1. Child Support Schedule Workgroup Points of Consensus and Issues for Discussion Revised after the meeting on November 14, 2008

2. Self Support Reserve CONSENSUS: SSR should be 125% of the Federal Poverty Level

3. Self Support Reserve CONSENSUS: Statute should not provide a numerical value for 125% of FPL, but the Worksheet instructions should suggest the website to find FPL info, and tell how to go from annual FPL to 125% monthly FPL

4. Self Support Reserve CONSENSUS: Should apply to NCP obligation only

5. Self Support Reserve When applying SSR to NCP, the court should take into account the impact on CP household Suggested statutory language: (to be added to RCW 26.19.065(2)) –“when it would be unjust or inappropriate to apply the self support reserve limitation after considering the best interests of the child and the circumstances of each parent.”

6. 45% Limitation NO CONSENSUS ITEMS

7. 45% Limitation CONSENSUS: Amend RCW 26.19.065(1) to say: (1) Limit at forty-five percent of a parent's net income. Neither parent's total child support obligation owed for all his or her biological and legal children may exceed forty-five percent of net income except for good cause shown.

8. 45% Limitation Each child should be entitled to an equal (pro-rata) share of the 45%

9. 45% Limitation The court can only apply the 45% limitation to the case in front of the court now, but children in that case should get their pro-rata share of the 45%

10. 45% Limitation When good cause is shown, the court may apply a pro-rata share of a bigger percentage of NCP income

11. 45% Limitation CONSENSUS: We should retain good cause for the court to exceed the 45% limitation, and the current language re good cause [RCW 26.19.065(1)] should not be changed --but should we add language re best interests of the child/circs of each parent, similar to what is proposed to be added to (2) of this statute?

12. 45% Limitation Application of the 45% pro rata share in case #1 does not constitute a “substantial change of circumstances” justifying immediate modification of case #2, case #3, etc.

13. 45% Limitation When a support order otherwise qualifies for modification, it is appropriate to apply the 45% limitation

14. 45% Limitation Day care and other extraordinary expenses should be excluded from the 45% limitation [keep existing statutory language in RCW 26.19.065(1)]

15. Residential Credit CONSENSUS: It is important to eliminate or reduce the uncertainty associated with a residential credit

16. Residential Credit CONSENSUS: Before residential credit is allowed, there must be court-ordered residential time with the parent who is seeking a residential credit

17. Residential Credit CONSENSUS: Residential credit should be based on a formula –What formula should be used?

18. Residential Credit CONSENSUS: there should be a threshold before applying the formula –What is the threshold?

19. Residential Credit CONSENSUS: We should define “substantial time” –How?

20. Residential Credit CONSENSUS: One definition of “substantial time” is an overnight –How should significant parenting time that is not an overnight be addressed?

21. Residential Credit CONSENSUS: We need a mechanism to reduce or eliminate the credit if time is not used –What should that mechanism be and how will it work?

22. Income to Determine the Support Obligation CONSENSUS: Net income should be used for calculating child support obligations

23. Income to Determine the Support Obligation CONSENSUS: RCW 26.19.071(6) should be revised to read as follows: (6) In the absence of records of a parent’s actual earnings, the court shall impute a parent’s income in the following order of priority: (a) Full-time earnings at the current rate of pay; (b) Full-time earnings at the historical rate of pay based on reliable information, such as Employment Security Department data; (c) Full-time earnings at Full-time earnings at a past rate of pay where information is incomplete or sporadic; (d) Full-time earnings at minimum wage in the jurisdiction where the parent resides if the parent has a recent history of minimum wage earnings, recently coming off public assistance, GAU, SSI, or disability, a recent release from incarceration, or high school; (e) Median net monthly income of year-round full-time workers as derived from the United States bureau of census, current population reports, or such replacement report as published by the bureau of census.

24. Definition of “income” CONSENSUS: Self-employment or business income should be included in the definition of income

25. Definition of “income” Should we change how income from second jobs and overtime is treated?

26. Definition of “income” CONSENSUS: the current limitation on voluntary retirement/pension (e.g., IRA) should be updated. We should revise 26.19.071(5)(g) as follows: (g) Up to five thousand dollars per year in voluntary retirement contributions actually made if the contributions show a pattern of contributions during the one–year period preceding the action establishing the child support order unless there is a determination that the contributions were made for the purpose of reducing child support ;

27. Economic Table CONSENSUS: The economic table should include combined monthly net income over $5,000

28. Economic Table CONSENSUS: Should include combined monthly net income up at least to $12,000 –but should it go higher?

29. Economic Table CONSENSUS: The economic table should start at $1,000 and move up in $100 increments

30. Economic Table CONSENSUS: The “A & B” columns should be collapsed and the table should not distinguish by age

31. Economic Table CONSENSUS: Child care, ordinary medical expenses and extraordinary medical expenses should not be included in the economic table

32. Economic Table CONSENSUS: Should be based on an income shares model Is this still a consensus item???

33. Economic Table Which model should be used as the basis for the economic table? Subcommittee recommended that the Workgroup choose among the six options listed on the next slide….

34. Economic Table Options: 1.The current economic table, with the agreed-upon changes above, and take out the 5% for ordinary medical expenses 2.The McCaleb table 3.The Krabill Table, also known as the Best Fit Curve 4.Betson-Rothbarth from the 2005 Workgroup Report 5.Average of Betson-Rothbarth and Betson-Engel, with extensions based on numbers provided by Jane Venohr to the 2005 Workgroup (Kathleen Schmidt and FLEC) 6.Betson-Engel from the 2005 Workgroup Report

35. Economic Table CONSENSUS: 5% of obligation = ordinary medical expenses should be removed from table

36. Economic Table CONSENSUS: We recognize that 2SHB1009 uses the term “medical expenses.” However, instead of “medical expenses,” we should use the term “health care expenses,” and perhaps include a definition of “health care expenses.”

37. Economic Table CONSENSUS: Medical expenses (aka health care expenses) should be set proportionately

38. Economic Table CONSENSUS: the table should not have an “advisory” portion, but should be all presumptive

39. Children From Other Relationships CONSENSUS: At a minimum, “prior-born” children should be considered (i.e., children born before the child who is the subject of the current support order)

40. Children From Other Relationships Should we consider children from other relationships of just the noncustodial parent, or should we consider the custodial parent’s children from other relationships as well?

41. Children From Other Relationships What other children should be included, for instance step-children, after-born children, adopted chldren?

42. Children From Other Relationships Should the order consider all of the children for whom a parent owes a duty of support?

43. Children From Other Relationships Is there a formulaic (above the line) approach to apply to children from other relationships? Whole Family Formula?

44. Presumptive Minimum Obligation CONSENSUS: Presumptive Minimum Obligation should increase

45. Presumptive Minimum Obligation CONSENSUS: The presumptive minimum obligation should continue to be expressed as a “per month per child” amount.

46. Presumptive Minimum Obligation CONSENSUS: Presumptive Minimum Obligation should be set at $50 per month per child

47. Presumptive Minimum Obligation CONSENSUS: Language re “earning capacity” (RCW 26.19.065(2)) should say: “and involuntary limits on either parent’s earning capacity (e.g., incarceration or disabilities or incapacity).” …subject to drafting or wordsmithing…

48. Presumptive Minimum Obligation CONSENSUS: Because the presumptive minimum obligation must be a rebuttable presumption, the statute should not provide directions on how low to deviate