Atlanta Divorce Attorney Blog

The court can deviate from the presumptive child support amount calculated by the child support worksheets for several reasons, IF the child support deviation is in the best interest of the child(ren) for whom child support is being determined. OCGA §19-6-15(i)(1)(A). The fourth deviation category under the statute is life insurance. OCGA §19-6-15(i)(2)(D). This deviation is included in the statute to cover a situation in which “either parent has purchased life insurance on the life of either parent or the lives of both parents for the benefit of the child.” Id. The life insurance may be something the parents agreed upon in a settlement agreement, or it may be an order of the court.

This deviation is handled similarly to the “other health related insurance” deviation. If one parent has life insurance on either or both parents for the benefit of the child, the insurance premiums are an expense that parent is paying for the child’s benefit. That parent is, thus, paying child support and paying an additional amount in insurance premiums. The key here is that the life insurance must be on the life of either or both parents AND the child must be the beneficiary of the policy. In this situation, “the court may deviate from the presumptive amount of child support for the cost of such insurance by either adding or subtracting the amount of the premium.” Id.

The court can deviate from the presumptive child support amount calculated by the child support worksheets for several reasons, IF the child support deviation is in the best interest of the child(ren) for whom child support is being determined. OCGA §19-6-15(i)(1)(A). The third deviation category under the statute is other health related insurance. OCGA §19-6-15(i)(2)(C). This deviation is included in the statute to cover a situation in which a parent “has vision or dental insurance available at a reasonable cost for the child.” Id.

If the non-custodial parent has vision and/or dental insurance for the child, the insurance premiums are an expense that parent is paying for the benefit of the child. That parent is, thus, paying child support and paying an additional amount in insurance premiums. For example, consider a situation in which the presumptive amount of child support is $800 per month, and the noncustodial parent is paying an additional $100 per month in vision/dental insurance premiums for the child. This parent is essentially paying $900 per month for the child. This parent may request a downward child support deviation to make up this difference.

The court can deviate from the presumptive child support amount calculated by the child support worksheets for several reasons, IF the child support deviation is in the best interest of the child(ren) for whom child support is being determined. OCGA §19-6-15(i)(1)(A). The second deviation category under the statute is low income. OCGA §19-6-15(i)(2)(B). To obtain a deviation under this category, the parent “shall demonstrate no earning capacity or that his or her pro rata share of the presumptive amount of child support would create an extreme economic hardship for such parent.” OCGA §19-6-15(i)(2)(B)(i).

There are certain steps the court or jury must go through in considering a low-income deviation. First, the fact finder must “examine all attributable and excluded sources of income, assets and benefits available to the noncustodial parent” and ensure that the parent's expenses are justified and actually paid by that parent. OCGA §19-6-15(i)(2)(B)(ii). Then, the fact finder shall consider the income, assets, benefits and expenses of each parent, the hardship of a downward deviation on the custodial parent’s household, the needs of each parent and those of the children, and the ability of the noncustodial parent to pay child support. OCGA §19-6-15(i)(2)(B)(iii).

Even if a low-income deviation is granted, the minimum child support for one child “shall not be less than $100.00 per month” and this amount “shall be increased by at least $50.00 for each additional child.” OCGA §19-6-15(i)(2)(B)(v).

The court can deviate from the presumptive child support amount calculated by the child support worksheets for several reasons, IF the deviation is in the best interest of the child(ren) for whom child support is being determined. OCGA §19-6-15(i)(1)(A). The first deviation category under the statute is high income. OCGA §19-6-15(i)(2)(A). According to the statute, “parents are considered high-income parents if their combined adjusted income exceeds $30,000.00 per month.” Id. For parents who fall into this category, “the court shall set the basic child support obligation at the highest amount allowed by the child support obligation table.” Id. In addition, the court or jury has the option to consider an upward deviation to reach an appropriate award of child support “which is consistent with the best interest of the child.” Id.

In determining a property child support amount for parents who fall into this category, the court will likely consider the lifestyle in which the children lived before the divorce. There is no monetary cap to the child support for parents who fall into this category. The court is only limited by the best interest of the child and the ability of the custodial parent to provide basic necessities.

In Georgia, child support is calculated using both the mother’s and the father’s incomes. O.C.G.A. §19-6-15. Generally, the Court determines the annual gross incomes of both parties (or imputes what it believes the income should be based upon a party’s education and work experience) and runs those numbers through a child support calculator to determine the proper amount of child support. The amount of child support is presumptive and may be rebutted by either party, and court may deviate from the amount determined by the child support calculator. OCGA §19-6-15(i)(1)(A).

In deviating, the court must give primary consideration to the best interest of the child(ren) for whom support is being determined. Id. The court must specifically find “that an amount of child support other than the amount calculated is reasonably necessary to provide for the needs of the child for whom child support is being determined.” OCGA §19-6-15 (i)(1)(B). In addition, no deviation shall be made “which seriously impairs the ability of the custodial parent to maintain minimally adequate housing, food, and clothing for the child being supported by the order and to provide other basic necessities.” OCGA §19-6-15 (i)(1)(C).

There are eleven deviation categories, all of which will be explained further in future blogs: high income; low income; other health related insurance; life insurance; child and dependent care tax credit; travel expenses; alimony; mortgage; permanency plan or foster care plan; extraordinary expenses; parenting time; and nonspecific deviation.

The Supreme Court of Georgia recently heard an interesting case regarding self-executing child support provisions in a divorce settlement agreement. In Tanner v. Morris, the parties’ divorce settlement agreement gave the mother primary physical custody and stated that the father was to pay child support to the mother for the three minor children “for so long as each child shall remain in high school and while also living at home with Wife prior to beginning college or other secondary education.” Tanner v. Morris, S10A1227 at 2 (2010) (emphasis added).

Shortly after the divorce was final, the parties’ eldest child began living with the father, and the father ceased making child support payments for that child. Id. The middle child subsequently began living with the father, and the father thereafter ceased making child support payments for that child. Id. at 3. When the father refused the mother’s request for return of the middle child to her custody, the mother filed an action for contempt. Id. The trial court held that the father had child support arrearage for both children, but only held him in contempt for the support for the middle child, since the mother never requested return of the eldest child. Id. The father appealed.

The Supreme Court of Georgia found that the language “while also living at home with Wife” made the child support provision self-executing, meaning that the child support was modifiable without a new order from the court. Id. at 4. Since the Court has previously held self-executing provisions such as this one to be lawful, the Court held that “it was error for the trial court to hold [the father] in contempt for relying on the self-executing provision in the parties’ settlement agreement to reduce his child support obligation when he had [the mother’s] consent to allow the children to live with him." Id. Thus, the portion of the trial court’s judgment as to the arrearage for the eldest child was reversed. Id. at 5. The Court also vacated the arrearage amount for the middle child, holding that “the arrearage amount should be from the time [the father] lost [the mother’s] consent to keep the middle child, rather than the full amount awarded by the trial court." Id.