Parents who pay child support could see their payments reduced if they spend more than 90 days a year with their children under a bill filed Thursday for the 2006 legislative session.
Senate Bill 382 would provide those parents with a 10 percent break. Parents who spend even more time with their children would see greater reductions.
The measure is expected to be a sticking point in a bill that would put the finishing touches on a law passed last year that overhauls the way child support is figured. That law, which takes effect July 1, says that judges calculating child support must take into account both parents' income. It also gives parents who spend at least 100 days with their children a way to reduce payments.
The bill, filed Thursday by Sen. Seth Harp (R-Midland), drops the number of days needed for a reduction in child support payments to 91.
Harp said the new system of calculating child support divides the costs of child rearing more fairly between parents.
"If a child is spending that much time with the noncustodial parent, then the parent is spending money on food, clothing and shelter," he said.
Opponents of the "parenting time adjustment" say it will prompt more legal battles between parents, which will hurt children.
Shelley Senterfitt, a lobbyist and family law attorney who opposes the measure, said she objects to the state creating a financial incentive for parents to spend time with their kids.
"Shouldn't parents want to spend the maximum time with their children?" she asked. "You shouldn't have to pay them to spend time with their kids."
Rick Leeds, 44, of Marietta, a noncustodial parent of two children, said he hopes the bill grants him a reduction in child support. He said he spends about 160 days a year with his children.
"I see it as a recognition of my spending on them," he said. He said the old system did not take into account that the more time he spends with his children, the more money he is spending on them.
The bill also contains a calculation table that would be used to determine the amount of child support. The table provides estimates of the cost of providing children with the basic needs of shelter, food and clothing.
For example, for parents with a combined adjusted gross income of $2,000 a month, the cost of raising a child is $437 a month, according to the table. That cost would be shared by the parents based on their incomes.
Courts would also factor in the costs of health care and day care and could also consider the costs of activities such as dance lessons, football camp and swimming instruction.
Michael Martin, a Marietta high school teacher and custodial parent of three, worries that the new system will reduce the amount of child support he receives. If that happens, he said, he will have trouble paying for some medical expenses and extracurricular activities."I would have to say no baseball, just basketball," he said. "I would have to say no band."
The bill also would eliminate a provision in the law that would increase the payments of a noncustodial parent who spends less than 60 hours with his or her children.
Harp said the penalty would hurt parents who must spend a lot of time away from home, such as those in the military
Senate Bill 382 would provide those parents with a 10 percent break. Parents who spend even more time with their children would see greater reductions.
The measure is expected to be a sticking point in a bill that would put the finishing touches on a law passed last year that overhauls the way child support is figured. That law, which takes effect July 1, says that judges calculating child support must take into account both parents' income. It also gives parents who spend at least 100 days with their children a way to reduce payments.
The bill, filed Thursday by Sen. Seth Harp (R-Midland), drops the number of days needed for a reduction in child support payments to 91.
Harp said the new system of calculating child support divides the costs of child rearing more fairly between parents.
"If a child is spending that much time with the noncustodial parent, then the parent is spending money on food, clothing and shelter," he said.
Opponents of the "parenting time adjustment" say it will prompt more legal battles between parents, which will hurt children.
Shelley Senterfitt, a lobbyist and family law attorney who opposes the measure, said she objects to the state creating a financial incentive for parents to spend time with their kids.
"Shouldn't parents want to spend the maximum time with their children?" she asked. "You shouldn't have to pay them to spend time with their kids."
Rick Leeds, 44, of Marietta, a noncustodial parent of two children, said he hopes the bill grants him a reduction in child support. He said he spends about 160 days a year with his children.
"I see it as a recognition of my spending on them," he said. He said the old system did not take into account that the more time he spends with his children, the more money he is spending on them.
The bill also contains a calculation table that would be used to determine the amount of child support. The table provides estimates of the cost of providing children with the basic needs of shelter, food and clothing.
For example, for parents with a combined adjusted gross income of $2,000 a month, the cost of raising a child is $437 a month, according to the table. That cost would be shared by the parents based on their incomes.
Courts would also factor in the costs of health care and day care and could also consider the costs of activities such as dance lessons, football camp and swimming instruction.
Michael Martin, a Marietta high school teacher and custodial parent of three, worries that the new system will reduce the amount of child support he receives. If that happens, he said, he will have trouble paying for some medical expenses and extracurricular activities."I would have to say no baseball, just basketball," he said. "I would have to say no band."
The bill also would eliminate a provision in the law that would increase the payments of a noncustodial parent who spends less than 60 hours with his or her children.
Harp said the penalty would hurt parents who must spend a lot of time away from home, such as those in the military
