Change Unconstitutional child support laws in Alaska
Out of date, unfair, not in line with other states and damaging to children
The Alaska child support court rules have not been modified in years and are not consistent with other states. They are set up in a way to damage, rather than foster a healthy and proper home for all children involved.
Alaska: Custodial parent's income not at all calculated when determining amount due. That parent can make up to $150,000 a year before the court will even look at it. Non Custodial parent income is counted at 20% of net for one child, 27% for 2 children. It does not matter if the Noncustodial parent cannot support themselves or any other children that they may have. They could be unable to afford basic expenses. No exceptions are made. No credit is given, no basic living allowance is given, no deduction for the non Custodial parent to pay for their own health insurance. These rules cannot be deviated from, no matter the impact or detriment. It gives potential for possible homelessness, welfare, and subsequent children to suffer. Alaska will not modify and will enforce no matter the consequences. No credit given to Noncustodial parent unless they have the children for at least 110 overnights a year. Decrees are not reviewed on a consistent basis, causing potential arrears to stack up, and then be added on all at once and then garnished immediately once Alaska determines the amount due should have been adjusted. It's up to the payor to keep track, even if the payee didn't file for an increase or does not need the extra support. In my case for example, 7 years passed and Alaska determined I owed 22,000 in arrears and added it all at once, even though I had been current as far as I knew to that point. I moved from Alaska as a victim of domestic violence with my young son of a subsequent relationship. The Alaska Supreme Court disagreed that my child should be considered, because he was not a child from a relationship "prior" to my older children. They believed it was acceptable to improperly penalize him as well, even after precedent court law was presented. The garnishment stands, as well as the arrears, even when the children move out. These laws are unjust, unbalanced, and even though Alaska says modifications can happen, they rarely ever do and never take subsequent children into consideration when setting amounts. Everyone suffers.
Example :
Oregon: Amount owed per month is calculated based on how much time BOTH parents spend with the child. A $1145 credit is immediately given from the Noncustodial parent's net income, in order for that parent to meet basic living expenses for food, shelter, and their own insurance coverage. Credit is given if there are other children in the home that the Noncustodial parent is caring for. This allows the paying parent to live, albeit modestly in a way that facilitates proper care for all children involved. Decrees are reviewed every 3 years in case adjustments need to be made, avoiding huge arrears to add up unexpectedly. These laws need to be overhauled and to be more in line with other states, as they should be.
Alaska: Custodial parent's income not at all calculated when determining amount due. That parent can make up to $150,000 a year before the court will even look at it. Non Custodial parent income is counted at 20% of net for one child, 27% for 2 children. It does not matter if the Noncustodial parent cannot support themselves or any other children that they may have. They could be unable to afford basic expenses. No exceptions are made. No credit is given, no basic living allowance is given, no deduction for the non Custodial parent to pay for their own health insurance. These rules cannot be deviated from, no matter the impact or detriment. It gives potential for possible homelessness, welfare, and subsequent children to suffer. Alaska will not modify and will enforce no matter the consequences. No credit given to Noncustodial parent unless they have the children for at least 110 overnights a year. Decrees are not reviewed on a consistent basis, causing potential arrears to stack up, and then be added on all at once and then garnished immediately once Alaska determines the amount due should have been adjusted. It's up to the payor to keep track, even if the payee didn't file for an increase or does not need the extra support. In my case for example, 7 years passed and Alaska determined I owed 22,000 in arrears and added it all at once, even though I had been current as far as I knew to that point. I moved from Alaska as a victim of domestic violence with my young son of a subsequent relationship. The Alaska Supreme Court disagreed that my child should be considered, because he was not a child from a relationship "prior" to my older children. They believed it was acceptable to improperly penalize him as well, even after precedent court law was presented. The garnishment stands, as well as the arrears, even when the children move out. These laws are unjust, unbalanced, and even though Alaska says modifications can happen, they rarely ever do and never take subsequent children into consideration when setting amounts. Everyone suffers.
Example :
Oregon: Amount owed per month is calculated based on how much time BOTH parents spend with the child. A $1145 credit is immediately given from the Noncustodial parent's net income, in order for that parent to meet basic living expenses for food, shelter, and their own insurance coverage. Credit is given if there are other children in the home that the Noncustodial parent is caring for. This allows the paying parent to live, albeit modestly in a way that facilitates proper care for all children involved. Decrees are reviewed every 3 years in case adjustments need to be made, avoiding huge arrears to add up unexpectedly. These laws need to be overhauled and to be more in line with other states, as they should be.
View Comments