Newsletters

Zoe Meigs, Attorney at Law, (817) 336-2325

CHILD SUPPORT CAP INCREASES. Or "I finally capped out on support and they go and raise it."

The Texas legislature adopted a few new laws that affect a small percentage of the families going through a divorce. Beginning September 1, 2007, parents who pay child support and who have net income of more than $7,500.00 per month, will pay child support that is calculated based on a net of $7,500.00, and not $6,000.00 as it has been. In other words, the cap for child support determination has been increased to $7,500.00. For example, if a parent nets $7,500.00 per month, the child support for one child will be twenty percent of $7,500.00 or $1,500.00 per month. If a parent nets $9,000.00 per month the child support will still be $1,500.00 because the child support will be based on the cap of $7,500.00

HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUMS. or "I won't pay for your step-kids' health insurance!"

The Texas legislature has cleared up a problem that often came up in calculating child support. In calculating child support the net resources of the person paying (obligor) are determined by subtracting the federal income taxes, social security, Medicare and the expense for the obligor to cover the child or children in the case for health insurance. If the obligor does not provide the health insurance, the amount the obligor reimburses the obligee for what the obligee's expenses for the child's health insurance is are subtracted from net resources. Basic Concept to Remember: the lower the net resources, the lower the child support.

Often, the obligor or obligee carries additional children, such as step-children on the policy. The legislature, in aiming to give credit only for the amount that's attributable to the child before the court, now states in new subsection (e) of Section 154.062 of the Family Code, as follows:

"In calculating expense for health insurance coverage for an obligor's child under Subsection (d) (5), if the obligor has other minor dependents covered under the same health insurance plan, the court shall divide the total cost to the obligor for the insurance by the total number of minor dependents, including the child, under the plan."

In other words, the obligor does not get to credit the entire health plan premium against his net resources - only the portion of the premium attributable to the child in the divorce case. Similarly, if the obligee provides the health insurance, the obligor is not required to reimburse the obligee for the part of the premium attributable to children who are not in the divorce case. (See Section 154.183(b) of the Texas Family Code).

EMAIL AND TEXT MESSAGES. Or "Junior, Will You Show Me How to Text?"

The Legislature added a new Section to the Family Code that allows a court to award a conservator of a child "reasonable periods of electronic communication with the child to supplement the conservator's periods of possession of the child," if the conservator so requests. Electronic communication for purposes of this section of the Family Law Code is "communication facilitated by the use of any wired or wireless technology via the Internet or any other electronic media," and includes "telephone, electronic mail, instant messaging, videoconferencing, or webcam." This sort of communication should have been allowed and encouraged by conservators before now, but this formalizes the ability of the court to order and gives the court guidelines on the use of electronic communication.

MILITARY DEPLOYMENT ALLOWS APPOINTMENT OF DESIGNEE or "Mom, You Don't Have to Give up Seeing Your Grandbaby While I am in Iraq"

This is a thoughtful revision of the law to allow a service person to designate a person who may exercise the conservator's possession periods while the service person is deployed. This is found in Section 153.3161 of the Texas Family Code. "Military Deployment" is defined as military duty ordered for a period of more than six months during which the person ordered to duty is not provided the option of being accompanied by that person's child, and is serving in a location where access to that person's child is not reasonably possible. Refer to the statute who is a joint managing conservator who does not have the right to designate the primary residence of a child, or a possessory conservator for specific terms.