Connecticut Child Support Guidelines | Carl Ferraro, Attorney at Law

STATE OF CONNECTICUT

COMMISSION FOR CHILD SUPPORT GUIDELINES

Child Support
and
Arrearage Guidelines

Effective August 1, 2005

This booklet contains the Child Support and Arrearage Guidelines regulations adopted by the Commission for Child Support Guidelines pursuant to CGS §46b-215a.

The Schedule of Basic Child Support Obligations and prescribed worksheet are included as a part of the regulations.

The booklet also includes an unofficial explanatory preamble to the regulations that the Commission developed to assist the guidelines user.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preamble to Child Support and Arrearage Guidelines

(a) Introduction... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .. i

(b) Summary of Changes... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ..i-ii

(c) Purpose of guidelines ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . ii

(d) Basic principles ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . ii-iii

(e) The Schedule of Basic Child Support Obligations... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .iii-vi

(f) Guidelines worksheet... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... vi

(g) Applicability of child support guidelines ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ..vii-ix

(h) Income determination ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ..ix-xi

(i) Arrearage guidelines ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ..xi-xii

(j) Deviation criteria... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . xii-xiii

(k) The guidelines commission and review process ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .. xiii-xiv

(l) Effective date... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... xiv

Child Support and Arrearage Guidelines Regulations

Section 46b-215a-1. Definitions... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . 1-4

Section 46b-215a-2b. Child support guidelines... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .. 5-20

(a) Applicability... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 5

(b) Using the worksheet... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 5

(c) Determining the amount of current support ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .. 5-8

(d) Determining the amount of current support in split custody situations... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .. 8

(e) Determining the amount of current support when another child resides with a parent ... ... ... .. 8-9

(f) Schedule of Basic Child Support Obligations... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 9-17

(g) Determining the health care coverage contribution ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ..18-19

(h) Determining the child care contribution... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .19-20

Section 46b-215a-3. Deviation criteria... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . 21-23

(a) Introduction ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . 21

(b) Criteria for deviation from presumptive support amounts... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ..21-23

Section 46b-215a-4a. Arrearage guidelines... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... . 23-25

(a) Scope of section ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .. 23

(b) General rule ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 23

(c) Special rule for low-income obligors ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ..23-24

(d) Special rule if there is no current support order... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .. 24

(e) Special rule for child living with the obligor ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .. 24

(f) Use of the worksheet in arrearage determinations ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ..24-25

Section 46b-215a-5b. Worksheet for the Connecticut child support and

arrearage guidelines... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ..25-27

- i -

PREAMBLE TO CHILD SUPPORT AND ARREARAGE GUIDELINES

(a) Introduction This preamble is intended to assist users of the childsupport and arrearage guidelines but is not part of the official regulations.

(1) Purposes of preamble The purposes of this preamble to the child support and arrearage guidelines are the following:

(A) To identify for child support practitioners, judges, family support magistrates, and the public changes from the former child support guidelines to ease the transition to the new guidelines.

(B) To provide supplemental background information to assist the user in understanding the purposes and principles underlying the guidelines.

(D) To provide for uniformity of interpretation by the Connecticut bar, judiciary, child support agencies, and the public.

(2) Organization of the regulations The child support and arrearage guidelines regulations are organized into five sections, as follows:

(A) Section 46b-215a-1. Definitions This section contains definitions of key words and phrases that have a special meaning as used in the guidelines.

(B) Section 46b-215a-2b. Child support guidelines This section contains the guidelines, including the worksheet instructions and schedule, for determining the current support, health care coverage, and child care contribution components of the child support award.

(C) Section 46b-215a-3. Child support guidelines deviation criteria This section describes the circumstances that may justify a support order different from the presumptive support amounts calculated under the child support and arrearage guidelines.

(D) Section 46b-215a-4a. Arrearage guidelines This section contains the guidelines, including the worksheet instructions, for determining periodic payments on child support arrearages.

(E) Section 46b-215a-5b. Worksheet for the Connecticut child support and arrearage guidelines This section contains the worksheet intended for use with the instructions in sections 46b-215a-2b and 46b-215a-4a.

(b) Summary of changes This subsection of the preamble identifies the differences between the new guidelines and the 1999 guidelines to quickly orient those who are familiar with the guidelines to the changes. Purely technical changes, such as renumbering, punctuation, or minor language changes that do not significantly alter the meaning of the provision are omitted from this discussion. More formation on the reasons for significant changes is found later in the preamble. The changes are listed in the order they appear in the regulations.

(1) Allowable deductions from gross income

Medical insurance premium deduction now includes amount for the child whose support is being determined.

Husky Plan contributions added.

Court-ordered life insurance for the benefit of the child added.

Court-ordered disability insurance added.

Union dues deduction now limited to amounts deducted by the employer.

The cost of mandatory uniforms and tools, if deducted by the employer, added.

(2) Gross income

Maximum hourly wages included in gross income reduced from 52 to 45 hours per week.

Tribal stipends and incentives added as a gross income inclusion.

Supplemental Security Income (SSI) exclusion clarified to apply to payments for a child.

Adoption subsidy benefits for the child added as a gross income inclusion.

Limitation of education grants inclusion changed from amounts available for personal living expenses to amounts that are federally taxable.

(3) Net disposable income

80% of any alimony paid by one of the parents to the other is now added to the net income of the receiving parent, and deducted from the net income of the paying parent, in the calculation of net disposable income, for purposes of calculating unreimbursed medical and child care contribution amounts.

Social security dependency benefits for the child on the earnings record of the noncustodial parent are now added to the net income of the custodial parent in the calculation of net disposable income, for purposes of calculating unreimbursed medical and child care contribution amounts.

- ii -

(4) Schedule extension to higher incomes

The upper limit of the schedule of basic obligations was increased from $2,500 combined net weekly income to $4,000 combined net weekly income.

(5) Current support computation

Supplemental orders, based on future lump sum payments of an unknown amount, are now specifically allowed.

The custodial parent’s income is no longer considered in determining the basic child support obligation if the noncustodial parent is a low-income obligor.

Health insurance premium amounts for the child are no longer added to the basic obligation.

(6) Schedule of Basic Child Support Obligations

The schedule now begins at $50, instead of $10, per week.

The white italics are eliminated.

The low-income obligor area is extended to slightly higher incomes.

The percentages and dollar amounts are adjusted based on updated economic data.

(7) Health care coverage

Child’s health insurance premium is no longer deducted from the basic child support obligation of a low-income obligor.

Low-income obligors are now exempt from Husky Plan contributions.

The low-income obligor’s responsibility for payment of unreimbursed expenses is now limited to 50%.

The first $100 per child per year of unreimbursed medical expenses is no longer excluded from the order for payment of unreimbursed medical expenses.

(8) Child care contribution

Child care subsidy payments are now specifically excluded from qualifying costs.

Low-income obligors are no longer exempt from a child care contribution.

Special rules for low-income obligors apply to obligors with net disposable income in the low income area of the schedule.

The child care contribution of a low-income obligor is limited to 50%.

The child care contribution of a low-income obligor is 20% when the custodial parent’s net disposable income is outside the low-income area of the schedule.

(9) Deviation criteria

Agreements of the parties citing one or more deviation criteria, if accepted by the court, may be sufficient to rebut presumptive support amounts.

Deviation criteria are specifically limited to the lettered items, and do not include the category headings.

Wages for work between 45 and 52 hours per week added as a deviation criterion under certain circumstances.

Child care expenses for a qualified child added as a criterion for deviation from the child care contribution.

Extraordinary disparity in parental incomes added as a deviation criterion.

(10) Arrearage guidelines

Determination of periodic payments on child support arrearages clarified as subject to the deviation criteria.

(11) Worksheet

Kept to two pages, but complex calculations broken down to simpler steps, current support calculation shortened, arrearage payment calculation simplified, and space to check off applicable deviation criteria added.

The primary purposes of the child support and arrearage guidelines are:

(1) To provide uniform procedures for establishing an adequate level of support for children, and for repayment of child support arrearages, subject to the ability of parents to pay.

(2) To make awards more equitable by ensuring the consistent treatment of persons in similar circumstances.

(3) To improve the efficiency of the court process by promoting settlements and by giving courts and the parties guidance in setting the levels of awards.

(4) To conform to applicable federal and state statutory and regulatory mandates.

(d) Basic principles

The Connecticut Child Support Guidelines are based on the Income Shares Model. The Income Shares Model presumes that the child should receive the same proportion of parental income as he or she would have received if the parents lived together. Underlying the income shares model, therefore, is the policy that the parents should bear any additional expenses resulting from the maintenance of two separate households instead of one, since it is not the child’s decision that the parents divorce, separate, or otherwise live separately. The Income Shares Model has proven to be the most widely accepted, particularly due to its consideration of the income of both parents. About two-thirds of the states follow the income shares model, and of four states that changed from one model to another in the past ten years, three converted to the income shares model. Other models used by states include “Percentage of Obligor Income” (about a quarter of the states) and - iii - “Melson Formula” or a hybrid approach. Only a handful of states use the Melson or another model. The Income Shares Model reflects presently available data on the average costs of raising children in households across a wide range of incomes and family sizes. Because household spending on behalf of children is intertwined with spending on behalf of adults for most expenditure categories, it is difficult to determine the exact proportion allocated to children in individual cases, even with exhaustive financial affidavits. However, a number of authoritative economic studies based on national data provide reliable estimates of the average amount of household expenditures on children in intact households. These studies have found that the proportion of household spending devoted to children is systematically and consistently related to the level of household income and to the number of children. In general, the economic studies have found that spending on children declines as a proportion of family income as that income increases, and a diminishing portion of family income is spent on each additional child. More is explained later in the preamble about the first observation. The second observation apparently results from two factors. The first is economy of scale. That is, as more children are added to a family, sharing of household items is increased, and fewer of those items must be purchased. The second is a reallocation of expenditures. That is, as additional children are added, each family member’s share of expenditures decreases to provide for the needs of the additional members. Based on this economic evidence, adjusted for Connecticut's relatively high income distribution (as explained later in this preamble), the guidelines allow for the calculation of current support based on each parent's share of the amount estimated to be spent on a child if the parents and child live in an intact household. The amount calculated for the custodial parent is retained by the custodial parent and presumed spent on the child. The amount calculated for the noncustodial parent establishes the level of current support to be ordered by the court. These two amounts together constitute the current support obligation of both parents for the support of the child. Intact households are used for the estimates because the guidelines aim to provide children the same support they would receive if the parents lived together. More than this, however, support amounts would be set unduly low if based on spending patterns of single parent families, as they generally experience a high incidence of poverty and lower incomes than intact families.

(e) The Schedule of Basic Child Support Obligations

This subsection of the preamble explains how the commission derived the percentages in the Schedule of Basic Child Support Obligations (hereafter, the schedule), and how and why the new schedule is different from the one in the 1999 guidelines. The commission contracted with Policy Studies, Inc. of Denver, Colorado to develop a new schedule based on more recent economic data, to incorporate changes in the low-income area, and to extend the schedule to higher incomes.

(1) Updated economic data

Federal regulations for the Title IV-D child support enforcement program (45 CFR 302.56) require among other things that the guidelines review process include a consideration of economic data on the cost of raising children. The schedule percentages included in the 1994 and 1999 guidelines were based on economic data on child-rearing costs gathered in a study mandated by the Family Support Act of 1988 (P.L. 100-485, section 128). The study was conducted by Dr. David Betson of Notre Dame University, through the University of Wisconsin Institute for Research on Poverty. Dr. Betson used data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics’ 1980-86 Consumer Expenditure Survey for his research. An analysis of Dr. Betson's findings, on which prior commissions relied, is contained in Estimates of Expenditures on Children and Child Support Guidelines, Report to U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation), by Lewin/ICF (October 1990). The present commission was fortunate, through its retained consultant, to have access to Dr. Betson’s updated measurements of child-rearing costs, which were developed in 2001 based on 1996-1999 Consumer Expenditure Survey data. In addition, the contractor converted Dr. Betson’s measurements to 2004 price levels. The Consumer Expenditure Survey data includes information on several hundred items purchased by households. The Bureau of Labor Statistics categorizes these items into several major categories, such as food, housing, clothing, transportation, and health care. Mortgage principal payments are excluded from measurements of current consumption, as they constitute a form of savings. Mortgage interest payments and property taxes, however, are included as items of current consumption, as is rent. Other exclusions from current consumption are personal insurance, savings, pension and charitable contributions, and purchase price of vehicles. The commission notes that the identification of spending categories for the development of estimates of expenditures on children does not translate well into an obligation for parents to spend specific portions of their own income, or support payments received from the other parent, on particular categories of items for their children. As stated earlier in this preamble, spending on children and adults in families is inextricably intertwined, and the commission specifically rejects a requirement on the part of the custodial parent to provide for an accounting of how support payments, or the custodial parent’s portion of the presumptive current support obligation, are used to provide for the child. An accounting requirement would represent an unreasonable administrative burden on courts and administrative agencies, and would be extremely intrusive for custodial parents. The commission does not believe it is appropriate for the government to micromanage family finances. - iv - On the other hand, where it can be shown that a parent’s failure to provide for a child rises to the level of neglect, it certainly is appropriate for individuals to enlist the help of appropriate courts or agencies to assess the appropriateness of a custody change or other measures to ensure the child’s welfare. The foregoing being said, however, the commission emphasizes that it is the obligation of both parents to contribute to the support of their children to the extent of their ability, as defined by the guidelines and ordered by the courts. The obligation to support does not rest solely with the parent who is ordered to make payments to the other parent. It extends also to the parent receiving those court-ordered payments. In addition to spending the designated support payments on the child, the parent receiving such payments remains obligated to expend a portion of his or her own personal income on the child’s behalf. The specific percentage expected to be spent is identical, absent application of a deviation criterion, to the percentage allocated by the other parent, as established by the schedule.

(2) Rothbarth estimator

Economists determine the average household spending on children by comparing the expenditures of two households that are equally well off economically, one with children and one without. To make this comparison, they must first determine a standard of well-being which is independent of income. The Rothbarth estimator (named for Erwin Rothbarth, the economist who first proposed it) is such a standard. It is based on the percentage of household income spent on adult goods, and the commission continues to regard it as the best benchmark to use in developing guidelines. It is the most widely used standard among states that have updated their guidelines based on newer child-rearing cost data.

(3) Adjustment for Connecticut

The data reported by Betson using the Rothbarth estimator (hereafter, Betson/Rothbarth) were developed using a nationally representative sample of households. Connecticut, however, has an income structure that is much higher than the national average. This fact, in the commission's judgment, continues to warrant an upward adjustment to the Betson/Rothbarth percentages, for the following reasons: (A) A Connecticut household can be expected to spend about the same percentage of income on children as a nationally representative household with a lower level of income because of the Connecticut household's relative position in the state's income distribution. (B) Households with lower levels of income generally spend a higher proportion of their income on children. The amount of the upward adjustment in the new schedule was calculated with reference to 2002 Census data indicating differences in family income between Connecticut and the national average.

(4) Percentage decline as income increases

(A) Reason for decline Economic evidence establishes that the proportion of household income spent on children declines as household income increases. This spending pattern exists because families at higher income levels do not have to devote most or all of their incomes to perceived necessities. Rather, they can allocate some proportion of income to savings and other non-consumption expenditures, as well as discretionary adult goods. This principle was reflected in the 1994 and 1999 guidelines, and is also incorporated in the new guidelines.

(B) Decline at all income levels Connecticut's pre-1994 child support guidelines built in a decline in the percentages beginning at the $750 combined net weekly income level. The new guidelines follow the pattern of the 1994 and 1999 guidelines and incorporate declining percentages at all levels of combined net weekly income outside the darker shaded area of the schedule. This approach is consistent with the income shares model, and the degree of decline is based on the most reliable economic indicators.

(5) Low-income adjustments

(A) A historical perspective One of the continuing themes that surfaced throughout the Commission’s review process was the challenge of striking an appropriate balance between the interests of parents and children in the setting of a child support award when one or both parents are of extremely limited means. On the one hand is the child’s interest in sharing equitably in the parents’ income, consistent with the income shares model. On the other hand is the low income parent’s need to retain sufficient income to provide for his or her own subsistence, in order to permit such parent to play a positive role in the child’s life. Previous commissions have resolved this inherent tension in various ways. For example, the 1994 and prior commissions established an income level below which a noncustodial parent would have no responsibility for child support payments. This approach created an unvarying self-support reserve, which absolutely protected a subsistence level of income for the nonresident parent, but failed to even minimally assist the resident parent, who frequently was also low-income, in providing for the child. It also failed to convey the important message to both parents that an obligation to support exists even where the ability is limited. Where the 1994 commission went further than prior commissions, however, was in the establishment of a variable self-support reserve for obligors whose income was above subsistence level but still relatively low. The variable self-support reserve applied in the area of the schedule identified by dark shading; and in this area usually only the noncustodial parent’s income was considered in setting the basic child support obligation. The effect of the variable self-support reserve was to preserve for the low-income obligor an ever-increasing level of earnings as net income increased to the point at which the income shares model was applied. The 1999 commission built on the work of the 1994 commission by retaining the concept of a variable self support reserve, applicable in the darker shaded area of the schedule, but eliminated the absolute protection for obligors with poverty level incomes and below. It did so by substituting a minimal obligation of 10% of net income for one child, and gradually increasing amounts for additional children, up to about the poverty level. From that level on, obligations increased in approximately equal intervals until the point at which the obligor retained about $170 per week, after the payment of child support. Beyond that level, the income shares model applied, and combined income was used to set the support obligation. The principle underlying the 1999 commission’s imposition of a minimal order even at poverty levels was the underlying public policy making parents primarily responsible for the support of their children. In accordance with this policy, the 1999 commission viewed it as crucial to require an order of a specific amount of child support, no matter how minimal, in almost every case.

The commission cited the lack of a self-support reserve for custodial parents and the advent of time-limited public assistance benefits as further justification for the imposition of a support order in most cases.

(B) Low-income adjustments in the new schedule The present commission recognizes that in low income families where the parents reside in two separate households, there will inevitably be immense financial pressures on both parents to maintain themselves and their children adequately. Nonetheless, the commission returned repeatedly in its deliberations to a concern for the best interests of the child. It therefore continues to prescribe minimal support payments for even very low income noncustodial parents, but has tempered this determination with several further adjustments in the low-income area of the schedule, in an effort to build upon and refine the commendable work of previous commissions.

(i) No obligation for parents with less than $50 net income The commission determined that child support obligations for noncustodial parents earnings less than $50 per week net income should be eliminated, despite its adherence to the principles enunciated by the 1999 commission regarding imposition of obligations in lowincome cases. Parents with such extremely low income are in truly desperate circumstances, and their first concern, even before the payment of a child support obligation, understandably is their own economic survival. The commission also deemed the $1 to $5 that would be expected of such parents under the 1999 guidelines primarily symbolic and, from a judicial and agency perspective, an unwarranted administrative burden to record, process, and enforce.

(ii) Increased range of low-income area The 1999 guidelines phased out the low-income, darker shaded area of the schedule at the point where the obligor retained about $170 per week net income. The present commission has extended the reach of the protections associated with this area of the schedule by increasing to approximately $190 per week the level of net income at which the low-income designation ceases to apply. The effect of this change is not only to deflate the required support contribution for borderline low income obligors, but also to extend to such obligors the additional protections accorded such obligors under other provisions of the guidelines, which are addressed elsewhere in this preamble.

(iii) Lower percentages in the darker shaded area The commission also slightly reduced most of the percentages in the low-income area of the schedule. Contributing factors to these reductions are the raising of the shaded area cut-off points and the lowering of many amounts outside the low-income area, particularly for three or more children. In the commission’s view, these reductions will ultimately work to the benefit of children, while serving the immediate self-support needs of low-income obligors, since they will assist such obligors in establishing a pattern of payment based on realistic expectations of their ability to pay.

(iv) Elimination of white italics As under the 1999 guidelines, there are some instances in the new schedule where the percentage indicated in the darker shaded area exceeds that which applies if the combined net income is used. These instances occur, in general, when the custodial parent's income is high relative to that of the noncustodial parent. The reason for this occurrence is the steady decline in percentages as combined income increases. The 1999 guidelines used white italics within the darker shaded area to indicate those income levels where use of combined income could possibly result in a lower support percentage for the low-income obligor. Where the white italics applied, the guidelines user would have to compare the support amount using the obligor’s income alone with the support amount using combined income to determine the lesser amount, and then use the lesser amount as the basic child support obligation. The present commission has determined that the former approach unduly complicates the support calculation in view of the small number of cases where the procedure results in an obligation different from one based solely on the obligor’s income. The commission accordingly has eliminated the white italics from the schedule, consistent with its efforts in other areas to simplify the guidelines. The result is that the basic child support obligation of the low-income obligor is determined under the present regulations without reference to the custodial parent’s income in all cases, subject to possible application of the deviation criterion for extraordinary disparity in parental income, which is addressed further in the deviation criteria section of this preamble.

(6) Extension to higher incomes The 1999 schedule applied only up to $2,500 combined net weekly income, since the data available to the previous commission would not support extension to higher incomes. The present commission has extended the applicable range of the schedule to $4,000 combined net weekly income, in response to comments from the public and many practicing family law attorneys, and in view of the commission’s aim to promote consistency in the setting of support orders at all income levels. This extension is justified at this time by the use of newer measurements of child-rearing costs, derived from 1996-1999 Consumer Expenditure Survey data that included higher income families. As under earlier guidelines, courts remain free to fashion appropriate child support awards on a case-by-case basis where the combined income exceeds the range of the schedule, provided the amount of support prescribed at the $4,000 level is presumed to be the minimum that should be ordered in such cases.

(f) Guidelines worksheet The commission continues to prescribe a worksheet for use in calculating support amounts under the child support and arrearage guidelines. While the revised worksheet looks similar to the one included in the former regulations, and still takes up only the front and back of one sheet of paper, it is different in a number of important respects.

(1) Heading The heading is identical, except for reformatting of the space to write in the children’s names and dates of birth, and inclusion of a statement concerning the permissive rounding of money amounts. The child information now fits on two lines, permitting increased use of vertical space for additional items and calculations on the first page.

(2) Net income calculations The main change in this section of the worksheet is the addition of an area for calculating the imputed support obligation for a qualified child. The commission added lines 12a through 12d for the purpose of breaking down the fairly complex calculation into a few simpler steps. The intent is to assist the user of the guidelines in correctly performing the necessary calculations. The commission also added lines in this section to correspond with the additional allowable deductions included in the regulations, and re-organized the lines for tax deductions to group the federal items together. Finally, there is now space on the gross income line to indicate the number of work hours used to calculate gross income.

(3) Current support calculation The commission shortened this section from twelve lines to six. This was possible primarily because health insurance premiums for the child are no longer added to the basic obligation and apportioned between the parents, so the lines for these calculations could be removed. Also absent is the line for the recommended current support order, which now appears only in the recommended orders section on the second page.

(4) Net disposable income calculation This is a new section, which the commission added due to the increased complexity of the net disposable income calculation. The section breaks down the computations into several simple steps to direct the user to the appropriate result, which now reflects the impact of alimony and social security dependency benefits.

(5) Unreimbursed medical expense calculation The commission provided more explicit instructions for calculating each parent’s percentage contribution, and inserted additional instructions to reflect the special treatment for low-income obligors.

(6) Child care contribution calculation The commission removed the space for qualifying costs, since such costs change over time and do not affect the calculation of the child care contribution percentage. The section is expanded to incorporate the special rules for calculating the child care contribution of low-income obligors.

(7) Arrearage payment calculation This section of the worksheet is condensed to reflect the commission finding that the lengthy and involved calculations in the former worksheet were unnecessary in the majority of cases. Now there is space to record the presumptive amount of twenty percent of the current support payment. In addition, there are special instructions for calculating, and a separate space to record, the presumptive amount when the special circumstances identified in the worksheet exist.

(8) Deviation criteria This section of the worksheet is expanded to include a listing of all the criteria with a check box for the user to indicate which, if any, criteria are being cited to rebut the presumptive support amounts.

(9) Recommended orders The commission changed the title of this section from “order summary” to “recommended orders” to clarify that the purpose of the section is to record the proposed order amounts, not the orders issued by the court. Space is added to record the presumptive current support amount, for comparison with the recommended order. The unreimbursed medical expense line now prompts for entry of percentage amounts for the mother and father. The child care contribution line has space to record either a percentage amount or a dollar amount in cases of noncompliance with a previous order. A line is also added to record any additional proposed orders, such as a supplemental order to pay a percentage of a future lump sum payment of an indeterminate amount, as now authorized in the regulations.

(g) Applicability of child support guidelines

(1) Split custody situations When there is more than one child in common and each parent provides the primary residence of at least one of the children, there is a split custody situation. Under the pre-1994 guidelines, these situations were handled by computing a single obligation for all subject children, and then apportioning the obligation between the parents based on the number of children in the other parent's custody. While this prorating approach was simple and reasonable, it was inconsistent with the income shares model. Because each additional child costs proportionately less to raise, the basic obligation for two children in a single household, for example, is less than that for two children living in separate households. The split custody adjustment under the pre-1994 guidelines, however, would use the basic obligation for two children in a single household to compute support for two children living separately. To correct this deficiency, the 1994 commission adopted an approach that uses the combined parental income to calculate separate obligations for the children of each household. These obligations are then offset to arrive at a single obligation which one parent pays to the other to correctly apportion their combined income based on a consistent application of the child support guidelines. The present commission continues to endorse this approach to the split custody situation, and has retained the applicable provisions unchanged from the 1999 guidelines.

(2) Cases where another child resides with a parent In an effort to improve the consistency of orders in which the needs of multiple families are involved, the 1999 commission eliminated the deviation criterion for needs of a parent’s prior or subsequent children in favor of a deduction from gross income in the amount of an imputed support obligation for a dependent child living with the parent. The present commission determined that this qualified child deduction works well and should continue unchanged from the 1999 guidelines. The amount of the allowable deduction for qualified children is calculated as follows. First, a current support obligation is calculated for all of the parent’s children, including those who are the subject of the support determination and those for whom the parent is seeking a gross income deduction. The other parent’s income is not considered in this calculation. Second, the resulting obligation is divided by the total number of the parent’s children, and the resulting amount is multiplied by the number of qualified children (those for whom the parent is claiming a deduction). The product is the total allowable deduction for all qualified children. While the deduction for qualified children accounts for the basic support needs of such children, it does not address any child care expenses attributable to them. Accordingly, the commission added a deviation criterion that may be used to reduce only the presumptive child care contribution for the child whose support is being determined. The new criterion is discussed more fully in the deviation criteria section of this preamble.

(3) Health care coverage contribution

(A) In general

The present commission recognizes, consistent with

the determinations of the 1999 commission, that clear

and adequate health care provisions must be included in

the guidelines if they are to serve the best interests of the

child. Such provisions are mandated by Title IV-D of

the Social Security Act, implementing federal regulations

and corresponding state law provisions. All states

now have in their child support guidelines some provision

for addressing the child’s health care needs. The

commission accordingly has retained the requirement for

each child support award entered under the guidelines to

include a provision for either parent to contribute to the

health care coverage of the child. The requirement may

be met by an order to name the child as a beneficiary of

health insurance carried by or available at reasonable

cost to a parent. If such insurance is not available, the

order must require application for Husky B or an

equivalent government-sponsored plan, as available.

Low-income obligors, however, are now exempt from

Husky reimbursement orders under this subsection.

(B) Change from “add-on” to deduction

The primary change to the treatment of health care

expenses in the present regulations is the elimination of

the premium adjustment in the calculation of presumptive

current support amounts. The commission determined

that adding the child’s portion of any health

insurance premiums paid by the parents to the basic

obligation, apportioning the payment between the

parents, and then subtracting the amount from the

obligation of the parent who pays the premium increased

the complexity of the child support determination, while

adding nothing to benefit the child. A simpler approach,

and one that adequately serves the child’s interest while

remaining fair to the parents, is to deduct the child’s

portion of the health insurance premium from the gross

income of the parent who pays it. Further information

on the allowable deduction for health insurance premiums

is found in the “income determination” section of

this preamble.

(i) Apportionment method

The commission has retained in the present regulations

the basic method for apportioning unreimbursed

medical expenses that was adopted by the 1999 commission.

It did, however, adjust the calculation method by

redefining “net disposable income,” on which the

apportionment is based. Previously, the guidelines user

calculated net disposable income by deducting only the

current support order amount from the noncustodial

parent’s net income, and adding it to the custodial

parent’s net income. Under the new guidelines, the user

also deducts 80% of any alimony payments to the other

parent from the net income of the parent paying the

alimony, while adding the same amount to the net

- viii -

income of the parent receiving such alimony. A further

adjustment is the addition of any social security dependency

benefits for the child on the earnings record of the

noncustodial parent to the custodial parent’s net income,

and the deduction of the same amount from the noncustodial

parent’s net income.

The combined effect of these adjustments to the net

disposable income calculation, in the commission’s

view, is a fairer allocation of responsibility for unreimbursed

medical expenses between the parents. This is

because the revised calculation method more accurately

reflects the actual funds available to the parents after

child support and alimony payments have changed

hands, and credits the noncustodial parent for social

security dependency benefits made on such parent’s

behalf. Only 80% of the alimony payment enters into

the net disposable income calculation, to account as

simply as possible for the tax ramifications of such

payment without further complicating the calculations.

(ii) Expenses subject to order

Under the 1999 guidelines, only those unreimbursed

medical expenses that exceeded $100 per year for each

child were subject to the apportionment order. The $100

figure represented an average amount included in the

schedule of basic obligations to cover ordinary medical

expenses. As part of its comprehensive effort to simplify

the guidelines, the present commission eliminated the

$100 expense threshold from the order provision, and

adjusted the schedule accordingly by removing medical

expenses from the child’s share of consumption

spending.

(iii) Other issues

The commission continues in the present guidelines

the policy of not exempting low-income obligors from

payment of unreimbursed medical expenses. It also

continues to include unreimbursed medical expenses as a

reason for deviating from presumptive support amounts

where such expenses are found to be extraordinary and

to exist on a substantial and continuing basis.

(4) Child care contribution

(A) In general

The commission has retained the provision requiring

the noncustodial parent to reimburse the custodial parent

for a portion of the child care costs incurred on behalf of

the subject child. Treating child care costs separately

under the guidelines, as opposed to including an average

amount for such costs in the schedule, is justified in the

commission’s view because not all families incur this

expense and costs vary widely depending on family

circumstances. Provision for a separate contribution

therefore permits the court to tailor the child support

award to those circumstances.

(B) Qualifying costs

The costs subject to noncustodial parent

reimbursement must be reasonable and necessary for the

custodial parent to maintain employment. Amounts that

are reimbursed or subsidized are excluded, as are

amounts that exceed the level required to provide quality

care from a licensed source. The commission refers

courts and other guidelines users to the charts on average

Connecticut child care costs that appear on the 2-1-1

Child Care Infoline internet website for information on

determining the reasonableness of any claimed child care

costs.

The noncustodial parent’s contribution to qualifying

child care costs is set generally the same way as

unreimbursed medical expenses are apportioned – on the

basis of the parents’ net disposable incomes. The

commission has redefined “net disposable income” in

the present regulations to account for alimony payments

and social security dependency benefits for the child on

the earnings record of the noncustodial parent. The

commission deems this the fairest way to apportion the

child care costs because it is based on the actual funds

available to the parents after child support and alimony

payments have changed hands. There are special rules

for low-income obligors, which are discussed below.

(D) Special rules for low-income obligors

(i) Elimination of exemption

The 1999 guidelines had exempted low-income

obligors from the child care contribution order. While

this approach was a clear benefit to low-income obligors,

the present commission has determined that the

establishment of reasonable limits on the contribution of

such obligors is an approach that is fairer to custodial

parents and in the best interests of the child.

(ii) Expansion of definition of “low-income

obligor”

The commission expanded the definition of “lowincome

obligor” only as the term is used to establish

special child care contribution limits. For the purpose of

setting those limits, the term includes obligors whose net

disposable income falls within the darker shaded area of

the schedule. This is in contrast to the definition as used

elsewhere in the regulations, which includes only those

obligors whose net income falls within the darker shaded

area of the schedule. As a result of this expansive

definition, the special contribution limits are extended to

obligors whose income is relatively low but who would

otherwise not benefit from the special limits.

(iii) Contribution limits

The child care contribution is generally set in

accordance with the obligor’s percentage share of

combined net disposable income. Under this general

rule, an obligor could be required to pay well over half

of the child care costs, if the obligor’s income is much

more than the custodial parent’s. One of the special rules

for low-income obligors, however, establishes a limit of

50% for the contribution of a low-income obligor toward

the qualifying child care costs. The other special rule

establishes the child care contribution at 20% of the

qualifying costs when the custodial parent’s net

disposable income is outside the darker shaded area of

the schedule. The latter rule protects low-income

- ix -

obligors from potentially very burdensome contributions

beyond the current support obligation in those cases

where the custodial parent has considerably greater

financial resources than the noncustodial parent.

(E) Coordination with schedule

The 1994 schedule incorporated in the percentages an

average amount for child care expenses over the child’s

minority, since child care was not treated as a separate

obligation under the guidelines. The 1999 commission,

on the other hand, established the policy, adhered to by

the present commission, under which child care costs are

apportioned between the parents, and made a separate

component of the child support award. Consistent with

this policy, the 1999 commission reduced the schedule

percentages by an estimated amount for child care costs

incurred over the child’s minority.

The present commission has updated the amounts

deducted from the schedule for average child care costs

based on Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer

Expenditure Survey data for the period 1996 through

1999, as provided by its retained consultant, Policy

Studies, Inc. The consultant reported that child care

costs per child tend generally to increase as a percentage

of consumption spending as the level of income

increases. Such costs in households with annual income

less than $15,000 average 0.25%, while ranging to

1.70% in households with annual income of more than

$150,000.

The commission recognizes that these amounts may

seem low, particularly to parents presently paying child

care costs for small children. These average amounts,

however, are determined on the basis of total

expenditures over the child’s entire minority, much of

which time no costs are incurred, and they also include

data from many families who use relatives rather than

paid facilities for child care, families with parents who

work at home and do not require outside child care, as

well as families who receive a child care subsidy.

The revised schedule incorporates deductions for

average child care costs in graduated fashion in

accordance with the updated data provided by the

consultant. The commission has determined that these

amounts are more reliable than the estimates on which

the 1999 schedule adjustments were based.

(5) Orders beyond majority

The commission has eliminated potential ambiguity

in the definition of “child” in the regulations by deleting

the word “unemancipated”. The definition formerly

applied to “an unemancipated individual whose parents

have a duty to provide support…” By removing the

word “unemancipated” from the definition, the

commission intends to eliminate any inconsistency with

provisions in Public Act No. 04-100 that expand support

liability under various support order statutes to parents

of unmarried high school students under the age of

nineteen, who could be considered emancipated for

some purposes. Such liability already existed for parents

subject to a decree of dissolution of marriage, legal

separation or annulment, under section 46b-84(b) of the

Connecticut General Statutes.

(6) Supplemental orders

The commission found that sometimes when a

support order is being set the parties have knowledge of

an anticipated future lump sum payment of an unknown

amount, such as a bonus. While the expected amount

may be substantial, the indeterminate nature of such

payment precludes its inclusion in the gross income of

the parent expected to receive it. In such cases, the

commission has determined that the most practical way

of considering the payment for purposes of establishing

an appropriate amount of support is to treat the payment

separately from the basic current support order, which is

to be paid periodically.

Under the approach adopted by the commission,

when the order is entered, the parties agree or the court

orders that a percentage of the future lump sum payment

shall be obligated as support upon receipt of the

payment. Such percentage is to be generally consistent

with the guidelines schedule. This approach maintains

the integrity of the current support calculation method,

since it does not attempt to include indeterminate or

speculative amounts in a parent’s gross income. It also

saves the parties from returning to court to modify the

support order to account for receipt of the payment.

The commission does not intend that this provision

shall apply in every case. In fact, it views the provision

as the exception rather than the rule, applicable in the

limited circumstances specified in the regulation. The

regulation still clearly provides that the primary element

of a current support order is a specific dollar amount,

which is payable periodically, such as weekly or

monthly. If the amount of the future lump sum payment

is reasonably ascertainable, it should be included in

gross income, subject to the normal current support

calculation procedures, and not addressed under this

provision.

(h) Income determination

The regulations continue to use the parents’ net

income, defined as gross income minus allowable

deductions, as a basis for calculating the child support

obligation. This subsection describes and explains the

principle changes to the gross income inclusions and

exclusions, and the allowable deductions, included in the

new guidelines.

(1) Gross income

(A) Inclusions

Users of the guidelines should note that gross income

includes all kinds of earned and unearned income not

specifically excluded. The list of inclusions is illustrative

and not exhaustive.

(i) Overtime and additional employment

The commission determined that inclusion of at least

some parental income earned for hours worked in excess

of 40 per week is justified by the principle that children

- x -

should share equitably in the income of their parents.

The commission finds it fair and appropriate, however,

to prescribe some limitation on the number of hours to

be included.

The 1999 guidelines had established 52 total paid

hours per week for regular, overtime, and additional

employment as the maximum to enter into the calculation

of gross income for child support purposes.

Subsequent to promulgation of the 1999 guidelines,

however, the Connecticut General Assembly enacted

section 32 of Public Act No. 99-279 (now codified as

section 46b-215d of the Connecticut General Statutes),

which provides that “in cases in which an obligor is an

hourly wage earner and has worked less than forty-five

hours per week at the time of the establishment of the

support order, any additional income earned from

working more than forty-five hours per week shall not be

considered income for purposes of such guidelines.”

The commission determined that the inconsistency of the

guidelines with this legislation caused confusion, and

made the guidelines more difficult to administer.

The commission accordingly reduced to 45 hours the

limitation on wages to be considered as gross income. In

conjunction with this change, the commission also

adopted a new deviation criterion (discussed more fully

in the deviation criteria subsection of this preamble) to

address those cases in which application of the lower

hourly wage limit might result in an inappropriate or

inequitable order, in view of a parent’s earnings history

and prospects.

(ii) Additional gross income inclusions

The commission added the following items as gross

income inclusions to reflect more fully its intent to

provide as comprehensive a list as possible of the types

of income that should typically be considered. The

commission notes, however, that unlisted items are not

thereby excluded from gross income unless they are

listed as exclusions in the regulation. The additional

items are:

• tribal stipends and incentives, and

• adoption subsidy benefits received by the custodial

parent for the child whose support is being

determined.

(iii)Clarifications

The commission made some language changes to

clarify two of the gross income inclusions, as follows:

• The social security benefits inclusion now specifically

excludes Supplemental Security Income for a parent

or a child.

• The education grant inclusion now is limited specifically

to the extent taxable as income under the Internal

Revenue Code.

(B) Exclusions

The commission added one item to the gross income

exclusions. Supplemental Security Income payments

received on behalf of a child living in the home of the

parent whose income is being determined now are

specifically excluded from gross income.

Except as noted elsewhere in the discussion of gross

income, the present commission expressly endorses the

income provisions adopted by the 1999 commission. In

particular, and without limitation, it continues the

inclusion of:

• social security dependency benefits for a child on the

earnings record of an insured parent; and

• gifts, prizes, and lottery and gambling winnings.

The commission also specifically continues the

exclusion from gross income of the income and regularly

recurring contributions or gifts of a spouse or domestic

partner, recognizing that the existing deviation criterion

for such contributions or gifts remains adequate to

address cases in which the existence of such resources

justifies a deviation from presumptive support amounts.

(2) Allowable deductions

(A) In general

The commission continues to regard the combined

net income of both parents as the fairest measure on

which to base the child support obligation. Since the

deductions used to calculate net income are limited to

those specifically enumerated in the regulation, the

commission was careful to consider all potential

deductions with a view toward enhancing equity for the

parents while protecting the income base available for

the support of children. As a result of this review, the

commission retained many allowable deductions

unchanged from the 1999 guidelines, added three, and

limited or expanded two others. A summary and

explanation of the commission’s actions concerning

allowable deductions follows.

(B) Taxes

The commission continues unchanged in these regulations

the allowable deductions for income, social

security and medicare taxes.

The 1999 guidelines allowed parents to deduct health

insurance premiums for themselves and their legal

dependents, but not for the child whose support is being

determined. The child’s portion was not deducted

because the child’s portion of the health insurance

premium was added to the basic obligation and

apportioned between the parents in proportion to their

respective net incomes.

The commission determined that this method of

handling a child’s health insurance costs, while

reasonable, unduly complicated the child support

determination. First, it required a determination of the

portion of a parent’s total health insurance premium

attributable to the child. This determination was not

always straightforward, as health insurance plans rarely

identify amounts attributable to individual family

- xi -

members beyond the primary subscriber. Second, it

required a complex adjustment to the basic support

obligation, which was not self-evident and frequently led

to confusion and uncertainty on the part of parents and

practitioners alike. In an effort to simplify application of

the guidelines by parents and practitioners, and to make

them more understandable to less frequent users, the

commission determined that a return to the approach

followed in Connecticut’s pre-1994 guidelines was

warranted. Under this approach, the cost of the child’s

portion of any health insurance premiums paid by a

parent are no longer added to the basic obligation and

apportioned between the parents. Instead, both parents

are allowed to deduct from their gross income the full

amount of any health insurance premiums paid by them

for themselves and all of their legal dependents,

including the child whose support is being determined.

The commission also expanded the deduction to include

Husky Plan contributions.

(D) Additional allowable deductions

The commission added the following allowable

deductions in the interests of equity, in recognition that

the amounts deducted are not subject to the parent’s

discretion and consequently are not available for the

payment of support. The additional deductions are:

• court-ordered life insurance for the benefit of the child

whose support is being determined,

• court-ordered disability insurance, and

• the cost of mandatory uniforms and tools, to the extent

deducted by the employer.

(E) Union dues

The commission limited the existing deduction for

union dues and fees to amounts actually deducted by the

employer.

(F) Other alimony and child support awards

The commission has retained the allowable deduction

for court-ordered alimony and child support awards

unchanged from the 1999 guidelines. In particular, it

continues the policy of limiting the deduction to the

extent of payment on non-arrearage amounts. The

disallowance of arrearage payments as a deduction helps

to ensure that a child who is the subject of a subsequent

support order is not deprived of an appropriate level of

support due to a parent’s non-payment of a prior support

order.

The commission recognizes that limiting this

deduction to actual payments can be interpreted as a

failure to give full effect to an existing court order. Such

interpretation relies on at least two principles: one, that a

valid court order should be presumed to be paid as

ordered in deference to judicial authority; and two, that

unpaid orders remain subject to enforcement and future

collection. The commission finds that the interest of the

child in receiving an appropriate level of support based

on the actual disposable income of the parents outweighs

these concerns. This determination rests on the

commission’s reluctance to reward a parent who neglects

to pay a pre-existing child support obligation with a

reduced obligation for the child whose support order is

now being established. That being said, however, the

commission specifically intends that the downward

modification remedy be available in appropriate

circumstances, subject to applicable state law, to

obligors who are faced with an inflated order because

they failed to make payments on another pre-existing

order.

Finally, the commission considered fully but rejected

amendment of this deduction to include alimony

amounts payable to the other parent involved in the

support determination and to limit the deduction only to

ordered child support amounts that are consistent with

the guidelines, where the actual order differs from such

amount because the parties to a pre-existing order

stipulated to an amount higher than that prescribed by

the guidelines.

(G) Imputed obligation for qualified child

The commission continues unchanged from the 1999

guidelines the deduction from gross income in the

amount of an imputed support obligation for a qualified

child. A qualified child is defined as one other than the

subject of the support determination, who resides with

the parent, is dependent on the parent for support, and

for whom the parent has not claimed a deduction for

court-ordered support payments. A parent may claim the

deduction in the context of an initial support determination

or when defending against a proposed modification.

A parent cannot claim the deduction when seeking a

modification of an existing child support award.

(i) Arrearage guidelines

Section 46b-215a of the Connecticut General Statutes

requires the development of guidelines for orders of

payment on arrearages. Such guidelines are to be based

on the obligor's ability to pay. The commission interprets

the statute to apply only to the determination of periodic

payments, and so does not address in the regulations the

determination of lump sum payments, which determination

remains subject to the discretion of the judge or

family support magistrate. The commission found that

there was uncertainty in the legal community regarding

the applicability of the deviation criteria to the determination

of periodic payments on arrearages, and therefore

added language at the beginning of the section to clarify

that the deviation criteria are intended to apply to such

determinations. This subsection of the preamble explains

the commission's rationale for several aspects of the

arrearage guidelines.

(1) Simplicity

The commission believes that the arrearage guidelines

should be fairly simple to understand and apply,

and accordingly continues to base the arrearage payment

on a percentage of the current support order.

(2) Percentage of current support

The commission determined that twenty percent

(20%) of the current support order continues to be a

reasonable percentage to apply toward the reduction of

- xii -

accumulated child support arrearages in most cases. It

has accordingly retained this percentage as the general

rule, subject to the limitation described in subdivision (4)

in this subsection of the preamble.

(3) Arrearage payment when there is no current

support order

When there is no current support order, a current

support obligation is imputed for the child for whom the

arrearage is owed, and the arrearage payment is established

as a percentage of that imputed obligation. The

applicable percentage is:

(A) twenty percent if the child for whom the

arrearage is owed is an unemancipated minor, and

(B) fifty percent if the child for whom the arrearage

is owed is deceased, emancipated, or over age eighteen.

The twenty percent amount was selected to be consistent

with the general rule on the grounds that in the

absence of a current support order, the obligor is either

supporting the child or would be obligated to do so under

state law. The fifty percent amount was selected

because in the situations described, the obligor’s current

support obligation will have ceased, so that the ability to

repay an arrearage is enhanced.

(4) Limitation on amount of arrearage payment

Basing the arrearage payment on the current support

order automatically introduces a test of the obligor's

ability to pay. Nonetheless, the commission recognizes

that further protection is required to assist obligors in

meeting their own self-support needs. It has accordingly

retained in these regulations the provision whereby no

more than 55% of an obligor's net income may be taken

for the total of all current support and arrearage

payments.

(5) Special rule for low-income obligors

The arrearage guidelines provide for a weekly

arrearage payment for low-income obligors equal to the

greater of ten percent (10%) of the weekly current

support order, or one dollar ($1) per week. The lower

percentage than that of the general rule is intended to

assist such obligors in meeting their own self-support

needs while at the same time conveying the important

message of the primacy of child support obligations.

(6) Arrearages owed to the state and a custodial

parent

The commission has retained the provision for a

single arrearage payment order under which payments

are to be distributed in accordance with federal

requirements. As under the 1999 guidelines, the order is

to be payable to the custodial parent until such parent’s

arrearage is satisfied, and then to the state.

(7) Special treatment for obligor living with child

The authorizing statute calls for special consideration

where the obligor lives with the child when the arrearage

order is entered. Accordingly, the commission continues

the requirement for only a minimal weekly payment of

one dollar ($1) where such obligor's gross income does

not exceed 250% of the poverty guideline for the

obligor's household size. Where the obligor's income

exceeds this amount, the guidelines require a payment of

20% of the imputed support obligation.

(j) Deviation criteria

(1) In general

The commission determined that the deviation

criteria are generally working well, and that minimal

changes to the regulation were needed. It also found,

however, that some clarification was required, and that

the addition of three new criteria was warranted.

The commission recognizes that keeping the

deviation criteria to a minimum serves the stated

guidelines purpose of ensuring consistency and

promoting settlements. It also finds, however, that due

regard to the best interests of the child, as well as

fairness to the parents, requires a description of the

specific circumstances in which the presumptive support

amounts may be inappropriate or unjust. The

commission considered case data reported from the

automated system maintained by the state’s Title IV-D

child support agency in arriving at the regulatory

amendments.

(2) Applicability

The commission added language in the introduction

and throughout the section to clarify its intent to restrict

the application of the deviation criteria to the specific

circumstances stated in the lettered subparagraphs listed

under the six category headings. For example, under the

second heading “extraordinary expenses for care and

maintenance of the child,” education expenses, unreimbursable

medical expenses, and expenses for special

needs are listed as the criteria for deviation. Under the

revised regulations, these three listed criteria, and no

others, may warrant deviation under the category

“extraordinary expenses for care and maintenance of the

child.” There may be other extraordinary expenses for

care and maintenance of the child, but unless such

expenses can be characterized fairly as falling under one

of the three specific listed criteria, they should not be

found to warrant a deviation from presumptive support

amounts.

Similarly, while acknowledging that agreements of

the parties to a child support determination should carry

some weight in setting appropriate support amounts, the

commission included language in the section introduction

that is intended to ensure that the best interests of

the child and an adherence to guidelines principles is

embodied in such agreements. The new language

permits agreements to set support amounts that deviate

from the presumptive amounts, but requires that such

agreements cite specific deviation criteria and factual

bases to justify any variance.

Finally, as noted in the discussion of the arrearage

guidelines, the commission added language at the

beginning of that section of the regulations to clarify that

the deviation criteria are intended to apply to the

- xiii -

determination of periodic payments on child support

arrearages.

(3) New criteria

(A) Weekly wages between 45 and 52 hours

This new criterion is associated with the commission’s

reduction of the limit on hourly wages to be

included in gross income from 52 hours, as existed in the

1999 guidelines, to 45 hours. The commission changed

the hourly wage standard to be consistent with section

46b-215d of the general statutes, which the Connecticut

legislature enacted subsequent to the completion of the

1999 commission’s activities. The commission intends

this new criterion to be available for those cases in

which application of the new hourly wage limit would

result in an inappropriate or inequitable order, in view of

a parent’s earnings history and prospects. The deviation

only applies when it is in the best interests of the child,

and it cannot be used in a modification context if the

obligor worked 45 hours or less when the order was set.

(B) Child care expenses for a qualified child

The commission added a deviation criterion for the

child care expenses of a qualified child to address the

concern that the required child care contribution, as a

component of the child support award in addition to

current support, might unduly impact a parent’s ability to

pay child care for other children living with such parent.

The deviation can be used only to reduce the presumptive

child care contribution, not current support, and it

applies only if such other children satisfy the definition

of “qualified child.” The commission also limited the

deviation to cases in which an initial child support award

is being set or a parent is defending against a proposed

modification of an existing child care contribution, to be

consistent with the qualified child deduction.

This new criterion is associated with the elimination

of the white italics from the darker shaded area of the

schedule. The white italics in the 1999 guidelines had

indicated those income levels at which the diminished

basic obligation of a low-income obligor might be

reduced even more by consideration of the custodial

parent’s income. The commission removed the white

italics to simplify the guidelines, in view of the small

number of cases in which the custodial parent’s income

was high enough to make a difference in the amount of

the low-income obligor’s basic obligation. The new

criterion is intended to provide a vehicle for addressing

the small number of cases affected by this change. The

commission also recognizes that there may be other

circumstances in which application of the criterion may

be warranted.

(4) Shared physical custody

The commission considered at length the deviation

for shared physical custody, and concluded that it should

remain unchanged from the 1999 guidelines.

In accordance with the amended definition, a finding

of shared physical custody should be made only where

each parent exercises physical care and control of the

child for periods substantially in excess of a normal

visitation schedule. The commission deems a normal

visitation schedule typically to consist of two overnights

on alternate weekends; alternate holidays; some vacation

time; and other visits of short duration, which may

occasion an overnight stay during the week. While

periods in excess of a normal visitation schedule are

required for a finding of shared physical custody, the

commission emphasizes that an equal time-sharing is not

required for such finding. Courts and other officials still

must determine what precise level of sharing is sufficient

to warrant a deviation from presumptive support

amounts. The commission continues to reject a “brightline”

definitional test as well as a formula approach to

shared custody situations to discourage disputes over

time-sharing as a means of affecting support amounts.

The commission believes the approach continued in

these regulations leaves sufficient room for the exercise

of judicial discretion while providing a measure of

predictability for the parties.

(5) Additional considerations

The commission reviewed all of the other existing

deviation criteria and determined that no substantive

amendments are warranted at this time. The commission

notes, however, that the deviation criterion for a parent’s

earning capacity must now be read in conjunction with

subsection (b) of section 46b-215b of the Connecticut

General Statutes, which prohibits application of such

criterion in certain cases when the parent qualifies for

disability benefits.

(k) The guidelines commission and review process

(1) Statutory authority and membership

The Commission for Child Support Guidelines is

established under section 46b-215a of the Connecticut

General Statutes. The commission is charged with

establishing guidelines to ensure the appropriateness of

child support awards, and for reviewing and updating

such guidelines every four years. The commission

consists of eleven members. The Chief Court

Administrator, the Commissioner of Social Services, the

Attorney General, and the chairpersons and ranking

members of the joint standing committee on judiciary all

serve in their official capacities, and may select

designees to serve in their place. The Governor appoints

a representative of the Connecticut Bar Association, a

representative of legal services, a person who represents

the financial concerns of child support obligors, and a

representative of the Permanent Commission on the

Status of Women. The commission elects its own

chairperson who was, during the most recent review

process, Patricia A. Wilson-Coker, JD, MSW,

Commissioner of Social Services.

In addition to the voting membership, other

representatives of various agencies and court systems

involved in the child support determination process

participated regularly in commission meetings, and

staffed the work of the commission. The commission

- xiv -

gratefully acknowledges the contributions of these

individuals to the work of the commission.

(2) Review process

The commission held biweekly meetings, which were

open to the public, beginning October 2002. The

commission filed a schedule of meetings with the

Secretary of the State, as required by statute, and kept

detailed minutes of each meeting. Early in its review

process, the commission reached out in several directions

in an effort to gather maximum input on possible

changes to the guidelines.

The commission held focus groups of staff from the

Bureau of Child Support Enforcement of the Department

of Social Services, Support Enforcement Services of the

Court Operations Division of the Judicial Branch, and

Assistant Attorneys General in the Child Support

Department of the Office of the Attorney General who

offered their valuable insights on the areas in which the

existing guidelines were working well, and those in

which improvement seemed warranted. The commission

then invited staff representatives of these agencies to

address the commission and summarize the concerns of

these focus groups.

The commission invited representatives of Fatherhood

Initiative sites throughout the state, as well as a

representative of the Connecticut Women’s Education

and Legal Fund, to address the commission to present

their concerns regarding the impact of the existing

guidelines on the clients they serve. The Connecticut

Bar Association representative on the commission

surveyed selected family law attorneys, and compiled a

synopsis of their responses to various questions on

identified guidelines issues, which was made available to

the commission.

The commission scheduled six public hearings to

receive comments from the public on how the guidelines

affected them, and to offer the opportunity to recommend

changes. All of the public hearings were scheduled

for the month of January 2003 - five during the

evening, and one in the afternoon. Notice of the hearings

was published in the Connecticut Law Journal; a flyer

was posted in many locations; and the hearings were

publicized widely in newspapers throughout the state.

Unfortunately, one of the hearings was cancelled due to

a power outage, and one was not held because no one

attended. In all, however, the commission received

comments from 39 individuals either at the public

hearings or in written correspondence following the

hearings.

Somewhat later in its deliberations, after the commission

had identified some of the major areas for increased

scrutiny of potential regulatory revision, the commission

welcomed the Chief Family Administrative Judge of the

Connecticut Superior Court to present and discuss with

the commission his views on selected issues related to

the guidelines and their implementation in the court

system.

The commission also hired a nationally recognized

leader in the field of child support guidelines consulting,

Policy Studies, Inc., to prepare a new Schedule of Basic

Child Support Obligations based on updated economic

research, and to modify the schedule in accordance with

certain commission determinations, as described in

earlier sections of this preamble.

Finally, in addition to the outreach methods described

above, the commission during its deliberations employed

several more research and data-gathering techniques,

including but not limited to: examination of the statistical

records of the computerized Connecticut Child

Support Enforcement System relating to the application

of the guidelines to ensure that deviations from the

guidelines are limited; survey of other states’ child

support agencies to determine other possible approaches

to various guidelines issues; internet research on specific

guidelines-related topics; review of appellate court

decisions from Connecticut and other states; consideration

of an appellate brief submitted by an interested

citizen; reading and summarizing books, articles, and

reports of various kinds and media covering particular

guidelines issues; and informal consultation with

members of the bar, the bench, state legislators, agency

representatives, and interested members of the public

concerning guidelines issues.

Following the commission’s information gathering,

deliberations, and development of revised regulations,

including a new schedule and worksheet, the commission

submitted the proposed regulatory amendments to

the Office of the Attorney General for a review of legal

sufficiency, and to the joint standing Legislative Regulation

Review Committee for final approval, as required by

section 46b-215c of the general statutes.

(l) Effective date

The commission selected an effective date of August

1, 2005 to provide sufficient time for those who are

involved in the determination of child support amounts

within the state to become familiar with the guidelines

prior to their required implementation.

- 1 -

CHILD SUPPORT AND ARREARAGE GUIDELINES REGULATIONS

Section 46b-215a-1. Definitions

As used in sections 46b-215a-1, 46b-215a-2b, 46b-215a-3, 46b-215a-4a and 46b-215a-5b:

(1) “Allowable deductions” means average weekly amounts subtracted from gross income to arrive at net

income, and are limited to the following:

(A) federal, state and local income taxes, based upon all allowable exemptions, deductions and credits;

(B) social security taxes or, in lieu thereof, mandatory retirement plan deductions for an amount not to

exceed the maximum amount permissible under social security;

(D) medical, hospital, dental or health insurance premium payments, including Husky Plan

contributions, for the parent and his or her legal dependents, provided the parent provides the name

of the insurer and the policy number;

(E) court-ordered life insurance for the benefit of the child whose support is being determined;

(F) court-ordered disability insurance;

(G) mandatory union dues or fees, including initiation, to the extent deducted by the employer;

(H) the cost of mandatory uniforms and tools, to the extent deducted by the employer;

(I) court-ordered alimony and child support awards for individuals not involved in the support

determination, provided a deduction for such awards shall be allowed only to the extent of payment

on any non-arrearage amounts; and

(J) an imputed support obligation for a qualified child, as determined in accordance with section

46b-215a-2b(e) of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies.

(2) “Arrearage” is synonymous with “past-due support” and means any one or a combination of the

following:

(A) court ordered current support or arrearage payments which have become due and payable and

remain unpaid;

(B) unpaid child support award amounts which have been reduced to a judgment or otherwise found to

be due by a court of competent jurisdiction, whether or not presently payable; and

(3) “Child” means an individual whose parents have a duty to provide support, and includes “children” where

the context so requires.

(4) “Child care costs” means amounts expended for the care and supervision of a child whose support is

being determined.

(5) “Child support and arrearage guidelines” means the rules, principles, schedule and worksheet established

under sections 46b-215a-1, 46b-215a-2b, 46b-215a-3, 46b-215a-4a and 46b-215a-5b of the Regulations of

Connecticut State Agencies for the determination of an appropriate child support award, to be used when

initially establishing or modifying both temporary and permanent orders.

(6) “Child support award” means the entire payment obligation of the noncustodial parent, as determined

under the child support and arrearage guidelines, and includes current support payments, health care

coverage, child care contribution and periodic payments on arrearages.

- 2 -

(7) “Current support” means an amount for the ongoing support of a child, exclusive of arrearage payments,

health care coverage and a child care contribution.

(8) “Custodial parent” means the parent who provides the child's primary residence.

(9) “Dependent” means a spouse or child for whom a parent is legally responsible under state law.

(10) “Deviation criteria” means those facts or circumstances specified in section 46b-215a-3 of the

Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies, which may justify an order different from the presumptive

support amounts.

(11) “Gross income” means the average weekly earned and unearned income from all sources before deductions,

including but not limited to the items listed in subparagraph (A) of this subdivision, but excluding

the items listed in subparagraph (B) of this subdivision.

(A) Inclusions

The gross income inclusions are:

(i) salary;

(ii) hourly wages for regular, overtime and additional employment not to exceed 45 total paid

hours per week;

(iii) commissions, bonuses and tips;

(iv) profit sharing, deferred compensation and severance pay;

(v) tribal stipends and incentives;

(vi) employment perquisites and in-kind compensation (any basic maintenance or special need

such as food, shelter or transportation provided on a recurrent basis in lieu of or in addition

to salary or wages);

(vii) military personnel fringe benefit payments;

(viii) benefits received in place of earned income including, but not limited to, workers’

compensation benefits, unemployment insurance benefits, strike pay and disability insurance

benefits;

(ix) veterans’ benefits;

(x) social security benefits (excluding Supplemental Security Income (SSI) for a parent or a

child), including dependency benefits on the earnings record of an insured parent that are

paid on behalf of a child whose support is being determined;

(xi) net proceeds from contractual agreements;

(xii) pension and retirement income;

(xiii) rental income after deduction of reasonable and necessary expenses;

(xiv) estate or trust income;

(xv) royalties;

(xvi) interest, dividends and annuities;

(xvii) self-employment earnings, after deduction of all reasonable and necessary business

expenses;

- 3 -

(xviii) alimony being paid by an individual who is not a party to the support determination;

(xix) adoption subsidy benefits received by the custodial parent for the child whose support is

being determined;

(xx) lottery and gambling winnings, prizes and regularly recurring gifts (except as provided in

subparagraph (B)(v) of this subdivision); and

(xxi) education grants (including fellowships or subsidies, to the extent taxable as income under

the Internal Revenue Code).

(B) Exclusions

The gross income exclusions are:

(i) support received on behalf of a child who is living in the home of the parent whose income is

being determined;

(ii) SSI payments, including those received on behalf of a child who is living in the home of the

parent whose income is being determined;

(iii) federal, state and local public assistance grants;

(iv) earned income tax credit; and

(v) the income and regularly recurring contributions or gifts of a spouse or domestic partner.

(12) “Health care coverage” means any provision of the child support award that addresses the child’s medical

or dental needs, and includes an order for either parent to:

(A) provide medical or dental insurance for such child, or

(B) pay all or a part of such child’s medical and dental expenses that are not covered by insurance or

reimbursed in any other manner.

(13) “Husky Plan” means the plan to provide health care for uninsured children established under sections

17b-289 to 17b-303, inclusive, of the Connecticut General Statutes and section 16 of Public Act 97-1 of

the October 29 Special Session, and includes:

(A) the Husky Plan, Part A (also known as Medicaid) for children receiving assistance under section

17b-261 of the Connecticut General Statutes; and

(B) the Husky Plan, Part B for children receiving assistance under sections 17b-289 to 17b-303,

inclusive, of the Connecticut General Statutes and section 16 of Public Act 97-1 of the October 29

Special Session.

(14) “Imputed support obligation” means a theoretical current support obligation computed for given children

in accordance with section 46b-215a-2b of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies, the amount of

which obligation is used to determine the allowable deduction for a qualified child under subsection (e) of

said section and to calculate arrearage payments under section 46b-215a-4a of the Regulations of

Connecticut State Agencies.

(15) “Low-income obligor” means an obligor whose basic child support obligation is determined without

considering the other parent's income, using the darker shaded area of the schedule.

(16) “Net disposable income” means:

(A) with reference to the custodial parent, except as provided in subparagraph (C) of this subdivision,

the custodial parent’s net income increased by the sum of:

- 4 -

(i) the recommended current support order,

(ii) eighty percent of the weekly amount of any alimony paid by the noncustodial parent to the

custodial parent, and

(iii) the amount of any social security dependency benefits on the earnings record of the

noncustodial parent that are paid on behalf of the child whose support is being determined; and

(B) with reference to the noncustodial parent, except as provided in subparagraph (C) of this subdivision,

the noncustodial parent’s net income reduced by the sum of:

(i) the recommended current support order,

(ii) eighty percent of the weekly amount of any alimony paid by the noncustodial parent to the

custodial parent, and

(iii) the amount of any social security dependency benefits on the earnings record of the

noncustodial parent that are paid on behalf of the child whose support is being determined.

to the noncustodial parent, eighty percent of the weekly amount of such alimony is:

(i) subtracted from the custodial parent’s net income to calculate the custodial parent’s net

disposable income, and

(ii) added to the noncustodial parent’s net income to calculate the noncustodial parent’s net

disposable income.

(17) “Net income” means gross income minus allowable deductions.

(18) “Noncustodial parent” means a parent who does not provide the child's primary residence.

(19) “Obligor” means a parent who is ordered to make payments under a child support award.

(20) “Presumptive support amounts” means the child support award components calculated under sections

46b-215a-2b and 46b-215a-4a of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies, prior to consideration of

the deviation criteria specified in section 46b-215a-3 of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies.

(21) “Schedule” means the Connecticut Child Support Guidelines Schedule of Basic Child Support

Obligations included in section 46b-215a-2b of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies.

(22) “Shared physical custody” means a situation in which each parent exercises physical care and control of

the child for periods substantially in excess of a normal visitation schedule. An equal sharing of physical

care and control of the child is not required for a finding of shared physical custody.

(23) “Split custody” means a situation in which there is more than one child in common and each parent is the

custodial parent of at least one of the children.

(24) “Title IV-D” means the provisions of the federal Social Security Act, which require states to implement a

child support enforcement program.

(25) “Worksheet” means form CCSG-1, Worksheet for the Connecticut Child Support and Arrearage

Guidelines, which is intended for use with all applicable instructions in sections 46b-215a-2b and

46b-215a-4a of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies. The worksheet is included in section

46b-215a-5b of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies.

- 5 -

Section 46b-215a-2b. Child support guidelines

(a) Applicability

(1) Award components

This section shall be used to determine the current support, health care coverage and child care

contribution components of all child support awards within the state, subject to section 46b-215a-3

of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies.

(2) Income scope

When the parents' combined net weekly income exceeds $4,000, child support awards shall be

determined on a case-by-case basis, and the current support prescribed at the $4,000 net weekly

income level shall be the minimum presumptive amount.

(b) Using the worksheet

The line references throughout this section are to the worksheet set forth in section 46b-215a-5b of the

Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies. Use one worksheet in most cases. When there is a third party

custodian and either parent is a low-income obligor (as determined in subsection (c)(3)(A) of this section),

complete a separate worksheet for each parent. Enter on the worksheet only weekly amounts, which may

be rounded to the nearest dollar.

The procedures in this subsection shall be used, subject to subsections (d) and (e) of this section, to

determine the current support component of the child support award.

(1) Order requirements

(A) Specific dollar amount

The current support order shall include a specific dollar amount of support as a primary

element, to be payable on a recurring basis.

(B) Indeterminate amounts

The primary requirement of a specific dollar amount of current support shall not preclude the

entry of a supplemental order, in appropriate cases, to pay a percentage of a future lump sum

payment, such as a bonus. Such supplemental orders may be entered only when:

(i) such payment is of an indeterminate amount; and

(ii) the percentage is generally consistent with the schedule in subsection (f) of this section.

(2) Determine the net weekly income of each parent

Follow the instructions in this subdivision to determine the net weekly income of each parent.

(A) Enter the parent’s gross income on line 1, and indicate the number of work hours, to a

maximum of forty-five, used to determine the gross income.

- 6 -

(B) Enter the parent’s federal income tax, based on all allowable exemptions, deductions and

credits, on line 2.

not to exceed the maximum amount permissible under social security, on line 3.

(D) Enter the parent’s medicare tax on line 4.

(E) Enter the parent’s state and local income tax, based on all allowable exemptions, deductions

and credits, on line 5.

(F) Enter the parent’s medical, hospital, dental or health insurance premium payments, including

any Husky Plan contributions, for the parent and his or her legal dependents, including the

child whose support is being determined, on line 6.

(G) Enter the parent’s payments on court-ordered life insurance for the benefit of the child whose

support is being determined on line 7.

(H) Enter the parent’s payments on court-ordered disability insurance on line 8.

(I) Enter the parent’s mandatory union dues or fees, including initiation, to the extent deducted by

the employer, on line 9.

(J) Enter the parent’s cost of mandatory uniforms and tools, to the extent deducted by the

employer, on line 10.

(K) Enter the amount of the parent’s court-ordered alimony and child support payments for

individuals not involved in the support determination on line 11. Do not include arrearage

payments in this amount.

(L) If the parent is entitled to a qualified child deduction in accordance with subsection (e) of this

section, compute an imputed support obligation for the parent’s qualified child, following the

procedures in subdivision (2) of such subsection, and enter the amount on line 12.

(M) Add the amounts entered on lines 2-12 for each parent and enter the sum on line 13 for each

parent.

(N) Subtract each parent’s line 13 amount from the parent’s line 1 amount and enter the result on

line 14 for each parent. The line 14 amount for each parent is that parent’s net weekly income.

(3) Determine the basic child support obligation

Follow the instructions below in the order presented to determine the basic child support obligation

using the Schedule of Basic Child Support Obligations found in subsection (f) of this section.

(A) Find the block in the schedule that corresponds to the income level of the noncustodial parent

(rounded to the nearest ten dollars) and the number of children whose support is being

determined.

(i) If this block is in the darker shaded area of the schedule, the noncustodial parent is a lowincome

obligor. The dollar amount shown in the block is the noncustodial parent's basic

child support obligation. Enter this amount on line 16 and proceed to subdivision (4) of

this subsection.

- 7 -

(ii) If this block is not in the darker shaded area of the schedule, the noncustodial parent is

not a low-income obligor. Proceed to subparagraph (B) of this subdivision to determine

the basic child support obligation.

(B) Add the line 14 amounts for each parent. The result is the combined net weekly income.

Round this amount to the nearest ten dollars and enter on line 15. Find the block in the

schedule that corresponds to the line 15 amount and the number of children whose support is

being determined.

The dollar amount shown in this block is the basic child support obligation of both parents for

the support of all children. Enter this amount on line 16 and proceed to subdivision (4) of this

subsection.

(4) Determine each parent's share of the basic child support obligation

Except as provided in subparagraph (A) of this subdivision, each parent's share of the basic child

support obligation is determined by calculating each parent's share of the combined net weekly

income, as entered on line 15, and multiplying the result for each parent by the basic child support

obligation.

(A) In the case of a low-income obligor, skip line 17, enter the line 16 amount in the noncustodial

parent's column on line 18 and proceed to subdivision (5) of this subsection.

(B) Determine each parent's percentage share of the combined net weekly income by dividing the

line 14 amount for each parent by the line 15 amount and multiplying by one hundred percent.

Enter the result (rounded to the nearest whole percentage) for each parent on line 17.

parent on line 18. These amounts are each parent's share of the basic child support obligation.

(5) Adjust for social security benefits

Enter on line 19 in the noncustodial parent's column the weekly amount of any social security

dependency benefits on the earnings record of such parent that are paid on behalf of the child whose

support is being determined.

(6) Determine the presumptive current support amount

The presumptive current support amount for each parent is equal to that parent’s share of the basic

child support obligation, except where there is an adjustment for social security dependency benefits

in accordance with subdivision (5) of this subsection.

(A) If there is no entry on line 19 in the noncustodial parent's column, enter each parent’s line 18

amount, rounded to the nearest dollar, on line 20 in the appropriate column. Also enter the

noncustodial parent’s line 20 amount in the appropriate space on line 34.

(B) If there is an entry on line 19 in the noncustodial parent's column, subtract the line 19 amount

from the noncustodial parent’s line 18 amount and enter the result, rounded to the nearest

dollar, on line 20 in the noncustodial parent's column and in the appropriate space on line 34.

Then enter the custodial parent’s line 18 amount, rounded to the nearest dollar, on line 20 in

the custodial parent's column.

- 8 -

(7) Determine the recommended current support order

The recommended current support order shall equal the presumptive current support amount for the

noncustodial parent unless a deviation criterion, as specified in section 46b-215a-3 of the

Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies, applies.

(A) If a deviation criterion applies, complete section VII of the worksheet, checking all boxes that

apply, and attach an additional sheet if necessary to explain the deviation. Enter the

recommended weekly current support order on line 34.

(B) The line 20 amount for the custodial parent is retained by the custodial parent and is presumed

spent on the children. The presumptive support amount for the custodial parent is not

established as an order and is not entered on line 34.

(d) Determining the amount of current support in split custody situations

In a split custody situation, as defined in section 46b-215a-1(23) of the Regulations of Connecticut State

Agencies, a single support obligation is calculated by offsetting theoretical presumptive current support

amounts for each parent as follows.

(1) Determine the presumptive current support amount that the father would owe to the mother for the

children in her custody as if those children were the only children of the parties, following all

applicable procedures in subsection (c) of this section.

(2) Determine the presumptive current support amount that the mother would owe to the father for the

children in his custody as if those children were the only children of the parties, following all

applicable procedures in subsection (c) of this section.

(3) Subtract the lesser amount from the greater, as determined in subdivisions (1) and (2) of this

subsection.

(4) The recommended current support order shall equal the amount calculated in subdivision (3) of this

subsection unless a deviation criterion, as specified in section 46b-215a-3 of the Regulations of

Connecticut State Agencies, applies. Such order shall be payable by the parent whose presumptive

current support amount, as determined in subdivisions (1) and (2) of this subsection, is greater. If a

deviation criterion applies, complete section VII of the worksheet, checking all boxes that apply, and

attach an additional sheet if necessary to explain the deviation. Enter the recommended weekly

current support order on line 34.

(e) Determining the amount of current support when another child resides with a parent

(1) Applicability

This subsection shall be used to determine the amount of current support only under the

circumstances described in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of this subdivision.

(A) Qualified child

Either parent claims a qualified child. A qualified child is one:

(i) who is currently living in the same household with the parent, if such parent is the child’s

legal guardian, or, if such parent is not the child’s legal guardian, has lived in the same

- 9 -

household with such parent for at least the six months immediately preceding the support

determination or six of the twelve months immediately preceding such determination;

(ii) who is a dependent of the parent;

(iii) who is not a subject of the support determination; and

(iv) for whom the parent has not claimed a deduction under section 46b-215a-1(1)(I) of the

Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies.

(B) Initial award or defense to modification

An initial child support award is being established, or a parent is defending against a proposed

modification of an existing child support award.

(2) Procedure

When this subsection applies, determine the amount of current support by following the procedures

in this subdivision.

(A) Determine current support amount for all children

(i) Enter on line 12a for the parent claiming a qualified child the sum of lines 2-11 for such

parent.

(ii) Subtract the parent’s line 12a amount from the parent’s line 1 amount and enter the result

on line 12b for such parent.

(iii) Refer to the schedule to determine a single theoretical presumptive current support

amount for the number of children consisting of the child whose support is being

determined and the qualified child. For the purpose of this determination, deem the gross

income of the other parent of each such child to be zero. Enter the schedule amount on

line 12c for the claiming parent.

(B) Determine imputed support obligation for qualified child

Divide the amount entered on line 12c by the number of children used in determining such

amount, and enter the result on line 12d for the claiming parent. Multiply the amount entered

on line 12d by the number of the claiming parent’s qualified children, and enter the product on

line 12 for the claiming parent. The line 12 amount is the imputed support obligation for the

qualified child.

Continue following the remaining procedures in subsection (c) of this section to determine the

amount of current support for the subject child, using the imputed support obligation for the

qualified child as a deduction from the gross income of the claiming parent.

(f) Schedule of basic child support obligations

Following is the schedule to be used for determining the basic child support obligation in accordance with

subsection (c) of this section. Note that all obligation money amounts have been rounded to the nearest

dollar in this schedule.

- 10 -

CONNECTICUT CHILD SUPPORT GUIDELINES

SCHEDULE OF BASIC CHILD SUPPORT OBLIGATIONS

NOTE: Noncustodial parent income only for the darker shaded areas of the schedule on the first

page; combined parental income for the remainder of the schedule.

1 Child 2 Children 3 Children 4 Children 5 Children 6 Children

Combined

Net

Weekly

Income % $ % $ % $ % $ % $ % $

50 10.00% 5 10.40% 5 10.80% 5 11.20% 6 11.60% 6 12.00% 6

60 10.00% 6 10.54% 6 11.08% 7 11.62% 7 12.16% 7 12.70% 8

70 10.00% 7 10.68% 7 11.36% 8 12.04% 8 12.72% 9 13.40% 9

80 10.00% 8 10.82% 9 11.64% 9 12.46% 10 13.28% 11 14.10% 11

90 10.00% 9 10.96% 10 11.92% 11 12.88% 12 13.84% 12 14.80% 13

100 10.00% 10 11.10% 11 12.20% 12 13.30% 13 14.40% 14 15.50% 16

110 10.00% 11 11.24% 12 12.48% 14 13.72% 15 14.96% 16 16.20% 18

120 10.00% 12 11.38% 14 12.76% 15 14.14% 17 15.52% 19 16.90% 20

130 10.00% 13 11.52% 15 13.04% 17 14.56% 19 16.08% 21 17.60% 23

140 10.00% 14 11.66% 16 13.32% 19 14.98% 21 16.64% 23 18.30% 26

150 10.00% 15 11.80% 18 13.60% 20 15.40% 23 17.20% 26 19.00% 29

160 10.00% 16 14.62% 23 16.78% 27 18.70% 30 20.57% 33 22.46% 36

170 12.29% 21 17.10% 29 19.59% 33 21.62% 37 23.55% 40 25.50% 43

180 14.32% 26 19.31% 35 22.08% 40 24.21% 44 26.19% 47 28.21% 51

190 16.14% 31 21.29% 40 24.32% 46 26.53% 50 28.56% 54 30.64% 58

200 17.78% 36 23.07% 46 26.33% 53 28.62% 57 30.69% 61 32.82% 66

210 19.26% 40 24.68% 52 28.14% 59 30.50% 64 32.62% 68 34.80% 73

220 20.61% 45 26.14% 58 29.80% 66 32.22% 71 34.37% 76 36.59% 81

230 21.84% 50 27.48% 63 31.30% 72 33.79% 78 35.97% 83 38.23% 88

240 22.96% 55 28.70% 69 32.69% 78 35.22% 85 37.43% 90 39.73% 95

250 24.00% 60 29.83% 75 33.96% 85 36.54% 91 38.78% 97 41.11% 103

260 25.51% 66 30.87% 80 35.13% 91 37.76% 98 40.03% 104 42.39% 110

270 25.49% 69 31.83% 86 36.22% 98 38.89% 105 41.18% 111 43.57% 118

280 25.48% 71 32.73% 92 37.23% 104 39.94% 112 42.25% 118 44.67% 125

290 25.47% 74 33.56% 97 38.17% 111 40.92% 119 43.25% 125 45.69% 133

300 25.46% 76 35.00% 105 39.05% 117 41.83% 125 44.18% 133 46.64% 140

310 25.45% 79 35.99% 112 39.87% 124 42.68% 132 45.05% 140 47.53% 147

320 25.44% 81 35.98% 115 40.64% 130 43.48% 139 45.86% 147 48.37% 155

330 25.43% 84 35.97% 119 41.67% 137 44.23% 146 46.63% 154 49.16% 162

340 25.41% 86 35.95% 122 41.64% 142 44.94% 153 47.35% 161 49.89% 170

350 25.40% 89 35.91% 126 41.61% 146 45.61% 160 48.03% 168 50.59% 177

360 25.38% 91 35.88% 129 41.57% 150 46.24% 166 48.67% 175 51.25% 185

370 25.37% 94 35.84% 133 41.54% 154 46.32% 171 49.28% 182 51.87% 192

380 25.36% 96 35.81% 136 41.51% 158 46.28% 176 49.86% 189 52.46% 199

390 25.34% 99 35.78% 140 41.48% 162 46.25% 180 50.40% 197 53.02% 207

400 25.33% 101 35.75% 143 41.45% 166 46.22% 185 50.84% 203 53.55% 214

410 25.32% 104 35.72% 146 41.43% 170 46.19% 189 50.81% 208 54.06% 222

420 25.31% 106 35.70% 150 41.40% 174 46.16% 194 50.78% 213 54.54% 229

430 25.30% 109 35.67% 153 41.38% 178 46.13% 198 50.75% 218 55.21% 237

440 25.27% 111 35.62% 157 41.29% 182 46.04% 203 50.65% 223 55.11% 242

450 25.25% 114 35.55% 160 41.20% 185 45.93% 207 50.53% 227 54.97% 247

460 25.22% 116 35.48% 163 41.10% 189 45.83% 211 50.41% 232 54.85% 252

470 25.20% 118 35.42% 166 41.01% 193 45.73% 215 50.30% 236 54.73% 257

480 25.18% 121 35.36% 170 40.92% 196 45.63% 219 50.19% 241 54.61% 262

490 25.16% 123 35.30% 173 40.84% 200 45.54% 223 50.09% 245 54.50% 267

- 11 -

CONNECTICUT CHILD SUPPORT GUIDELINES

SCHEDULE OF BASIC CHILD SUPPORT OBLIGATIONS

($500 - $990 COMBINED NET WEEKLY INCOME)

1 Child 2 Children 3 Children 4 Children 5 Children 6 Children

Combined

Net

Weekly

Income % $ % $ % $ % $ % $ % $

500 25.14% 126 35.25% 176 40.76% 204 45.45% 227 49.99% 250 54.39% 272

510 25.12% 128 35.19% 179 40.68% 207 45.36% 231 49.90% 254 54.29% 277

520 25.10% 131 35.14% 183 40.61% 211 45.28% 235 49.81% 259 54.19% 282

530 25.07% 133 35.08% 186 40.53% 215 45.19% 239 49.71% 263 54.08% 287

540 25.01% 135 34.97% 189 40.38% 218 45.02% 243 49.52% 267 53.88% 291

550 24.95% 137 34.86% 192 40.23% 221 44.86% 247 49.35% 271 53.69% 295

560 24.89% 139 34.75% 195 40.09% 225 44.71% 250 49.18% 275 53.50% 300

570 24.83% 142 34.65% 198 39.96% 228 44.56% 254 49.01% 279 53.32% 304

580 24.78% 144 34.55% 200 39.83% 231 44.41% 258 48.85% 283 53.15% 308

590 24.72% 146 34.46% 203 39.71% 234 44.27% 261 48.70% 287 52.98% 313

600 24.67% 148 34.36% 206 39.58% 238 44.14% 265 48.55% 291 52.82% 317

610 24.62% 150 34.27% 209 39.47% 241 44.01% 268 48.41% 295 52.67% 321

620 24.57% 152 34.19% 212 39.35% 244 43.88% 272 48.27% 299 52.52% 326

630 24.52% 154 34.10% 215 39.25% 247 43.76% 276 48.13% 303 52.37% 330

640 24.47% 157 34.03% 218 39.14% 250 43.64% 279 48.00% 307 52.23% 334

650 24.42% 159 33.95% 221 39.04% 254 43.53% 283 47.88% 311 52.09% 339

660 24.38% 161 33.87% 224 38.94% 257 43.42% 287 47.76% 315 51.96% 343

670 24.33% 163 33.80% 226 38.84% 260 43.31% 290 47.64% 319 51.83% 347

680 24.29% 165 33.73% 229 38.75% 263 43.20% 294 47.52% 323 51.71% 352

690 24.24% 167 33.66% 232 38.66% 267 43.10% 297