependents' Social Security numbers to make sure taxpayers aren't doing this.)

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

In order to qualify as child support, the payments recieved by an ex-spouse must be designated as child support in the divorce or separation agreement. If the agreement lumps the payments together as "family support" or "alimony," or doesn't otherwise designate a specific portion of each payment as child support, none of the payment will be considered child support for tax purposes.

This can have adverse tax consequences for the recipient of child support payments, because family support or alimony is taxable to the recipient. So instead of receiving nontaxable child support, the ex-spouse will be receiving alimony, which is taxable to the payee, regardless of what the payee actually uses the money for.

Copyright © 2004 Nolo

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

Pending bankruptcy legislation could affect future child or spousal support payments. These payments currently receive priority status, meaning they must be paid before credit card companies can forcibly collect their debts. The new legislation makes it harder for individuals to wipe out these debts by making it harder to qualify for bankruptcy under Chapter 7. Under the new law, most debtors will have to file under Chapter 13, which requires payment of at least part of these debts. The problem is that each dollar of debt that survives bankruptcy competes directly with support obligations.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

One writer believes that by continuing to use the guidelines that the federal government recommended against in 1987 (states should not use only one parent's income when calculating child support), Georgia continues to engage in bad public policy with adverse consequences for children and families. For the complete article, click here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

OMAHA, Neb. -- The state of Nebraska is trying to collect child support from a dead man. This is not child support he owed when he was still alive, but instead, the debt accumulated after he died. To read the full story, click here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

By LESLIE KAUFMAN
Published in the New York Times on February 19, 2005

Everybody loves to hate the so-called deadbeat dads. But because the laws made little effort to differentiate between the wealthy and the out-of-work and incarcerated, the laws have produced consequences for poor men that are vexing local and national policy makers.

Around the country, child support arrears have been piling up at a staggering rate since the enactment of these laws. A decade ago the federal government said fathers owed $31 billion in back child support; as of 2003, the last year for which data was available, the total had more than triple that to reach $96 billion. Changes in reporting may account for a portion of the increase. To read the full article, click here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

Associated Press
February 18, 2005

A lesbian who split with her partner after adopting the woman's biological children must pay child support, the Indiana Court of Appeals has ruled.

"Whether a parent is a man or a woman, homosexual or heterosexual, or adoptive or biological, in assuming that role, a person also assumes certain responsibilities, obligations, and duties," Judge John G. Baker wrote in the 22-page ruling.

"That person may not simply choose to shed the parental mantle because it becomes inconvenient, seems ill-advised in retrospect, or becomes burdensome because of a deterioration in the relationship with the children's other parent." To read the complete article, click here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

Here, we continue with our comments on the Revised Arizona Child Support Guidelines, effective January 1, 2005.

Section 24 -- Modification

Section 24 discusses modifications to child support orders. The reference to "prima facie evidence" was changed to "evidence". Many self-represented litigants use the guidelines to calculate child support; such legal terminology was thought to be confusing.

Section 18 -- Travel Expenses Associated With Visitation (Parenting Time)

Section 18 addresses allocation of children's travel expenses for parenting time purposes. The new guidelines clarify that for this purpose "long distance" generally means more than 100 miles in distance. The change was made to be consistent with A.R.S. Section 25-408(C)(2)'s requirement regarding notification when a parent intends to relocate a child more than 100 miles or more. Defining the distance requirement provides clear direction for the court when allocating travel costs.

Section 12 -- Equal Custody

The two paragraphs at the end of the prior section 10 discuss the method to use in equal physical custody calculations. This function is separate and distinct from the parenting time adjustment described in another section but is frequently confused with that adjustment. The new Section 12 was separated out to emphasize the separate methodology to use for equal physical custody cases.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

Here is another change:

Section 4 -- Duration of Child Support

This section has been added to provide for a presumptive termination date and constitutes the most significant change of the entire revision. The hope is that this change will alleviate some problems with overpayments at the termination of the order for child support when the payor is current. It also is anticipated that the change will assist the Division of Child Support Enforcement to better automate the termination of the child support order in the ATLAS system.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

As you may now, effective January 1, 2005, there have been numerous changes to the Arizona Child Support Guidelines. Over the next couple of days, we will make note of some of the more significant changes.

Section 2 -- Premises

A custodial parent may be ordered to pay child support.

A premise is added to clarify that the custodial parent could be ordered to pay child support. This can occur in the unusual circumstance where a custodial parent earns an extremely high income and the non-custodial parent earns a low income and exercises in excess of 100 days of parenting time per year.

This was not seen as a substantive change to the Guidelines. It was apparently intended only to make explicit what was previously implicit.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link

DES v. Hayden, 427 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 3, ___ Ariz. ___, ___P.2d ___ (Ct. App., Div. 1, 06/08/04).

If unpaid child support judgments have not been reduced to a written judgment within 3 years of the emancipation of the child in question, the statute of limitations set forth in A.R.S. Section 25-503(I) may prohibit the collection of a judgment through the courts, but the State can still pursue statutory administrative remedies to collect the debt until the debt is paid.

Click here to read the full opinion.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Share Link