Skip to main content

8 Changes in the 2017 Massachusetts Child Support Guidelines

Update: Use our 2017 Guidelines Calculator here.

Every four years the Child Support Guidelines in Massachusetts are updated by a Task Force appointed by the Chief Justice of the Trial Court.  In 2013 the Guidelines were updated and significant changes were made to the formula and to the parenting time language.  The Guidelines have been updated again for 2017, and the new guidelines take effect on September 15, 2017.  These are the primary changes:

1. Change in Format

Previous Guidelines contained a few footnotes, but for the most part were free of commentary.  The 2017 Guidelines include Principles and Comments to assist parties and the Court in interpreting and applying the Guidelines.

2. Raising the Minimum Amount of Child Support to $25 per week:

The minimum amount of child support since 2002 has been $80 per month ($18.46 per week).  The Task Force recommended raising this amount to $25 per week to reflect updated economic data.  This minimum presumptive order applies up to $115 per week in income.

While $7 per week may not make a huge difference to families (or be worth going to court to modify) it is an important gesture for the Task Force to recognize that these minimums should not stay stagnant and should at least keep up with inflation.

3. Parenting Time - Eliminating the In-Between Category (33-50% parenting time):


One of the more controversial changes in the 2013 Guidelines involved additional language related to parenting time.   In 2009, the Massachusetts Child Support Guidelines added language acknowledging the increase in shared parenting by specifically defining how the Court should calculate child support differently when parents share parenting time "equally, or approximately equally."  The 2009 Guidelines recognized the sharing of parenting costs in shared parenting arrangements, determining the presumptive support amount "by calculating the child support guidelines twice, first with one parent as the Recipient, and second with the other parent as the Recipient. The difference in the calculations shall be paid to the parent with the lower weekly support amount."

However, the 2009 Guidelines still left questions as to how to handle cases that didn't fit a one-third or equal parenting time.  The 2013 Guidelines made an effort to clarify these two issues, though arguably the result was still quite vague.  The 2013 Task Force added language allowing the court to consider a deviation upwards when the payor had less than 1/3 of the time, and added an averaging calculation for cases where parenting time was in between 33 and 50% of the time.  The average category in particular was highly criticized for increasing litigation over small amounts of parenting time.

The 2017 Task Force, recognizing these issues deleted the in-between category, and clarified the deviation factor by adding a principle to guide Judges in their determinations:
"recognizing that deviations should be used when appropriate to tailor a child support order to the unique circumstances of a particular family."
While the 2017 Task Force has highlighted the importance of the appropriate use of discretion this only increases the uncertainty that parties have when going in front of a Judge, and this remains a strong argument for self-determination and the use of out-of-court settlement options, such as mediation, whenever possible.

4. Child Care & Health Care Costs - A proportional adjustment with a cap:

The new guidelines formula tries to give appropriate adjustments to the order for the payment of child care and health care costs because of the significant impact these costs can have on a family.  However, they kept in a cap to avoid these expenses overtaking or eliminating the support order.  This means that whoever pays for child care or health care costs will not get a dollar-for-dollar credit and how parents split these expenses will still have a significant impact on their bottom-line net expenses.

We encourage our clients to run the guidelines multiple ways, trying the expenses in one way or split, in order to see the net difference.  This will still be necessary, though these changes will help to minimize in certain circumstances the extreme differences that could occur under the previous guidelines due to these expenses.

5. Children Between the Ages of 18 and 23 - A New Formula:

The 2013 guidelines indicated that the formula was not presumptive once a child turned 18, though the statute still allowed for support to be ordered.  This left a lot of room for deviation and in many cases resulted in simply a continuation of support at the same amount.  The 2017 guidelines require a 25% reduction in the amount of support attributable to a child over age 18.  This means that there is a presumptive amount of support owed for children over 18, up until age 23, though the court still has discretion to deviate, and the emancipation factors still apply.

When there are multiple children Table B on the Worksheet indicates how the total percentage is reduced, since only the portion attributable to the adult child should be affected.

This change will certainly lead to numerous modification requests by parents, and we are hopeful that many of them will consider using mediation and filing Joint Petitions for Modification rather than litigating these issues which should be pretty straightforward under the new guidelines.

6. A Cap on the Presumptive College Expense Contribution: 

The 2013 guidelines lumped college expenses in with other extra expenses (like private school or extra-curricular activities) which a Judge has discretion to order a parent to contribute to on a case-by-case basis.  The 2017 guidelines have a separate section dealing specifically with these expenses.  While noting that contribution to these expenses is not presumptive, the guidelines provide factors for considering whether the court should order a parent to contribute to college expenses, and provides a cap on that contribution equal to 50% of the undergraduate, in-state resident costs of the University of Massachusetts-Amherst.

The Guidelines also note that if college education contribution is ordered in addition to child support then "the Court shall consider the combined amount of both orders."  No guidance is provided in the comments about how this shall be considered, but presumably this is a nod to the Judge's ability to decrease child support if the combined amount is too great.

7. Clarifying Modification Language:

The 2017 guidelines clarify that any inconsistency with a guidelines order can result in a new order once a Complaint is in front of the Court.  However, cases where the original order was a deviation won't necessarily change just because of an inconsistency which is inherently obvious, or the order would immediately be modifiable after being agreed to.  The new guidelines add further clarity as to when a deviation order can be modified, or should remain.

8. Self-Employment, Imputed and Attributed Income:


The Task Force reorganized and clarified each of these sections with an emphasis on when income should be counted for the child support calculation on both the payor and recipient side.  While overtime income may be excluded, the emphasis of most of the changes is on including additional income when appropriate, such as non-taxable self-employment income, undocumented income (including reference in the comments to free rent), and clarifying specifically the case law on attributable income due to unemployment or underemployment.

BONUS: Notable Choices Not to Change Certain Sections:

Alimony Interplay: The Task Force encourages the court and parties to consider the tax effect of support when choosing between child support, alimony and unallocated support.  However, they did not make any changes to the guidelines language in this section citing the lack of any case law on this issue since the last update.

Maximum Income: The guidelines only apply up to $250,000 of combined household income and the Task Force made no changes or further recommendations on how to deal with income above $250,000 except to note that it is discretionary.

For more information check out these links:

The 2017 Massachusetts Child Support Guidelines

The 2017 Massachusetts Child Support Worksheet

The Report of the 2016-2017 Task Force

The Economist's Report 2016-2017 (for those of you who like charts and graphs!)

Information on Mediation

Information on Collaborative Law



Comments

  1. The 2017 Massachusetts Child Support Guidelines Fail Math:
    The State Child Support Guidelines Worksheet generates the wrong outcomes in all cases that include children both under-18 and over-18.This was not the Task Force's intention--the math/conceptual error was introduced by outside economic consultants, and nobody ever caught the problem.

    See the post by Professor Benjamin Bailey at:
    http://www.amherstdivorce.com/ma-child-support-calculator.html

    ReplyDelete
  2. The guidelines also fail when there is shared custody and one party pays for health care.

    I have recently reviewed the new CS guidelines and have found what I believe to be an oversight in how the healthcare cost is shared between parties in the case where custody is shared equally. When calculating first with the recipient paying healthcare, the 15% rule is applied to a large order because it is for sole custody and the recipient's order grows to accommodate that. Then the roles are reversed and the payor now pays the healthcare. The 15% rule is again applied to a large order because it is for sole custody and the payors order is decreased by that larger number. Then when you take the difference between the two orders, the one who pays the healthcare is benefited by potentially a 30% offset in their favor. But that 30% is based on a sole custody order, not the actual order that would result from taking the difference in orders without the healthcare taken into account.

    I've attached two CS guideline worksheets to illustrated the problem. This is a case where both the recipient and payor have the same salary of $2500 and only one of them pays $100 in health care. When calculated for the recipient paying the health care, the resulting order is $445. When calculating for the payor paying the health care, the resulting order is $327. The resulting order would have the one not paying health insurance paying the other party $445-$327 = $118.

    So the person paying health care would not only get to pay for their healthcare pre tax, but the other party would be paying 118% of the cost of the heath care to that person. I know the idea was to share the burden, but this ends up that one party profits while the other pays way more than the health care costs.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I have put online a new 2017 MA DEVIATION child support calculator that bypasses the "double counting" of health and child care that is erroneously built into the 2017 Child Support Guidelines Worksheet in cases of 50-50 parenting time. The calculator is at:
    https://www.amherstdivorce.com/ma-deviation-child-support-calculator.html
    The results represent a deviation from the presumptive child support amounts, but the sharing of health and child care costs in this calculator is fair and transparent. The calculator runs child support and then cross-guidelines with all health and childcare costs temporarily removed. It then looks at the percent of income each spouse has after the cross-guidelines have been run, and adjusts the child support amount based on this. Thus, if a spouse has 63% of the income after child support is initially run, the child support amount is adjusted so that that spouse is covering 63% of the health and child care costs and the other spouse, who has 37% of the income, covers 37% of these costs.
    The calculator also fixes the state's errors in "Table B", which produce erroneous outcomes in all cases that include under-18 and over-18 children at the same time.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What is the purpose of the Divorce Nisi waiting period?

In Massachusetts the statutory waiting period after a Judgment of Divorce and before the divorce becomes final (or absolute) is called the Nisi period. After a divorce case settles or goes to trial, a Judgment of Divorce Nisi will issue and it will become Absolute after a further ninety (90) days.

This waiting period serves the purpose of allowing parties to change their mind before the divorce becomes final. If the Judgment of Divorce Nisi has issued but not become final yet, and you and your spouse decide you don't want to get divorced, then you can file a Motion to Dismiss and the Judgment will be undone. Although many of my clients who are getting divorced think the idea of getting back together with their ex sounds crazy, I have had cases where this happened.

In addition to offering a grace period to change your mind, the Nisi period has three other legal effects:

1. The most obvious effect of the waiting period is that you cannot remarry during the Nisi period, because…

Does a Criminal Record affect Child Custody?

If one of the parents in a custody case has a criminal record, the types of crimes on their record could have an effect on their chances of obtaining custody. In custody cases the issue is always going to come down to whether or not the best interests of the child might be affected.

In the most extreme case, in which one parent has been convicted of first degree murder of the other parent, the law specifically prohibits visitation with the children until they are of a suitable age to assent.

Similarly, but to a less serious degree, in making custody and visitation determinations the court will consider crimes that would cause one to question the fitness of a parent. These types of crimes would obviously include any violent crime convictions which could call into question whether the children would be in danger around a parent who has shown themselves to resort to violence when faced with conflict. In addition, drug and alcohol abuse offenses would call into question a parent'…

The Questions that Lawyers and Mediators aren't asking but should: Let's talk about Pronouns

I recently had the opportunity to train with two of the most prominent mediators in Massachusetts: John Fiske and Diane Neumann. Each time they run a training, John and Diane share what they think is the most important question for a client to answer to have an effective mediation. John says that he thought the most important question is "What do I want?" But then he will tell you, with a knowing smile, that Diane disagreed with him and she would say that the most important question for a client to answer is "Who am I?"

I agree with Diane. The best lawyers and mediators ask their clients not just about what they want, but also deep questions about the clients' identity, goals, and values in order to help the clients resolve conflict in the most effective way possible. Despite knowing this, we often fail to ask clients the simplest questions when we first meet them or have them fill out an intake. We fail to give them an opportunity to answer the question “Who …