Guidelines Major Revision Notes - July 1, 2009

These notes are taken from the "Final Report May 2008" as prepared for the Iowa Supreme Court by the Committee to Review Child Support Guidelines; the new "Child Support Guidelines" (July 1, 2009); notes taken at various seminars concerning the new guidelines and comments of Patrick L. Wilson, attorney.

The new Guidelines are based on a pure income shares model. Compared to the prior Guidelines, the new Guidelines should result in a reduction in support obligations for the low and high income ranges with increases in the middle-income rages. There may be some anomalous increases in the top-end of the low-income ranges when the obligee's income equals or exceeds the obligor's income. While this situation may be rare, the Committee points out that the court has the power to eliminate perceived inequities by deviating from the guidelines.

1. Variance from the Guidelines: the rule for a variance from the guidelines has changed. The language used to allow the court to make an adjustment in the past was:

"[a]djustments are necessary to provide for the needs of the child and to do justice between the parties, payor, or payee under the special circumstances of the case."

This language has been changed by one word. The new language:

"[a]djustments are necessary to provide for the needs of the child or to do justice between the parties, payor, or payee under the special circumstances of the case." [emphasis added]

The committee determined that the former language allowed for an increase in support in variance but that a decrease could not possibly follow the logic of it being to help the needs of the children. Thus the change.

Why is this important to know and understand? The trial court now has broader discretion to modify child support. If the circumstances of your case are such that a variance in the amount of child support ordered, the trial court has the discretion to make that change. Perhaps the NCP wishes to provide health insurance coverage that is not reasonable in cost. If you plug in the cost of the health insurance, the CP's obligational share of that coverage would be more than what it would be if the cost were "reasonable." Therefore, CP may object to his/her share being more than what would be "reasonable" and the court could order a variance. Low-income wage earners may be exempt from contributing to health insurance. The court may exercise it's discretion and fix an amount of cash medical support.

2. Unreimbursed Medical Expenses: The $300 per year deduction has been removed in light of the transition to the pure income shares model.

3.Qualified Additional Dependent Deduction: the language has changed to reflect a "gender-neutral" application. A deduction for all parents with a legal obligation for support under Section 252A.3 is the rule. (Note that you cannot claim a QADD for a child for whom there is a prior order. See Rule 9.8(2)). See Rule 9.7 of the guidelines.

The fixed amount of deduction for QADD changed from a fixed dollar amount to percentages.

  • 8% of the parent's gross monthy income (to a maximum of $800 per month) for one (1) child.
  • 12% of the parent's gross monthy income (to a maximum of $1200 per month) for one (1) child.
  • 14% of the parent's gross monthy income (to a maximum of $1400 per month) for one (1) child.
  • 15% of the parent's gross monthy income (to a maximum of $1500 per month) for one (1) child.
  • 16% of the parent's gross monthy income (to a maximum of $1600 per month) for one (1) child.

4. Health Insurance: The deduction for health insurance has been removed from the guidelines.

5. Medical Support: Under the new guidelines, the court is required to order medical support. This means that the parties must either provide health insurance, if available at "reasonable cost," or, if it is not available at "reasonable cost," then the NCP must pay cash medical support.

Medical support is now considered an "add-on" meaning that the premium cost of covering the child is added to the basic support obligation and prorated between the parents. The cost will be deducted from wages or paid by the parent. If the CP is receiving State assistance, cash medical may be set aside or assigned to the State of Iowa. This is possible even if the CP is on a publicly funded health insurance program such as Hawk i and paying, for example, $20 per month. In such case, if you were representing CP, you may ask the court for a variance from the Guidelines to make up for CP's loss of $20 per month toward Hawk i by making NCP pay an extra $20 per month in child support.

You must determine what portion of the cost of a health insurance plan is attributed to covering the child. This portion is referred to in the new Guidelines rules as "Cost of Children's Health Insurance Premium." (Also see 252E.1A(2)(c), which defines premium cost for a child.) You arrive at this figure by taking the cost of the family plan and subtracting from that cost the cost of a single coverage plan. You must then insert this value into Iowa Support Master as the cost of covering the child. Make sure you place the figure in the box of the parent who will be providing coverage for the child.

Some health insurance plans include the children at no additional cost to the parent. In such cases, you would not enter a figure in the "cost of child's health insurance." Problem is, if you do that, cash medical will show up. You may wish to seek a variance from the Guidelines to negate the cash medical support since the child is covered at no charge.

Health insurance premium cost for the child is not added on or prorated if the basic support obligation is in the low-income adjusted (shaded) area of the schedule unless a variance is warranted.

In cases of split or divided physical care, you will include only 50% of the health insurance premium in each of the two calculations as described in Rule 9.14(4).

If health insurance is not available at "reasonable cost," you will leave the "Cost of Children's Health Insurance Premium" field blank in Iowa Support Master. The software will then calculate the amount of Cash Medical Support to be paid by the NCP to the CP. (This is in the usual custodial/non-custodial dissolution. In a shared custody situation, it is possible for both parties to pay the other cash medical support).

6. Filing Status in Joint Physical Care Cases: in cases of joint (equally shared) physical care of mutual children, an unmarried parent is required to reflect a filing status of "head of household." A married parent is required to reflect a filing status of "married filing separate."

7. Uncovered Medical Expenses: The language remains the same except that the amounts have changed. CP now pays the first $250 per year per child of uncovered medical expenses up to a maximum of $800 per year for all children. Expenses above these thresholds remains as previously ordered. [emphasis added] See Rule 9.12(5).