Kansas Judicial Branch Home
Programs
Kansas Judicial Branch

Definitions and Explanation

A. Child Support

The purpose of child support is to provide for the needs of the child.  The needs of the child are not limited to direct expenses for food, clothing, school, and entertainment.  Child support is also to be used to provide for housing, utilities, transportation, and other indirect expenses related to the day-to-day care and well-being of the child.

B. Child Support Worksheet

The worksheet should contain the actual calculation of the child support based on Child Support Income, Work-Related Child Care Costs, Health, Dental, Orthodontic, and Optometric Insurance Premiums, and any Child Support Adjustments. (See Section IV, Specific Instructions for the Worksheet and Appendix VII, for a completed sample worksheet.)

C. Child Support Schedules

The Child Support Schedules (Appendix II) are adopted by the Kansas Supreme Court based on the recommendation of the Kansas Child Support Guidelines Advisory Committee. (1) The schedules are based upon national data regarding average family expenditures for children, which vary depending upon three major factors: the parents' combined income, the number of children in the family, and the ages of the children. (2) The schedules are derived from an economic model initially developed in 1987 by Dr. William Terrell. (3) In the fall of 1989, Dr. Ann Coulson updated the schedules, (4) which were then modified downward at lower income levels in 1990 at the Court's request, and adjusted for current economic data in 1993. (5) Dr. William Terrell reviewed various studies and foundation data in 1998 and 2002. These reviews led to updated schedule proposals; however, no changes were made in 1998. His more recent statistical analyses and attendant schedule changes provide the basis for the committee's recommendations that were adopted by the Court in 2003. (6) Dr. Jodi Messer-Pelkowski worked with Dr. Terrell during the review period which led to the adoption of Kansas Supreme Court Administrative Order No. 180 effective January 1, 2004, and took over Dr. Terrell’s work during 2005. (7) Her analysis of economic trends in spending on children served as the basis for the committee recommendations in 2007.

The schedules take into consideration that income deductions for social security, federal retirement, and federal and state income taxes, as well as property taxes on owner-occupied housing, are not available to the family for spending. (8) Thus, although the schedules use combined gross monthly income as an index that identifies values in the child support schedules, the entries in the schedules used to calculate the actual child support obligation are based upon either consumption spending (9) or after-tax income, whichever is lower. The schedules also include a built-in reduction from average expenditures per child (the dissolution burden), because of the financial impact on the family of maintaining two households instead of one. (10)

D. Domestic Gross Income--Wage Earner

The Domestic Gross Income for the wage earner is income from all sources, including that which is regularly or periodically received, excluding public assistance and child support received for other children in the residency of either parent.  For purposes of these guidelines, the term “public assistance” means all income, whether in cash or in-kind, which is received from public sources and for which the recipient is eligible on the basis of financial need.  It includes, but is not limited to, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Earned Income Credit (EIC), food stamps, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), General Assistance (GA), Medicaid, Low Income Energy Assistance Program (LIEAP), Section 8, and other forms of public housing assistance.

            It may be necessary for the court to consider historical information and the seasonal nature of employment.  For example, if overtime is regularly earned by one of the parties, then a historical average of one year should be considered.

            In instances where one or both of the parties is employed by a branch of the armed forces or is called to active duty by a branch of the armed forces, then the court shall include the basic pay of the party plus Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) and Basic Allowance for Subsistence (BAS).  The court may consider cost of living differences in determining the Domestic Gross Income.  Depending upon the facts of the case, the court may consider the BAH II Incentive or Special Pays and other forms of pay as found in Appendix IX.

Frequently, a wage earner's income is adjusted for a salary reduction arrangement for qualified benefits offered under a cafeteria plan (See Appendix VI). In such cases, the use of gross wages (total income before any salary reduction amounts) results in the simplest and fairest application of the guidelines. Therefore, the gross income of the wage earner, regardless of whether it is taxable or nontaxable, is to be used to compute child support payments.

E. Income Computation - Self-Employed

  1. Self-Employment Gross Income

    Self-Employment Gross Income is income from self-employment and all other income including that which is regularly and periodically received from any source excluding public assistance and child support received for other children in the residency of either parent.

  2. Reasonable Business Expenses

    In cases of self-employed persons, Reasonable Business Expenses are those actual expenditures reasonably necessary for the production of income. Depreciation shall be included only if it is shown that it is reasonably necessary for production of income. Reasonable Business Expenses shall include the additional self-employment tax paid over and above the FICA rate.

  3. Domestic Gross Income - Self-Employed

    Domestic Gross Income for self-employed persons is self-employment gross income less Reasonable Business Expenses.

F. Imputed Income

  1. Income may be imputed to the parent not having primary residency (11) in appropriate circumstances, including the following:

    a. Absent substantial justification, it should be assumed that a parent is able to earn at least the federal minimum wage and to work 40 hours per week.
     
    b. When a parent is deliberately unemployed, although capable of working full-time, employment potential and probable earnings may be based on the parent's recent work history, occupational skills, and the prevailing job opportunities in the community.
     
    c. When a parent receives significant in-kind payments that reduce personal living expenses as a result of employment, such as a company car, free housing, or reimbursed meals, the value of such reimbursement should be added to gross income.
     
    d. When there is evidence that a parent is deliberately underemployed for the purpose of avoiding child support, the court may evaluate the circumstances to determine whether actual or potential earnings should be used.

  2. Income may be imputed to the parent having primary residency in appropriate circumstances, but should not result in a higher support obligation for the other parent.

G. Child Support Income

Child Support Income is the Domestic Gross Income after adjustments for child support paid in other cases and for maintenance paid or received in the present case or other cases. (See Section IV, Specific Instructions for the Worksheet, subsection D.1 and Appendix VII for a sample worksheet.)

H. Child Support Adjustments

Child Support Adjustments are considerations of additions or subtractions from the Net Parental Child Support Obligation to be made if in the best interests of the child. (See Section IV, Specific Instructions for the Worksheet, subsection E.)

-----------------------------7d8c5aaa025e Content-Disposition: form-data; name="file10"; filename="W:\New_Kscourts_Mirror\Rules-Procedures-Forms\Child-support-guidelines\2008-Child-Support-Guidelines\endnotes.asp" Content-Type: application/x-asp Kansas Judicial Branch - Programs - Child Support Guidelines - Endnotes
Kansas Judicial Branch Home
Programs
Kansas Judicial Branch

Endnotes

1. The original child support guidelines, promulgated pursuant to K.S.A. 20-165 by the Supreme Court on October 1, 1987, were proposed by the Kansas Commission on Child Support following a two-year study. See Kansas Commission on Child Support, "Proposed Kansas Child Support Guidelines," 1987 (available in Kansas Supreme Court Law Library, Topeka, Kansas). The report includes a detailed background discussion, including the policy criteria upon which the original guidelines were based.

The Child Support Guidelines Advisory Committee was initially appointed by the Supreme Court on April 7, 1989, to review the implementation of the statewide child support guidelines, solicit public input regarding the guidelines, and make recommendations to address the new federal mandates of the Family Support Act of 1988. The committee has been convened periodically to conduct a comprehensive review of the guidelines and to update the economic data. The current Advisory Committee's members are:

  Date First Appointed
Hon. Nancy Parrish (Chair), Topeka
District Court Judge, 3rd Judicial District
07/01/97
Hon. Thomas E. Foster, Olathe
District Court Judge, 10th Judicial District
05/24/01
Hon. Thomas H. Graber, Wellington
District Court Judge, 30th Judicial District
04/07/89
John T. Bird, Hays
Attorney
04/07/89
Roy F. Brungardt, Hays
Certified Public Accountant
07/06/93
Professor Linda Elrod, Topeka
Washburn University School of Law
04/07/89
Charles F. Harris, Wichita
Attorney
04/07/89
Dave Gregory, Wichita
Parent
05/24/01
Gary Pomeroy, Lawrence
Attorney, Child Support Enforcement
07/01/05
Sherri Loveland, Lawrence
Attorney
04/07/89
Thomas C. Owens, Overland Park
Attorney
04/07/89
Sen. Greta H. Goodwin, Winfield
State Senator, 32nd District
05/24/01
Rep. Lana Gordon, Topeka
State Representative, 52nd District
12/27/06
Larry Rute, Topeka
Associates in Dispute Resolution
04/07/89

Past members of the Advisory Committee were:

  Date First Appointed
Hon. Herbert W. Walton (Chairman), Olathe
Administrative Judge, Retired, 10th Judicial District
04/07/89-06/07/99
Allen B. Angst, Abilene
Attorney, Shared Primary Residency Parent
07/06/93-06/30/00
William Coffee, Olathe
District Court Trustee
07/01/97-06/30/01
Jamie Corkhill, Topeka
Child Support Enforcement
09/01/96-06/30/00
Jackie Fletcher, Kansas City
United Way
07/06/93-06/30/00
James L. Francisco, Wichita
State Senator, 26th District
04/07/89-06/30/92
Sheila Hochhauser, Manhattan
State Representative, 67th District
07/01/96-06/30/00
Dr. Woody Houseman, Topeka
Principal, Highland Park South Elementary
4/07/89-06/30/96
James R. Johnston, Wichita
Nonprimary Residency Parent
02/04/98-06/30/00
David Kerr, Hutchinson
State Senator, 34th District
04/07/92-06/30/96
Candace Lattin, Pratt
Attorney, Child Support Enforcement
05/24/01 - 10/01/05
Ward Loyd, Garden City
State Representative, 123rd District
05/24/01- 12/27/06
Nancy K. Meacham, Wichita
Attorney, Primary Residency Parent
06/30/92-06/30/02
Hon. Paul E. Miller, Manhattan
District Judge, 21st Judicial District
04/07/89-06/30/98
Mike O'Neal, Hutchinson
State Representative, 104th District
07/19/95-06/30/99
Mark Parkinson, Olathe
State Senator, 23rd District
07/09/95-06/30/00
Richard Staub, Topeka
Santa Fe General Offices
04/07/89-06/30/96
Joan Wagnon, Topeka
State Representative, 55th District
04/07/89-06/30/01
 

Members of the original Kansas Commission on Child Support, appointed in December 1984 by then-Governor John Carlin:

Ms. Lynn Barclay
Kansas Children's Service League

Hon. James G. Beasley
District Court Judge, Wichita

Ms. Peggy Browning
Commission on Equal Status of Women, Wichita

Hon. James P. Buchele
District Court Judge, Topeka

Professor Linda Elrod, Vice-Chairman
Washburn Law School

Hon. Robert G. Frey
State Senator, 125th District

Dr. Woody Houseman
Topeka

Hon. Tracy D. Klinginsmith
District Court Judge, Holton

Ms. Evelyn Leat
Kansas City

Mr. David Litwin
Director of Taxation
Kansas Chamber of Commerce & Industry

Ms. Nancy Meacham
Wichita

Hon. Vic Miller
Topeka

Ms. Diane Nusbaum
District Court Administrator, Junction City

Mr. Larry Rute
Kansas Legal Services, Inc.

Mr. John Schneider
Social & Rehabilitation Services
Income Maintenance & Medical Services

Dr. Howard Schwartz
Judicial Administrator

Mr. Richard Staub
Santa Fe Railway Company

Hon. Robert T. Stephan
Attorney General

Hon. Joan Wagnon
State Representative, 55th District

Hon. Herbert W. Walton, Chairman
District Court Judge, Olathe

Ms. Aileen Whitfill
Policy & Program Development
Social & Rehabilitation Services

2. See Linda Henry Elrod, Kansas Child Support Guidelines: An Elusive Search for Fairness in Support Orders, 27 WASHBURN. L. J. 104, 120-25 (1987). Expenditures per child are assumed to increase with increases in parents' combined income, decrease per child as the total number of children in the family increases, and increase as the child grows older.

  • William T. Terrell, Ph.D., is a consultant in private practice. Prior to his retirement, he served as an Associate Professor of Economics at Wichita State University, Wichita, Kansas. For an explanation of Dr. Terrell's economic model, see W.T. Terrell, "Expenditures on Children for Child Support: Economist as Policy Advisor" (paper presented to the Eastern Economic Association at Baltimore, Maryland, March 1989) (available in Kansas Supreme Court Law Library, Topeka, Kansas). See also Kansas Commission on Child Support, supra note 1, at 13-15.
  • At the time of the review, Ann Coulson, Ph.D., held a position as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Human Development and Family Studies, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas. The following sources were used to update the model: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Expenditure Survey Series: Interview Survey, 1986-87 (1989); U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Household After-Tax Income: 1986, ser. P-23, No. 157 (1989); U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Updated Estimates of the Cost of Raising a Child, Family Economics Review, No. 2 (May 1989). See Letter from Dr. Ann Coulson to Hon. Herbert Walton, February 21, 1990, at 1, 3 (available in Kansas Supreme Court Law Library, Topeka, Kansas).

    Adjustments were made to the national expenditure data to avoid double-counting certain expenditures, such as health care, health insurance, and child care services. Because social security was considered [as] a tax in the initial stage of the development of the schedule, the category of social security and pension plan contributions was also excluded so that the expenditure would not be counted twice. Additionally, the Committee excluded a number of expenditures considered to be discretionary or not attributable to children. Expenditures thus excluded were for alcoholic beverages, tobacco, vacation homes, boarding costs for children away at school, and cash contributions.
  • See Child Support Guidelines Committee Report dated November 1993. Ann Coulson, Ph.D. prepared a description of the derivation of the 1993 child support schedules.
  • The 2002 support schedule relies upon three data sources: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Expenditure Survey, 1999-2000 (integrated diary and interview components); United States Department of Agriculture, Mark Lino, Ph.D., Expenditures on Children by Families: 2001 Annual Report; United States Department of Health and Human Services, The 2002 HHS Poverty Guidelines, 67 (31) FED. REGISTER, (Feb. 14, 2002).
  • Jodi Messer Pelkowski, Ph.D., is an Associtate Professor of Economics and a Barton Fellow at the Barton School of Business, Wichita State University, Wichita, Kansas.
  • See Terrell, supra note 3, at 7; Letter from Dr. Ann Coulson to Hon. Herbert Walton, February 21, 1990, supra note 4, at 2.
  • Consumption spending means household outlays for consumer goods and services as opposed to the purchase of assets or savings accounts.
  • This reduction involves subtracting the age 16-18 child's share of a total family burden at two points on the equation that relates average spending per the age 16-18 child to gross family income. Once the two lower points are determined, then the entire equation is reduced in order to compute the support schedules. For example, the one child aged 16-18 family calls for a reduction of $182 at the poverty level income of $1,300. Hence, the poverty level average spending of $430 becomes the schedule entry of $248. Similarly, at an income of $14,500 per month, average spending of $2,322 per child declines by $336 to the support amount of $1,986 (not shown in the schedule). The tabled values derive from an equation that passes through these two diminished values.
  • The terms "custodial" and "noncustodial" have been removed from the guidelines and replaced with the terms "having primary residency" and "not having primary residency." This brings the Kansas Child Support Guidelines into conformity with K.S.A. 60-1610 et seq.

    [History: Order No. 59 effective October 1, 1987; Order No. 70 effective October 13, 1989; Order No. 75 effective April 1, 1990; Order No. 83 effective February 6, 1993; Order No. 90 effective August 1, 1994; Order No. 107 effective January 1, 1996; Order No. 128 effective October 1, 1998; Order No. 180 effective January 1, 2004; Order No. 216 effective January 1, 2008.]

    Last Updated: January 3, 2008