HOW ARE THE TRANSPORTATION COSTS WORKED OUT AMONGST PARENTS?

For distances not too far, a parent would have to weigh the costs and time of driving versus flying. However, let us say you have one parent in Kansas and the other parent in New Jersey. In that case, obviously, any time the child or the parent is travelling, it will be via plane. How the courts address that is the Kansas child support guidelines. These guidelines actually have a particular, well-litigated section on long-distance parenting costs. As far as the Kansas Supreme Court promulgated the Kansas child support guidelines, any court and any judge in Kansas has to abide by those guidelines.

Those guidelines for how a court is supposed to handle long-distance parenting time costs vary specifically by state. As stated in the guidelines, the court can consider any reasonable travel cost and can apportion and credit it in whatever manner it sees fit. The reality is that it leaves a very grey area. You would start at the long-distance parenting time section of the Kansas child support guidelines. Section 4E says that “Any substantial and reasonable long-distance transportation communication costs directly associated with parenting time shall be considered by the court”. The amount allowed, if any, should be entered on line E1, which refers to a line on the worksheet where that credit would go. I want to reiterate that, because notice how it goes on to say the amount allowed, meaning the courts have broad discretion as to how much of that cost they actually credit.

Traditionally, you are looking at somewhere probably between a thirty-three and fifty percent credit against your child support amount of whatever it is you have to pay. Some people find that very fair; some, very unreasonable. That is one way the courts can do it, and that is off the guideline approach. I have seen other situations where, instead of putting an adjustment on the worksheet and adjusting the child support figure, the parties either agree or a court orders them to handle it differently off the worksheet.

Traditionally, if a court is going to order it, it usually sticks to the worksheet's guidelines. There are situations in which the parties can reach a settlement agreement to split everything fifty-fifty or sixty-forty, and not even include it in the calculation of child support. When it comes to those costs, there are really two different ways you can handle them. Those would consist of formal entries in your child support worksheet or informal entries within or outside your child support calculation. Usually, when you do not see it directly on the worksheet, it is because there has been a settlement agreement of how to address it. Suppose you have to go into court and argue that issue, the courts will literally refer to the guidelines and figure out a way to put that credit in the worksheet, unless you do the traditional worksheet route. For example, say it costs $900 a month for long-distance travel, including plane tickets, rental cars, and other expenses. Say a court says, “Every month, I’m going to give you credit for a third of that on the worksheet.” On the worksheet, you would see a $300 credit, but that does not mean it will reduce the child support by $300. It is usually close to the long-distance cost credit, but it is not always dollar-for-dollar.

You may be able to see why some people think it is unfair that they only receive partial credit, because they do not even receive the whole part. That is the way it works, and that is all the more reason why courts look at the very hard question: should the parents move with the kids or not? Here is another example: say one parent wants to try to get the kids to move to New Jersey. If I am the parent contesting the move, I am saying, “Look, if we move these kids to New Jersey, there’s going to have to be multiple times a year where we’re having to pay for airfare and travel expenses to get the kids from New Jersey back to me, here in Kansas.” That is one of the factors the court would weigh. In a situation like that, you might see a different analysis by the court on how much credit you get. If it is a situation where the court eventually decides to ratify the move with the kids, what the court could say as part of its ratification is, “I’m going to allow whatever parent to move with the kids to New Jersey, but here’s the deal. If you want to move,” and since I had apprehension about it, because of the cost, “I’m going to give maybe 100 percent credit to the other parent.”

It could be a situation where the court says, “I’m going to do this outside of the guidelines.” The judge may give an ultimatum to the side, where the judge says, “Here’s the deal. I’m considering allowing this move, but I’m stuck on the issue of cost. So, I’m going to give you a choice. If you want to move, I’m willing to allow that to happen potentially, but you need to know that if you elect to move, I’m going to make it my order that you yourself, out of your own pocket, pay for 75 percent of all the long-distance parenting time costs.” Meaning, “Every time those kids need to fly from New Jersey to Kansas, you’re going to have to pay 75 percent of that”.

Contrast that with a situation where you had two people living in Kansas, had a child out of wedlock, one parent moves out of state, far away, and then two years down the road, they just did things amicably. Still, after a while, they actually realized they needed to go to court and get court orders on things like child support and long-distance parenting costs.

Say the parent in Kansas files a paternity action in Kansas to establish child support and long-distance parenting time. In that situation, the judge probably would not be as generous with the credit to the long-distance parent, because the parent who is in Kansas would say, “They decided to move away. They didn’t have to move away, judge.” It is one of the factors the courts will look at. Which party has necessitated the long-distance cost? It is not in the statute, but it is in the Kansas case law.