Hoosiers for Fair Child Support
The Issue
Modernizing Indiana Child Support Guidelines
Context
Indiana has recognized the need to update child support policies to reflect today’s economic realities. In 2024, the Child Support Guidelines Review Committee increased child support obligations to account for inflation and the rising cost of living.
However, several other parts of the Guidelines have remained unchanged for many years. Reviewing these areas could help ensure Indiana’s child support framework remains consistent with today’s labor market, modern family structures, and current economic conditions.
Indiana’s current Child Support Guidelines already give courts discretion to consider many of the financial circumstances addressed below. The concern is that simply allowing these factors to be considered does not ensure that they actually are.
In feedback collected by Hoosiers for Fair Child Support, 86% of respondents reported that they did not believe both parents’ full financial circumstances were considered when their child support was calculated. While this feedback is not a scientific statewide survey, the overwhelming response highlights an important concern with relying primarily on judicial discretion.
The goal of these proposed reforms is therefore not simply to add more factors that courts may consider. It is to establish clearer standards and incorporate routinely relevant financial circumstances directly into required disclosures, worksheets, and child-support calculations so their consideration does not depend solely on whether discretion is exercised.
Priority Areas for Reform
1. Outdated Income Assumptions When Imputing Income
When a parent in Indiana is unemployed or underemployed, courts may estimate that parent’s income using the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour—a wage that has remained unchanged since 2009.
This outdated benchmark does not reflect Indiana’s current labor market, available entry-level jobs, or realistic earning opportunities. When income is imputed substantially below what a parent could reasonably earn, a greater share of the child-support obligation is shifted to the other parent, reducing the resources available to support the child in that parent’s home.
Other states provide useful models:
- Delaware uses an annually updated statewide entry-level wage published by the Delaware Department of Labor. Courts may also consider occupational wage surveys and adjust the imputed amount according to the parent’s qualifications and circumstances. Delaware Family Court Civil Rule 501
- Pennsylvania requires courts to consider employment history, qualifications, education, health, childcare responsibilities, job-search efforts, the local job market, employers willing to hire the parent, and prevailing earnings in the community. Courts must explain their earning-capacity determination in writing or on the record. Pa. R.C.P. 1910.16-2(d)(4)
- North Carolina determines potential income by considering employment history, occupational qualifications, assets, residence, and prevailing job opportunities and earning levels in the community. North Carolina Child Support Guidelines
Recommendation
Eliminate the federal minimum wage as an income-imputation benchmark. Replace it with an annually updated Indiana-specific entry-level wage benchmark based on current wage and employment data from the Indiana Department of Workforce Development.
Require courts to consider the parent’s employment history, education, occupational qualifications, health, childcare responsibilities, documented job-search efforts, available jobs in the relevant geographic area, and prevailing wages for work the parent can reasonably perform.
Courts should state in writing the evidence and reasoning used to determine a parent’s earning capacity.
2. Clarifying Voluntary vs. Involuntary Unemployment
Indiana courts already have discretion to consider a parent’s earning ability when determining child support.
However, the Guidelines provide limited direction when a parent remains outside the workforce to care for children born or adopted in a subsequent relationship. This concern is not limited to a parent who leaves an existing job. It also applies when an otherwise capable parent does not enter or reenter the workforce and cites responsibility for subsequent children as the reason for remaining unemployed.
Caregiving is valuable, and parents are free to decide that one parent will stay home within a new household. However, when the children covered by an existing support order are already school-aged, a parent’s decision to remain home to care for younger subsequent children is a choice made within the new household. That decision should not shift the parent’s share of the financial obligation for children from a prior relationship disproportionately to the other parent.
Alaska follows a related principle by limiting its protection from income imputation to a parent caring for a child under age two for whom both parties in the support case share legal responsibility. In Kestner v. Clark, the Alaska Supreme Court held that this protection did not extend to a parent who remained home with children from a subsequent marriage, emphasizing that later obligations do not diminish the parent’s existing duty to support an earlier child. Kestner v. Clark
Recommendation
Provide clear guidance distinguishing voluntary from involuntary unemployment. When the children covered by an existing support order are school-aged, an otherwise capable parent who remains unemployed primarily to care for children born or adopted in a subsequent relationship should be presumed voluntarily unemployed or underemployed for earning-capacity purposes. This presumption should apply whether the parent left prior employment or never entered or reentered the workforce.
The presumption should be rebuttable upon documented evidence of circumstances such as disability, a child’s substantial special needs, the unavailability or unreasonable cost of appropriate childcare, or another significant barrier to employment.
3. Consideration of Significant Financial Resources and In-Kind Benefits
A parent’s reported income alone may not reflect their complete financial circumstances. Housing, utilities, vehicles, insurance, childcare, groceries and other expenses provided by a spouse, partner, family member or another source can substantially reduce a parent’s living expenses and increase the resources effectively available to that parent.
An informal poll of Indiana parents, 86% of responding Indiana parents did not believe both parents’ full financial circumstances were considered in their child-support calculations. Although this informal poll is not a scientific statewide survey, the response highlights a concern with relying primarily on judicial discretion. Without clear disclosure requirements and consistent standards, significant financial resources and in-kind benefits may not be identified or considered.
Other states expressly recognize that reported income may not present a complete picture:
- Connecticut permits consideration of regularly recurring contributions or gifts from a spouse or domestic partner when they substantially reduce a parent’s living expenses or accompany a reduction in that parent’s income. Connecticut Regulations § 46b-215a-5c
- Oregon defines actual income to include expense reimbursements, allowances and in-kind payments to the extent that they reduce a parent’s personal living expenses. Oregon Child Support Rules
These approaches recognize that free housing, paid utilities, a provided vehicle, insurance, recurring payment of personal expenses and similar benefits can increase a parent’s effective financial capacity even though those benefits do not appear on a pay stub.
Child support is intended to provide children with a standard of living comparable to what they would have experienced had their parents’ household remained intact. When significant resources available in one household are excluded entirely, the calculation may assign a greater obligation to the other parent than the parents’ actual circumstances justify. This can reduce the resources available in the other household for stable housing, food, transportation, clothing and other needs during that parent’s time with the child.
Considering these benefits would not mean imputing a new spouse’s entire income or making that spouse legally responsible for supporting the child. It would mean considering only the measurable financial benefit a parent actually receives when another person regularly pays or eliminates expenses that the parent would otherwise be responsible for.
Recommendation
Require both parents to complete a standardized financial declaration identifying their income, expenses, assets, significant financial resources and recurring expenses paid on their behalf.
Provide clear and consistent standards for determining when in-kind benefits should be considered. The Guidelines should focus on benefits that are substantial, recurring and measurable, such as free housing or the regular payment of a parent’s mortgage, rent, utilities, personal vehicle, insurance, childcare or other ordinary living expenses.
The value considered should be limited to the actual benefit received by the parent and should not include the provider’s entire income or create a support obligation for a new spouse, partner or family member. Courts should be required to address disclosed qualifying benefits in the calculation or explain in writing why they were not considered.
4. Alignment of Tax Benefits with Financial Responsibility
Child-related tax benefits can significantly affect the financial resources available in each parent’s household. Indiana courts currently have discretion to determine which parent may claim a child and must consider factors such as each parent’s income, the value of the benefit, and the percentage of the child’s support borne by each parent.
However, discretion alone does not ensure that tax-benefit allocation is consistently or appropriately addressed when support obligations are reviewed. Indiana does not expressly require courts to reconsider an existing allocation whenever child support is reviewed or modified. Consequently, the allocation may remain tied to an original parenting agreement entered years earlier, even when the parents’ incomes, contributions, parenting time, or support obligations have substantially changed.
Other states provide clearer direction:
- Ohio generally requires courts to designate which parent may claim the child whenever a support order is issued, modified, reviewed, or otherwise reconsidered. Courts consider the parents’ financial circumstances, support contributions, parenting time, eligibility for the benefit, and the child’s best interests. Ohio Rev. Code § 3119.82
- Colorado permits courts to allocate the dependency claim and resulting tax benefit after considering each parent’s financial resources, whether the parent would receive an actual benefit, and how the allocation affects the parent’s ability to provide for the child. Colorado Rev. Stat. § 14-10-115
- Minnesota considers the parents’ financial resources, whether each parent would receive an actual benefit, and whether denying it would negatively affect a parent’s ability to provide for the child. A previous allocation may be modified when those circumstances substantially change. Minnesota Stat. § 518A.38
- Virginia permits courts determining child support to assign the dependency claim and related credits to either parent and require completion of the necessary tax forms. Virginia Code § 20-108.1
Recommendation
Require courts to review child-related tax-benefit allocation whenever child support is established, formally reviewed, or modified. The Guidelines should provide clear and consistent instructions directing courts to consider each parent’s current income, parenting time, financial contributions, eligibility to use the benefit, and percentage of the calculated support obligation.
Transferable child-related tax benefits should presumptively be allocated to the parent responsible for the greater share of the child’s calculated financial support obligation, provided that parent is eligible to receive the benefit. Courts should retain discretion to order a different allocation when written findings demonstrate that it would provide a greater overall financial benefit for the child.
When required under federal law, the order should mandate timely completion of IRS Form 8332 so the designated parent can claim the transferable benefit.
5. Treatment of Overtime Income
Including overtime income in child support calculations can unfairly penalize a parent who works additional hours to meet existing financial obligations. It may also create an ongoing support obligation based on hours and earnings that are not guaranteed or sustainable.
Recommendation
Exclude overtime income from child support calculations when the overtime is voluntary, inconsistent, or worked to meet existing financial obligations. Base support primarily on each parent’s regular and reasonably predictable income so that a working parent is not penalized for taking on additional hours to make ends meet.
The Goal
The feedback received so far—with 86% of respondents reporting that both parents’ full financial circumstances were not considered in their child-support calculations—suggests that simply allowing courts discretion to consider these factors is not enough.
Indiana should incorporate routinely relevant factors into required financial disclosures, worksheets, and calculation procedures wherever practical, while preserving judicial discretion for circumstances requiring individualized consideration.
This would provide a more complete and consistent starting calculation by considering each household’s financial circumstances, available resources, and support already provided before determining how the child-support obligation should be divided. The goal is to distribute financial responsibility fairly while preserving each parent’s ability to provide for the children during their parenting time, thereby better supporting the children in both homes.
Why This Matters for Children and Families
Child-support policies work best when they reflect each parent’s realistic financial capacity, consider the resources available in both households, and are applied consistently across cases.
When the Guidelines are clear, aligned with current economic conditions, and reflective of modern Indiana families, they can help:
- Ensure financial responsibility is divided fairly between parents
- Better support children in both homes
- Preserve each parent’s ability to provide for the children during their parenting time
- Reduce the risk that one household experiences unnecessary financial hardship while significant resources available to the other household are overlooked
- Promote greater consistency and predictability in support determinations
- Reduce repeated litigation and conflict between parents
- Encourage cooperation by making calculations more transparent and understandable
- Prevent obligations from being based on outdated, temporary, or unrealistic income assumptions
- Provide children with greater financial and emotional stability across both households
- Keep the children’s well-being—not the financial advantage of either parent—at the center of every support determination
We respectfully ask the organizations responsible for shaping Indiana family law to review these areas of the Guidelines:
Indiana Child Support Guidelines Review Committee
Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines Committee
Supreme Court Domestic Relations Committee
Indiana Judicial Conference
Reviewing these areas could help ensure Indiana’s child support policies continue to reflect today’s families, today’s economy, and the best interests of children.
If you believe Indiana’s child support Guidelines should reflect today’s wages, today’s economy, and today’s families, please sign and share this petition.
159
The Issue
Modernizing Indiana Child Support Guidelines
Context
Indiana has recognized the need to update child support policies to reflect today’s economic realities. In 2024, the Child Support Guidelines Review Committee increased child support obligations to account for inflation and the rising cost of living.
However, several other parts of the Guidelines have remained unchanged for many years. Reviewing these areas could help ensure Indiana’s child support framework remains consistent with today’s labor market, modern family structures, and current economic conditions.
Indiana’s current Child Support Guidelines already give courts discretion to consider many of the financial circumstances addressed below. The concern is that simply allowing these factors to be considered does not ensure that they actually are.
In feedback collected by Hoosiers for Fair Child Support, 86% of respondents reported that they did not believe both parents’ full financial circumstances were considered when their child support was calculated. While this feedback is not a scientific statewide survey, the overwhelming response highlights an important concern with relying primarily on judicial discretion.
The goal of these proposed reforms is therefore not simply to add more factors that courts may consider. It is to establish clearer standards and incorporate routinely relevant financial circumstances directly into required disclosures, worksheets, and child-support calculations so their consideration does not depend solely on whether discretion is exercised.
Priority Areas for Reform
1. Outdated Income Assumptions When Imputing Income
When a parent in Indiana is unemployed or underemployed, courts may estimate that parent’s income using the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour—a wage that has remained unchanged since 2009.
This outdated benchmark does not reflect Indiana’s current labor market, available entry-level jobs, or realistic earning opportunities. When income is imputed substantially below what a parent could reasonably earn, a greater share of the child-support obligation is shifted to the other parent, reducing the resources available to support the child in that parent’s home.
Other states provide useful models:
- Delaware uses an annually updated statewide entry-level wage published by the Delaware Department of Labor. Courts may also consider occupational wage surveys and adjust the imputed amount according to the parent’s qualifications and circumstances. Delaware Family Court Civil Rule 501
- Pennsylvania requires courts to consider employment history, qualifications, education, health, childcare responsibilities, job-search efforts, the local job market, employers willing to hire the parent, and prevailing earnings in the community. Courts must explain their earning-capacity determination in writing or on the record. Pa. R.C.P. 1910.16-2(d)(4)
- North Carolina determines potential income by considering employment history, occupational qualifications, assets, residence, and prevailing job opportunities and earning levels in the community. North Carolina Child Support Guidelines
Recommendation
Eliminate the federal minimum wage as an income-imputation benchmark. Replace it with an annually updated Indiana-specific entry-level wage benchmark based on current wage and employment data from the Indiana Department of Workforce Development.
Require courts to consider the parent’s employment history, education, occupational qualifications, health, childcare responsibilities, documented job-search efforts, available jobs in the relevant geographic area, and prevailing wages for work the parent can reasonably perform.
Courts should state in writing the evidence and reasoning used to determine a parent’s earning capacity.
2. Clarifying Voluntary vs. Involuntary Unemployment
Indiana courts already have discretion to consider a parent’s earning ability when determining child support.
However, the Guidelines provide limited direction when a parent remains outside the workforce to care for children born or adopted in a subsequent relationship. This concern is not limited to a parent who leaves an existing job. It also applies when an otherwise capable parent does not enter or reenter the workforce and cites responsibility for subsequent children as the reason for remaining unemployed.
Caregiving is valuable, and parents are free to decide that one parent will stay home within a new household. However, when the children covered by an existing support order are already school-aged, a parent’s decision to remain home to care for younger subsequent children is a choice made within the new household. That decision should not shift the parent’s share of the financial obligation for children from a prior relationship disproportionately to the other parent.
Alaska follows a related principle by limiting its protection from income imputation to a parent caring for a child under age two for whom both parties in the support case share legal responsibility. In Kestner v. Clark, the Alaska Supreme Court held that this protection did not extend to a parent who remained home with children from a subsequent marriage, emphasizing that later obligations do not diminish the parent’s existing duty to support an earlier child. Kestner v. Clark
Recommendation
Provide clear guidance distinguishing voluntary from involuntary unemployment. When the children covered by an existing support order are school-aged, an otherwise capable parent who remains unemployed primarily to care for children born or adopted in a subsequent relationship should be presumed voluntarily unemployed or underemployed for earning-capacity purposes. This presumption should apply whether the parent left prior employment or never entered or reentered the workforce.
The presumption should be rebuttable upon documented evidence of circumstances such as disability, a child’s substantial special needs, the unavailability or unreasonable cost of appropriate childcare, or another significant barrier to employment.
3. Consideration of Significant Financial Resources and In-Kind Benefits
A parent’s reported income alone may not reflect their complete financial circumstances. Housing, utilities, vehicles, insurance, childcare, groceries and other expenses provided by a spouse, partner, family member or another source can substantially reduce a parent’s living expenses and increase the resources effectively available to that parent.
An informal poll of Indiana parents, 86% of responding Indiana parents did not believe both parents’ full financial circumstances were considered in their child-support calculations. Although this informal poll is not a scientific statewide survey, the response highlights a concern with relying primarily on judicial discretion. Without clear disclosure requirements and consistent standards, significant financial resources and in-kind benefits may not be identified or considered.
Other states expressly recognize that reported income may not present a complete picture:
- Connecticut permits consideration of regularly recurring contributions or gifts from a spouse or domestic partner when they substantially reduce a parent’s living expenses or accompany a reduction in that parent’s income. Connecticut Regulations § 46b-215a-5c
- Oregon defines actual income to include expense reimbursements, allowances and in-kind payments to the extent that they reduce a parent’s personal living expenses. Oregon Child Support Rules
These approaches recognize that free housing, paid utilities, a provided vehicle, insurance, recurring payment of personal expenses and similar benefits can increase a parent’s effective financial capacity even though those benefits do not appear on a pay stub.
Child support is intended to provide children with a standard of living comparable to what they would have experienced had their parents’ household remained intact. When significant resources available in one household are excluded entirely, the calculation may assign a greater obligation to the other parent than the parents’ actual circumstances justify. This can reduce the resources available in the other household for stable housing, food, transportation, clothing and other needs during that parent’s time with the child.
Considering these benefits would not mean imputing a new spouse’s entire income or making that spouse legally responsible for supporting the child. It would mean considering only the measurable financial benefit a parent actually receives when another person regularly pays or eliminates expenses that the parent would otherwise be responsible for.
Recommendation
Require both parents to complete a standardized financial declaration identifying their income, expenses, assets, significant financial resources and recurring expenses paid on their behalf.
Provide clear and consistent standards for determining when in-kind benefits should be considered. The Guidelines should focus on benefits that are substantial, recurring and measurable, such as free housing or the regular payment of a parent’s mortgage, rent, utilities, personal vehicle, insurance, childcare or other ordinary living expenses.
The value considered should be limited to the actual benefit received by the parent and should not include the provider’s entire income or create a support obligation for a new spouse, partner or family member. Courts should be required to address disclosed qualifying benefits in the calculation or explain in writing why they were not considered.
4. Alignment of Tax Benefits with Financial Responsibility
Child-related tax benefits can significantly affect the financial resources available in each parent’s household. Indiana courts currently have discretion to determine which parent may claim a child and must consider factors such as each parent’s income, the value of the benefit, and the percentage of the child’s support borne by each parent.
However, discretion alone does not ensure that tax-benefit allocation is consistently or appropriately addressed when support obligations are reviewed. Indiana does not expressly require courts to reconsider an existing allocation whenever child support is reviewed or modified. Consequently, the allocation may remain tied to an original parenting agreement entered years earlier, even when the parents’ incomes, contributions, parenting time, or support obligations have substantially changed.
Other states provide clearer direction:
- Ohio generally requires courts to designate which parent may claim the child whenever a support order is issued, modified, reviewed, or otherwise reconsidered. Courts consider the parents’ financial circumstances, support contributions, parenting time, eligibility for the benefit, and the child’s best interests. Ohio Rev. Code § 3119.82
- Colorado permits courts to allocate the dependency claim and resulting tax benefit after considering each parent’s financial resources, whether the parent would receive an actual benefit, and how the allocation affects the parent’s ability to provide for the child. Colorado Rev. Stat. § 14-10-115
- Minnesota considers the parents’ financial resources, whether each parent would receive an actual benefit, and whether denying it would negatively affect a parent’s ability to provide for the child. A previous allocation may be modified when those circumstances substantially change. Minnesota Stat. § 518A.38
- Virginia permits courts determining child support to assign the dependency claim and related credits to either parent and require completion of the necessary tax forms. Virginia Code § 20-108.1
Recommendation
Require courts to review child-related tax-benefit allocation whenever child support is established, formally reviewed, or modified. The Guidelines should provide clear and consistent instructions directing courts to consider each parent’s current income, parenting time, financial contributions, eligibility to use the benefit, and percentage of the calculated support obligation.
Transferable child-related tax benefits should presumptively be allocated to the parent responsible for the greater share of the child’s calculated financial support obligation, provided that parent is eligible to receive the benefit. Courts should retain discretion to order a different allocation when written findings demonstrate that it would provide a greater overall financial benefit for the child.
When required under federal law, the order should mandate timely completion of IRS Form 8332 so the designated parent can claim the transferable benefit.
5. Treatment of Overtime Income
Including overtime income in child support calculations can unfairly penalize a parent who works additional hours to meet existing financial obligations. It may also create an ongoing support obligation based on hours and earnings that are not guaranteed or sustainable.
Recommendation
Exclude overtime income from child support calculations when the overtime is voluntary, inconsistent, or worked to meet existing financial obligations. Base support primarily on each parent’s regular and reasonably predictable income so that a working parent is not penalized for taking on additional hours to make ends meet.
The Goal
The feedback received so far—with 86% of respondents reporting that both parents’ full financial circumstances were not considered in their child-support calculations—suggests that simply allowing courts discretion to consider these factors is not enough.
Indiana should incorporate routinely relevant factors into required financial disclosures, worksheets, and calculation procedures wherever practical, while preserving judicial discretion for circumstances requiring individualized consideration.
This would provide a more complete and consistent starting calculation by considering each household’s financial circumstances, available resources, and support already provided before determining how the child-support obligation should be divided. The goal is to distribute financial responsibility fairly while preserving each parent’s ability to provide for the children during their parenting time, thereby better supporting the children in both homes.
Why This Matters for Children and Families
Child-support policies work best when they reflect each parent’s realistic financial capacity, consider the resources available in both households, and are applied consistently across cases.
When the Guidelines are clear, aligned with current economic conditions, and reflective of modern Indiana families, they can help:
- Ensure financial responsibility is divided fairly between parents
- Better support children in both homes
- Preserve each parent’s ability to provide for the children during their parenting time
- Reduce the risk that one household experiences unnecessary financial hardship while significant resources available to the other household are overlooked
- Promote greater consistency and predictability in support determinations
- Reduce repeated litigation and conflict between parents
- Encourage cooperation by making calculations more transparent and understandable
- Prevent obligations from being based on outdated, temporary, or unrealistic income assumptions
- Provide children with greater financial and emotional stability across both households
- Keep the children’s well-being—not the financial advantage of either parent—at the center of every support determination
We respectfully ask the organizations responsible for shaping Indiana family law to review these areas of the Guidelines:
Indiana Child Support Guidelines Review Committee
Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines Committee
Supreme Court Domestic Relations Committee
Indiana Judicial Conference
Reviewing these areas could help ensure Indiana’s child support policies continue to reflect today’s families, today’s economy, and the best interests of children.
If you believe Indiana’s child support Guidelines should reflect today’s wages, today’s economy, and today’s families, please sign and share this petition.
The Decision Makers
Petition Updates
Share this petition
Petition created on March 3, 2026