Her Bank
July 31st 03, 10:14 PM
http://www.childsupportguidelines.com/articles/art200004.html
....there's a SLIM chance you could get it if you live in the right
state. Oregon and Kansas sound pretty good.
--------------
"Nonetheless, eleven states have statutes that allow the court to
demand an accounting from the custodial parent of how child support is
spent. COLO. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 14-10-115(3)(b)(III) (1999); DEL. Code
Ann. tit. 13, § 518 (1994); FLA. Stat. Ann. §61.13(a)(1) (Supp. 2000);
IND. Code Ann. § 31-16-9-6 (1997); KAN. Stat. Ann. § 60-1616(f)
(1995); LA. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 9:312 (Supp. 1999); MO. Rev. Stat. §
452.342 (1997); NEB. Rev. Stat. § 42-364(6) (1999); OKLA. Stat. tit.
43, § 118(B)(21) (Supp. 1999); OR. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(1)(c) (Supp.
1998); WASH. Rev. Code Ann. § 26.23.050(2)(a)(ii) (Supp. 1999).
Alabama also authorized an accounting under the specific facts of the
case, McDuffie v. Holland, 690 So. 2d 386 (Ala. Civ. App. 1996), and
New York has hinted that such an action may lie, although current
practice indicates otherwise."
-----------------
"The Oregon statute, Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(1)(c) (Supp. 1998), also
provides that the court may, at any time, require an accounting from
the custodial parent with reference to the use of the money received
as child support. There is no required showing of necessity or good
cause."
----------------
"The Kansas statute, Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-1616(f) (1995), is an
accounting statute with a difference. Instead of making the custodial
parent account for child support, the court can change custody if it
finds that child support is not being spent for the benefit of the
child:
'Repeated child support misuse may be considered a material change of
circumstances which justifies modification of a prior order of child
custody.'
Thus, although this statute on its face states grounds for
modification of custody, it is, in fact, an accounting statute: the
custodial parent may lose custody for failing to adequately account
for child support."
-------------------
AS for the states that outright reject the concept, here's the main
reasons:
-------------------------------------
"Those states that have refused the noncustodial parent the right to
an accounting did so for three reasons: (1) only the child, as
beneficiary of the fiduciary duty of the custodial parent, may request
an accounting; (2) requests for an accounting would place an undue
burden on the courts; (3) requests for an accounting would place an
undue burden on the custodial parent, effectively interfering with his
or her right to make day-to-day decisions concerning the child.
The last reason is wise public policy and should be adopted by all
courts. Custodial parents must be given the latitude to decide how
child support will be spent: what clothes to buy, what camps to
attend, what entertainment is appropriate and enriching. Allowing a
noncustodial parent to demand an accounting effectively gives the
noncustodial parent veto power over those decisions. It also imposes
on the custodial parent tremendous record-keeping obligations that no
one could meet. For example, part of the child support obligation is
for transportation. Does the custodial parent have to keep track of
gas and car maintenance? Part of the child support obligation is for
housing. Does the custodial parent have to break down what part of the
mortgage is for the child? Does that also apply to utilities?"
---------------
I'll buy #1. It's insane to think a child would actually ask for that
to be done or to think he should be involved like that all, but in
strictly legal terms, it seems to pass muster.
#2 is ridiculous and a real slap in the face. The court is not worried
about undue burden when it comes to hounding the ncps and hauling them
in front of a judge for every minor infraction.
#3 just plain ticks me off. They can make the ncp account for his
earnings and expenses and even make him prove earnings he DOESN'T have
in order to prevent unfair imputation. What really gets me is that if
it is so difficult to figure out what portion of rent, etc, should be
attributed as being spent on the child, then how in the heck do they
arrive at the figures set in the state guidelines?
As far as interfering with the custodial parents decision making
authority - God forbid they throw a little bone to the ncp that might
give him a little say in things!
....there's a SLIM chance you could get it if you live in the right
state. Oregon and Kansas sound pretty good.
--------------
"Nonetheless, eleven states have statutes that allow the court to
demand an accounting from the custodial parent of how child support is
spent. COLO. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 14-10-115(3)(b)(III) (1999); DEL. Code
Ann. tit. 13, § 518 (1994); FLA. Stat. Ann. §61.13(a)(1) (Supp. 2000);
IND. Code Ann. § 31-16-9-6 (1997); KAN. Stat. Ann. § 60-1616(f)
(1995); LA. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 9:312 (Supp. 1999); MO. Rev. Stat. §
452.342 (1997); NEB. Rev. Stat. § 42-364(6) (1999); OKLA. Stat. tit.
43, § 118(B)(21) (Supp. 1999); OR. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(1)(c) (Supp.
1998); WASH. Rev. Code Ann. § 26.23.050(2)(a)(ii) (Supp. 1999).
Alabama also authorized an accounting under the specific facts of the
case, McDuffie v. Holland, 690 So. 2d 386 (Ala. Civ. App. 1996), and
New York has hinted that such an action may lie, although current
practice indicates otherwise."
-----------------
"The Oregon statute, Or. Rev. Stat. § 107.105(1)(c) (Supp. 1998), also
provides that the court may, at any time, require an accounting from
the custodial parent with reference to the use of the money received
as child support. There is no required showing of necessity or good
cause."
----------------
"The Kansas statute, Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-1616(f) (1995), is an
accounting statute with a difference. Instead of making the custodial
parent account for child support, the court can change custody if it
finds that child support is not being spent for the benefit of the
child:
'Repeated child support misuse may be considered a material change of
circumstances which justifies modification of a prior order of child
custody.'
Thus, although this statute on its face states grounds for
modification of custody, it is, in fact, an accounting statute: the
custodial parent may lose custody for failing to adequately account
for child support."
-------------------
AS for the states that outright reject the concept, here's the main
reasons:
-------------------------------------
"Those states that have refused the noncustodial parent the right to
an accounting did so for three reasons: (1) only the child, as
beneficiary of the fiduciary duty of the custodial parent, may request
an accounting; (2) requests for an accounting would place an undue
burden on the courts; (3) requests for an accounting would place an
undue burden on the custodial parent, effectively interfering with his
or her right to make day-to-day decisions concerning the child.
The last reason is wise public policy and should be adopted by all
courts. Custodial parents must be given the latitude to decide how
child support will be spent: what clothes to buy, what camps to
attend, what entertainment is appropriate and enriching. Allowing a
noncustodial parent to demand an accounting effectively gives the
noncustodial parent veto power over those decisions. It also imposes
on the custodial parent tremendous record-keeping obligations that no
one could meet. For example, part of the child support obligation is
for transportation. Does the custodial parent have to keep track of
gas and car maintenance? Part of the child support obligation is for
housing. Does the custodial parent have to break down what part of the
mortgage is for the child? Does that also apply to utilities?"
---------------
I'll buy #1. It's insane to think a child would actually ask for that
to be done or to think he should be involved like that all, but in
strictly legal terms, it seems to pass muster.
#2 is ridiculous and a real slap in the face. The court is not worried
about undue burden when it comes to hounding the ncps and hauling them
in front of a judge for every minor infraction.
#3 just plain ticks me off. They can make the ncp account for his
earnings and expenses and even make him prove earnings he DOESN'T have
in order to prevent unfair imputation. What really gets me is that if
it is so difficult to figure out what portion of rent, etc, should be
attributed as being spent on the child, then how in the heck do they
arrive at the figures set in the state guidelines?
As far as interfering with the custodial parents decision making
authority - God forbid they throw a little bone to the ncp that might
give him a little say in things!