I received an email from our president Mr. Nicholas James, and I fully concur with him when he states as follows;
“Most of the committee members clearly have their own agenda and are not interested in reforming the child support laws to fix their serious deficiencies in these laws. So we will need your assistance in monitoring their activities. “
I was one of the four presents at the September 12, 2011 Child Support Guideline Review meeting being led by the DHFS and DAs. In the said meeting I was appalled and troubled by what I heard and saw at the meeting. At the same time, I want to notice that I know many people who apply for the fast same day loans to cover the emergency baby care needs.
Of particular interest to me was one of the issues allotted for discussion regarding private tuition and childcare expenses. The panel of 11 proposed making changes regarding childcare expenses as it relates to payment by the support obligor in the following manner.
That should a custodial parent be enrolled in college or seeking further educational improvement the support obligor be liable for child care expenses while the custodial parent is attending college or seeking further educational improvement.
This change is based on the fact that the custodial parent's continuance of his/her educational goals is in the best interest of the children of the parties.
Presently a noncustodial parent is obligated to pay for 1/2 of childcare expenses if the custodial parent is either actively working or is seeking gainful employment. Nothing more!!!
If this change takes effect it will only add a hidden alimony payment to enure to the benefit of a custodial parent.
The panel at the instant moment is reviewing and attempting to change La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 9:315.1C. to make it an obligation for a noncustodial parent to pay for childcare expenses if a custodial parent is attending college or seeking further educational improvement.
This is not a unique issue and has already been addressed, tested and found wanting by the fourth circuit court
of appeals way back in 1998 with a published opinion on August 6, 1998, under Hamilton v. Hamilton, 716 So. 2d 412 (La.App. 4 Cir. June 24, 1998) as follows;
….“The court further determined that, because the oral reasons for judgment were adequate and timely, the later written reasons were superfluous. The court also held the deviation from the support guidelines was not justified because the subject child care expenses stemmed from the former wife’s attendance at college, which was not due to employment or a job search. The court further found that the education expense was not the type of “extraordinary” circumstance that La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 9:315.1C contemplated.
Stating further in its opinion;
…”Nor has this Court, in spite of its sympathy for an expenditure which may ultimately inure to the benefit of the children when Ms. Hamilton will presumably experience a dramatic increase in her earnings potential, found any other authority to sustain what it otherwise perceives as a desirable goal. Unfortunately, the legislature apparently does not feel that education under these circumstances is an end sufficient to justify the award of the means to attain it”.