The Utah legislature has designed and issued a significant change in the Utah Child Support Minimum Guidelines. In many states, the state legislature institutes a minimum amount of child support that should exchange hands for the care of a child. States vary as to how that calculation is done.
In Utah, the method used is to:
1. Determine the monthly income of each parent,
2. Combine that income to find a total monthly joint income,
3. Compare that joint monthly income to a square on a grid of joint income and number of children. The grid will provide a combined child support amount. That combined income amount is supposedly what it takes to raise that number of children using that family’s combined income.
4. Calculate each parent’s percentage portion of the total monthly joint amount is calculated.
5. Multiply that parent’s percentage portion of the joint income amount by the combined child support amount as found on the grid.
Click here for worksheets, created by the Utah government, that will assist you in doing a calculation. If you need help, contact your Long Okura attorney or paralegal.
Following this process or competing a worksheet will provide each parent with their child support amount. Only one parent must actually pay an amount to the other; the other parent is presumed to have paid his or her support by the presence of the child in his or her home. The amount produced by this process is to calculate a minimum, in some circumstances greater amounts of child support may be appropriate.
The new child support guidelines do not change the process of calculating child support and many other relevant child support-related issues are the same. What the Utah Legislature has changed is the grid of combined incomes and the resulting combined child support amount. The parents who most severely feel the effects of the change are high income producing payers of child support. Please contact your Long Okura attorney to discuss how the change many impact your case.
For years, family law practitioners, and parents receiving support, have complained that Utah’s child support minimums were far below that of most states. Proponents of a change to the guidelines stated that the data used to surmise the amount of money it takes to raise a child each month was seriously antiquated. The Utah Legislature attempted a modification to the guidelines in 2006 but that attempt failed. In 2007, the bill passed and became enacted in July 2007.
The new guidelines are to be used in any case where a final order did not issue prior to January 1, 2008. If a final order issues prior to January 1, 2008, the “old” guidelines apply and parents will have to wait until 2010 to modify their current award of child support to an award calculated under the new guidelines. However, modification of child support can be warranted in some other circumstances, so be sure to speak with your Long Okura attorney.
My ex currently is self employed nd does not report an income. All the income he makes is “under the table” is there a base minimum that is required for a father to pay in this situation?
The Utah Legislature cleared up the issue as to whether the new guidelines apply if there is only a temporary order in place prior to the first of this year. The Legislature passed Senate Bill 198 which clearly states that the new guidelines apply if there were no final orders prior to January 1st of 2008.
@Custody: Thank you for commenting on this blog entry. It appears that you may be writing from Georgia, as your code reference appears to be regarding Georgia Code. Readers should keep in mind that states vary on definitions and use of “joint custody.”
Utah Code defines joint legal custody differently than Georgia does. Please see Utah Code Annotated sections 30-3-10.1 through 30-3-10.3. Further, Utah Code provides in section 30-3-10.3(4) that if the final order regarding joint legal custody fails to be specific as to the parental rights of the parent with less physical time, the other parent (the primary custodial parent) may make the default decision on legal custody issues.
This year, the Utah Legistlature proposed legislation to make joint legal custody a presumption, allowing that presumption to be rebutted by a showing that joint legal custody was not in the child’s best interest. This legislation did not pass, and instead the code makes only the non-commital statement that, “The court shall, in every case, consider joint custody but may award any form of custody which is determined to be in the best interest of the child.” This code provision, Utah Code Annotated section 30-3-10(1)(b), does not specify whether it is talking about physical custody, legal custody, or both.
Thanks again for your comments.
One way to try to include the non- custodial parent or secondary custodian in the decision making regarding their child is for the parents to have joint legal custody. The law currently allows joint legal custody to be awarded, and in most cases it probably is awarded. OCGA 19- 9- 6 states, “‘Joint legal custody’ means both parents have equal rights and responsibilities for major decisions concerning the child, including the child’s education, health care, and religious training; provided, however, that the…
…I have heard whisperings that the legislature intends to add the word “final” to the statute….
Thanks for the update. When do you think this change might happen?
Since this blog entry was written, I attended a conference with many Utah family lawyers in attendance. In the last paragraph above I wrote “The new guidelines are to be used in any case where a FINAL (emphasis added) order did not issue prior to January 1, 2008.” Based on the divided camps at this conference, apparently there is a huge debate as to whether FINAL orders are necessary or if even a temporary order issued in 2007 or before willl prevent the court from applying the new guidelines in a case as a final matter prior to January 2010.
I continue to believe that the legislature means a final order and that this is how the provision will be interpreted by the courts. I have heard whisperings that the legislature intends to add the word “final” to the statute. Moreover, in cases where the parties incomes exceed the top of the chart on the pre-2008 guidelines, I think that the court would not find it to be equitabe to apply the lower guidelines when there is now a source of higher numbers that is not mere extrapolation of the old formula (a practice disallowed by the court).
I would welcome any discussion regarding this question.