so which law applies in new calculation

[spinner]

ok so in MN the calculation changed from a set 25% for non custodial parent to a share income calculation.

the law is applicable jan 1st 2007. However I am being told by the CD office and the self help center that only the new cases will be re-evaluated in 2007 and that all old cases will be done in 2008. So that my case would have to wait unless one of the reasons bellow applies:

" THE COURT CANNOT GRANT A REQUEST TO MODIFY AN EXISTING CHILD SUPPORT ORDER USING THE INCOME SHARES MODEL UNTIL JANUARY 1, 2008, OR UNDER LIMITED EXCEPTIONS, UNTIL JANUARY 1, 2007.  CONTACT AN ATTORNEY OR OTHER LEGAL SERVICES PROVIDER FOR MORE INFORMATION."
•   Substantial increase / decrease in earnings;
•   Substantial increase / decrease in need of a party or the child(ren) involved in this court order;
•   Receipt of public assistance;
•   Receipt of disability payments for you or the child(ren) involved in this court order;
•   A change in the cost of living for either party as measured by the Federal Bureau of Labor Statistics;
•   A change in the availability or cost of medical and/or dental insurance coverage or expenses of the child(ren), yourself, and/or former spouse involved in this court order;
•   The addition, elimination, or substantial increase / decrease of work-related or education-related child care expenses for the child(ren) involved in this court order;
•   Child(ren) attaining the age of 18, graduating from high school, joining the military, or living independently;
•   A change in the residence of the child(ren).
you can get the document there: http://www.courts.state.mn.us/forms/public/forms/Child_Support/District_Court/CSD201.doc



However if I go take a look at the Bill (the law itself that was passed):
http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/bin/bldbill.php?bill=S0630.4&session=ls84
and if you look at section
23.1, .... and 24.1, ....
It seems to me that it clearly states that anyone can request a modification if there has been 20% increase or decrease and at least 75$.
The text of the bill even talks about the fact that the order under such conditions is deamed unfair, ...
you can get the full text of the bill up there
So reall wat is it? Is it that the CS office "preprinted" forms can't handle it and that you have to go directly to the court asking for a regular motion?
What if you bring a motion in court on these grounds of review in 2007. Will the judge apply the old law which in 2007 is officially not the law anymore?
Or is this just a way the CS office has to try to unload the work and spread it over 2 years lieing to us?
I mean in their document itself it states that they can't give legal advises ?!?!?


23.19     Subd. 2.  [MODIFICATION.] (a) The terms of an order
 23.20  respecting maintenance or support may be modified upon a showing
 23.21  of one or more of the following:  (1) substantially increased or
 23.22  decreased earnings of a party gross income of an obligor or
 23.23  obligee; (2) substantially increased or decreased need of a
 23.24  party an obligor or obligee or the child or children that are
 23.25  the subject of these proceedings; (3) receipt of assistance
 23.26  under the AFDC program formerly codified under sections 256.72
 23.27  to 256.87 or 256B.01 to 256B.40, or chapter 256J or 256K; (4) a
 23.28  change in the cost of living for either party as measured by the
 23.29  Federal Bureau of Labor Statistics, any of which makes the terms
 23.30  unreasonable and unfair; (5) extraordinary medical expenses of
 23.31  the child not provided for under section 518.171; or (6) the
 23.32  addition of work-related or education-related child care
 23.33  expenses of the obligee or a substantial increase or decrease in
 23.34  existing work-related or education-related child care expenses;
 23.35  or (7) upon the emancipation of the child, as provided in
 23.36  section 518.64, subdivision 4a.
 24.1      On a motion to modify support, the needs of any child the
 24.2   obligor has after the entry of the support order that is the
 24.3   subject of a modification motion shall be considered as provided
 24.4   by section 518.551, subdivision 5f.
 24.5      (b) It is presumed that there has been a substantial change
 24.6   in circumstances under paragraph (a) and the terms of a current
 24.7   support order shall be rebuttably presumed to be unreasonable
 24.8   and unfair if:
 24.9      (1) the application of the child support guidelines in
 24.10  section 518.551, subdivision 5, to the current circumstances of
 24.11  the parties results in a calculated court order that is at least
 24.12  20 percent and at least $50 $75 per month higher or lower than
 24.13  the current support order;

[Jade]

>ok so in MN the calculation changed from a set 25% for non
>custodial parent to a share income calculation.
>
>the law is applicable jan 1st 2007. However I am being told by
>the CD office and the self help center that only the new cases
>will be re-evaluated in 2007 and that all old cases will be
>done in 2008. So that my case would have to wait unless one of
>the reasons bellow applies:
>
>" THE COURT CANNOT GRANT A REQUEST TO MODIFY AN EXISTING CHILD
>SUPPORT ORDER USING THE INCOME SHARES MODEL UNTIL JANUARY 1,
>2008, OR UNDER LIMITED EXCEPTIONS, UNTIL JANUARY 1, 2007.
>CONTACT AN ATTORNEY OR OTHER LEGAL SERVICES PROVIDER FOR MORE
>INFORMATION."
>•   Substantial increase / decrease in earnings;
>•   Substantial increase / decrease in need of a party or the
>child(ren) involved in this court order;
>•   Receipt of public assistance;
>•   Receipt of disability payments for you or the child(ren)
>involved in this court order;
>•   A change in the cost of living for either party as measured
>by the Federal Bureau of Labor Statistics;
>•   A change in the availability or cost of medical and/or
>dental insurance coverage or expenses of the child(ren),
>yourself, and/or former spouse involved in this court order;
>•   The addition, elimination, or substantial increase /
>decrease of work-related or education-related child care
>expenses for the child(ren) involved in this court order;
>•   Child(ren) attaining the age of 18, graduating from high
>school, joining the military, or living independently;
>•   A change in the residence of the child(ren).
>you can get the document there:
>http://www.courts.state.mn.us/forms/public/forms/Child_Support/District_Court/CSD201.doc
>
>
>
>However if I go take a look at the Bill (the law itself that
>was passed):
>http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/bin/bldbill.php?bill=S0630.4&session=ls84
>and if you look at section
>23.1, .... and 24.1, ....
>It seems to me that it clearly states that anyone can request
>a modification if there has been 20% increase or decrease and
>at least 75$.
>The text of the bill even talks about the fact that the order
>under such conditions is deamed unfair, ...
>you can get the full text of the bill up there
>So reall wat is it? Is it that the CS office "preprinted"
>forms can't handle it and that you have to go directly to the
>court asking for a regular motion?
>What if you bring a motion in court on these grounds of review
>in 2007. Will the judge apply the old law which in 2007 is
>officially not the law anymore?
>Or is this just a way the CS office has to try to unload the
>work and spread it over 2 years lieing to us?
>I mean in their document itself it states that they can't give
>legal advises ?!?!?
>
>
>23.19     Subd. 2.  [MODIFICATION.] (a) The terms of an order
>
> 23.20  respecting maintenance or support may be modified upon
>a showing
> 23.21  of one or more of the following:  (1) substantially
>increased or
> 23.22  decreased earnings of a party gross income of an
>obligor or
> 23.23  obligee; (2) substantially increased or decreased need
>of a
> 23.24  party an obligor or obligee or the child or children
>that are
> 23.25  the subject of these proceedings; (3) receipt of
>assistance
> 23.26  under the AFDC program formerly codified under
>sections 256.72
> 23.27  to 256.87 or 256B.01 to 256B.40, or chapter 256J or
>256K; (4) a
> 23.28  change in the cost of living for either party as
>measured by the
> 23.29  Federal Bureau of Labor Statistics, any of which makes
>the terms
> 23.30  unreasonable and unfair; (5) extraordinary medical
>expenses of
> 23.31  the child not provided for under section 518.171; or
>(6) the
> 23.32  addition of work-related or education-related child
>care
> 23.33  expenses of the obligee or a substantial increase or
>decrease in
> 23.34  existing work-related or education-related child care
>expenses;
> 23.35  or (7) upon the emancipation of the child, as provided
>in
> 23.36  section 518.64, subdivision 4a.
> 24.1      On a motion to modify support, the needs of any
>child the
> 24.2   obligor has after the entry of the support order that
>is the
> 24.3   subject of a modification motion shall be considered
>as provided
> 24.4   by section 518.551, subdivision 5f.
> 24.5      (b) It is presumed that there has been a
>substantial change
> 24.6   in circumstances under paragraph (a) and the terms of
>a current
> 24.7   support order shall be rebuttably presumed to be
>unreasonable
> 24.8   and unfair if:
> 24.9      (1) the application of the child support guidelines
>in
> 24.10  section 518.551, subdivision 5, to the current
>circumstances of
> 24.11  the parties results in a calculated court order that
>is at least
> 24.12  20 percent and at least $50 $75 per month higher or
>lower than
> 24.13  the current support order;
>

That is a question for a lawyer.  In my state, child support is based on both income.  If it was done the way it was in your state, my ex would be paying less child support than what he is now.  The more money in the pot, the more child support there is.  

Don't be surprised if you do file for a modification and end up having to pay  more.  

[MixedBag]

During my training as a mediator last spring, the state of GA was going through something very similar.

I sat in the room with 13 other attorneys.

GA also stated that only new cases would use the new formula and that no exisiting cases could be re-calculated.

However, then the instructor said -- because the attorney's immediately jumped on it -- that there just has to be a small change in income or something, and based on that fact, attorney's could bring in current cases and apply the new law.

Parents weren't supposed to just apply the new formula if they already had CS established.  

And the way around it is to claim that there has been a change in income, and then they would be allowed to apply the new formula too.

The law was written that way to stop a flood of motions arriving at the court which would bog the whole system down tremendously while valid new cases needed to be heard.

Hope this helps.

[spinner]

thank you,
this is exactly what I have been reading and was thinking.
The forms say, .....

however, what is a judge gona do once you put a motion in? he is not going to use the old system as this is shooting himself in the foot and will need to be redonne in 6 month.

There is a new law, they will use it.
As long as your motion enters their guidelines, ... which is not that hard to make it fit in their guideline then you get to do a re-calcul with the new law.