October 2024 Child Support CommuniQue

Table of Contents 

October 2024 

President’s Message ..................................................................... 3 

The Role of an ACF Regional Administrator ................................. 6 

Engagement of Lived Experience through the SAVES Center and 

Demonstration Sites .................................................................... 10 

Field Guide to Military Child Support Cases ............................... 16 

Everything You Need to Know About Colorado’s Newest Family 

Law Professionals: Licensed Legal Paraprofessionals (LLPs) ... 23 

Differences in State Child Support Guidelines Including Their 

Low-Income Adjustments ............................................................ 32 

Celebrating 50 Years of Excellence: NCSEA Leadership 

Symposium 2024 ........................................................................ 41 

NCSEA U 2024: Leading with Heart ........................................... 45

Charles Smith, 

NCSEA President 

Hello, NCSEA! 

I am honored and excited to serve as NCSEA’s President. I thank each of 

you and the Board for this fantastic opportunity. 

I also want to thank my good friend, Erin Frisch, for her passion for service, 

tenacity, and drive to propel our association forward over the past year. Her 

leadership and determination to help us understand who we are and who 

we can be as a program was exceptional. I look forward to working with her 

as our Immediate Past President. 

I equally look forward to working with President-Elect Connie Chesnik. She 

is a dynamic leader and change agent. There is truly a wealth of talent 

within the child support community, and we all benefit when good people 

step forward to serve NCSEA on committees and in other meaningful ways. 

As the saying goes for TEAM, Together Everyone Achieves More. I hope 

you all will consider ways to lend your talents to this great association 

through volunteerism. 

I’m not sure how or when it started, but presidents are expected to have a 

theme for their presidency. After much thought, I settled on “Holistic 

Changes: Building a Program That Serves Families.” Please allow me a 

few moments to explain the genesis of the theme. 

I started in the Texas child support program in September 1988 as a 

volunteer. I worked in differing capacities throughout the field and ultimately 

rose to serve as its IV-D Director. We had remarkable success starting in 

2004 as we sought to rebrand and refocus our program. We succeeded 

because we leveraged technology that made our staff more efficient by 

automating manual tasks, eliminating filing quotas in performance plans,

training our staff to align with our goals, and developing the theme of 

Children, Collections, and Customer Service. Those three Cs gave us 

direction, a safe space, and the guidance needed to reshape our program, 

leading to national awards. 

Children, because our program exists so that children can have a brighter 

tomorrow by having both parents' financial and emotional support today. 

Collections, because our goal is to ensure that children have the 

consistent reality of child support to pay for the essentials of life: food, 

shelter, and clothing. We began to focus on right-sized orders 

(establishment and modification), helping the paying parent with 

employment options, creating an atmosphere where the paying parent 

came to us rather than running away, and not filing inappropriate contempt 

actions. 

Customer Service, because I try to live by the saying, “So whatever you 

wish that others would do to you, do also to them.” I believe that the basic 

elements of our humanity are the desire to be respected (seen) as a 

person, receive empathy/sympathy when due, be held accountable when 

appropriate, and be valued for our existence. So, we consistently talked 

about treating both parents with dignity and respect. At its core, our 

responsibility was to treat our internal staff with dignity and respect first. 

I explained this to help everyone understand the essence of our theme this 

year. We will focus on balanced, lasting, and holistic changes. We will look 

to implement the many concepts we have talked about over the past few 

years. I will be the loudest cheerleader this program has ever seen. We 

have amazing people who are doing impressive jobs for families. We 

should never lose sight of that fact. I appreciate each of you, but there is 

still room for improvement. 

Over the next year, we will focus on a bold vision of holistic changes for our 

national program. We will set goals and objectives and continue working 

together to make the incremental changes necessary to attain our vision. 

Our committees, like Policy and Government Relations (PGR), will continue 

reviewing, updating, and drafting position papers. We will solicit your input 

and feedback throughout the year. 

A critical challenge for NCSEA is to evolve without losing our focus on why 

we exist: to collect and distribute child support. I hope you will join us at the

Policy Forum and Leadership Symposium (LS) in 2025. Not only will you 

hear from thought leaders and innovators, but we will also focus on 

elevating the core elements of our program. A goal of the LS will be to 

renew our focus on having takeaways that can help you implement 

innovations in your programs. 

As your President, I will commit to giving you nothing but my best each and 

every day. We have the privilege of making a difference in the lives of 

families every day. So, I encourage you to join me in helping ensure our 

nation’s children have a brighter tomorrow through our collective efforts 

today. 

Let’s go to work! 

Charles Smith 

Charles Smith is the Vice President of Business Development for GreenCourt Legal Technologies, LLC. A 

position he loves because GreenCourt helps child support programs relieve the pain points and 

inefficiencies associated with eFiling administrative and judicial documents. Charles worked for 27 years in 

the Office of the Attorney General of Texas, Child Support Division. He served as a volunteer, child support 

officer, office manager, regional administrator, Deputy IV-D Director/Director of Field Operations (2004- 

2013), and IV-D Director (2013-2015). Charles has been active in NCSEA for many years, serving on the 

board from 2007-2015 and from 2018 to the present. He has worked on almost every committee within 

NCSEA and served as an NCSEAU instructor in 2018 and 2019. Charles is an Honorary Life Member and 

Past President of the Western Intergovernmental Child Support Engagement Council (WICSEC). 

Charles is a fourth-generation Texan. He is a proud graduate and Distinguished Alumnus of Texas Tech 

University, where he serves as secretary for the Dean’s Advisory Board for the College of Arts & Sciences. 

Charles and his wife, Angela, have two children (both Red Raiders) and four grandchildren (future Red 

Raiders). He cherishes his time being “Pop.”

The Role of an ACF Regional 

Administrator 

by Barbara Lacina, Regional Administrator, 

Department of Health and Human Services, 

Administration for Children and Families 

As a thirty-plus year child support professional, I regard the program as my 

calling, and it has been a deeply rewarding career. I thought I would never 

leave it. I thought I could never find another program or position as 

meaningful. I was wrong. When life directed a relocation from the east 

coast back closer to family in the Midwest, I was fortunate to begin serving 

as the Regional Administrator (RA) for the Administration for Children and 

Families (ACF), under the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 

You may be familiar with ACF and know that it includes the federal Office of 

Child Support Services, as well as programs related to child support, such 

as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and Foster Care. 

ACF is largely the Human Services side of the Department of Health and 

Human Services. Two other Human Services programs are in the 

Administration for Community Living—aging and disability—while ACF 

administers all the programs that have historically been referred to as the 

social safety net. 

ACF program offices include: 

• Administration for Native Americans (ANA) 

• Administration on Children, Youth and Families (ACYF) 

o Children's Bureau (CB) 

o Family and Youth Services Bureau (FYSB) 

• Early Childhood Development (ECD) 

o Office of Child Care (OCC) 

o Office of Head Start (OHS) 

• Office of Child Support Services (OCSS) 

• Office of Community Services (OCS)

• Office of Family Assistance (OFA) 

• Office of Family Violence and Prevention Services (OFVPS) 

• Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) 

• Office on Trafficking in Persons (OTIP) 

• Office of Human Services Emergency Preparedness and Response 

(OHSEPR) 

• Office of Grants Management 

• Office of Grants Policy 

• Public Assistance Reporting Information System (PARIS) 

• Office of Communications (OC) 

• Office of Legislative Affairs and Budget (OLAB) 

• Office of Planning, Research & Evaluation (OPRE) 

So what does an ACF RA do—oversee all these programs? No, not even 

one. Within the ACF Office of the Assistant Secretary, in the Office of 

External Affairs, is the Office of Regional Operations. DHHS has ten 

regional offices around the country, serving the states, territories, and tribes 

within those regions, and ACF Regional Administrators are the Assistant 

Secretary’s representatives to those regions. 

An ACF RA’s key responsibilities include promoting regional 

implementation of ACF strategic initiatives, communicating with human 

services commissioners, and advising the Assistant Secretary on relations 

and issues. Specific capabilities include cross-programmatic navigation and 

facilitation, strategic convening, external communications, human services 

executive relations, and 

support of all ACF 

regional office functions. 

In addition, an ACF RA 

makes positive impacts 

by consulting on systems 

changes and program integration, building partner collaborations, ensuring 

feedback loops for program improvements, creating cross-sector learning 

opportunities, identifying resources and coordinating joint action, and 

capturing and sharing knowledge and practices from state, tribal, and localdriven 

solutions.

Regional Administrators and the Office of Regional Operations do not have 

authority over the funding of programs and, therefore, do not oversee the 

compliance of any ACF programs or services and are not involved in any 

audits, monitoring, or regulation of grant recipients. As non-grantmakers, 

the RAs can engage and 

partner across programs 

and sectors, bringing 

together strategic 

partners to support the 

mission of ACF. 

RAs are championing ACF’s current priorities, which include crossprogrammatic 

initiatives on equity, benefit cliffs, lived experience, whole 

family approaches, social determinants of health, and family and 

community wellbeing and resilience. 

During my years as a child support professional, I was always striving to 

get the program to the table in conversations with other human services 

programs and community service providers. That effort continues in my RA

ole to promote and encourage the understanding and uptake of emerging 

practices; to connect across programs, organizations, and sectors; and to 

convene diverse perspectives to explore and exchange ideas, challenges, 

and common goals. 

I encourage you to continue or renew your own efforts toward crossprogrammatic 

collaboration and initiatives in whatever way you can, 

including beyond human services, on issues such as health disparities and 

health equity. In partnership with state, tribal, and local human services, 

community partners, stakeholders, philanthropy, research, professional 

associations, families, and other agencies, child support’s impact on 

poverty reduction can have wide-ranging positive consequences for 

children. 

Barbara Lacina is the Regional Administrator for the Department of Health and Human Services, 

Administration for Children and Families in Region 7, which includes the states of Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, 

and Missouri, as well as nine federally recognized Tribal Nations. 

Barbara has a public service career as a child support professional that spans two states and the federal 

Office of Child Support Services over thirty years. With particular experience in family-centered services, 

program innovations, customer engagement, Tribal child support programs, grants, waivers, and national 

demonstrations, and as a former child support director, Barbara has led strategic approaches and staff 

empowerment toward service delivery challenges and opportunities.

Engagement of Lived Experience through the 

SAVES Center and Demonstration Sites 

by Jillian Young, Director of SAVES National Clearinghouse 

Overview of the SAVES Center 

Child support is an important source of economic stability and a way to 

increase financial independence for survivors of domestic violence. 

However, some survivors face serious barriers 

to safely pursuing and receiving child support. 

The Safe Access for Victims’ Economic 

Security (SAVES) Center serves as a national 

resource center that supports the vision of the 

The Safe Access for Victims’ 

Economic Security (SAVES) 

Center provides research, 

training, technical assistance, 

policy information, and 

collaboration guidance to 

increase safe access to child 

support and parenting time for 

survivors of domestic violence. 

The SAVES Center is a 

partnership among: 

Colorado Division of Child 

Support Services 

Center for Policy Research 

(CPR) 

Battered Women’s Justice 

Project (BWJP) 

Centre for Public Impact (CPI)

Office of Child Support Services (OCSS). The goal is to ensure that every 

survivor who wants or needs child support, parenting time, and parentage 

establishment services receives them. The center also ensures that child 

support programs deliver trauma-informed and culturally responsive 

services. 

As part of the SAVES project, OCSS funded 13 demonstration sites to 

develop, test, and implement model practices for safe access to child 

support, parenting time, and establishment of parentage. SAVES 

demonstration sites are conducting the following work over five years: 

Conduct outreach and education for the public and domestic violence 

survivors; 

Train staff and partners to enhance understanding and support; 

Develop responsive good cause protections for survivors who access 

public benefits programs that require child support cooperation; 

Implement comprehensive domestic violence expert-informed case 

processing policies and protocols for survivors and people who use 

violence; and 

Establish and assess specialized domestic violence triage teams. 

The SAVES Center is building capacity for the demonstration sites to 

implement their initiatives through training and technical assistance, 

research, and evaluation support. The SAVES Center works to enhance, 

create, and deliver training on practices that promote safe access to child 

support, parenting time, and parentage establishment. The SAVES Center

evaluates promising interventions across the SAVES demonstration sites 

that enhance survivor safety. The SAVES Center also researches to 

enhance understanding of the needs and safety of survivors in and out of 

the child support system. Additionally, the center aims to learn how new 

and existing policies and practices support or hinder survivors’ interest in 

and ability to obtain safe access to child support services. 

Engaging Lived Experience 

Individuals are experts in their own life experiences, with first-hand 

knowledge of how systems work or do not work in their favor. Systems, 

agencies, and policies will be most effective when built through the lens of 

the people they are intended to support. Child support programs are no 

different. Engaging lived experience in child support can have several 

benefits to programs and practices: i 

• Increase understanding of the target population’s needs; 

• Design effective and responsive programs and policies; 

• Create buy-in and increase retention and engagement in services by 

improving the responsiveness and effectiveness of services for 

people with different (cultural and other) backgrounds; and 

• Improve practice, service delivery, and program effectiveness. 

The engagement of lived experience is a critical objective for the SAVES 

Center and its demonstration sites. All sites are required to include 

“meaningful, respectful engagement of individuals with lived experience to 

inform and guide all aspects of demonstration implementation,” and all sites 

must include individuals with lived experience on their advisory councils. ii 

Involving Lived Experience Experts at the SAVES Center 

The SAVES Center also engages survivors to better understand their 

experiences with child support and inform policy and practice changes. The 

SAVES Center will be convening a national advisory council for its first 

meeting in November 2024, which will include survivors of domestic 

violence. This advisory council 

will provide feedback on 

training and technical 

assistance materials, and will 

identify gaps in service 

accessibility. Additionally, lived

experience will be used within the research conducted by the SAVES 

Center. The SAVES Center will learn from survivors about their experiences 

and perspectives related to accessing (or not accessing) child support 

through a qualitative study that will help identify survivors’ interest in child 

support payments, strengths, and barriers faced by survivors in the child 

support system, and strategies that could promote engagement. The 

engagement of lived experience goes beyond simply soliciting feedback by 

including the survivor’s voice in developing the tool created to collect 

responses. This step is critical to ensure that the tool is trauma-informed 

and sensitive to the unique experiences of domestic violence survivors. 

The engagement of lived experience is not just about “inviting individuals to 

the table.” It provides them the space to build the table alongside agencies 

and systems. 

Demonstration Spotlight: New York 

The New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance – 

Division of Child Support Services (DCSS), in partnership with the Office 

for the Prevention of Domestic Violence (OPDV), is in year three of the 

SAVES Demonstration Grant. DCSS and OPDV have had the unique 

experience of hearing from over 70 lived experience experts throughout 

years one and two of the SAVES Demonstration Grant. This opportunity 

has allowed DCSS to incorporate feedback and shape their Family Safety 

Question Pilot Program. DCSS leveraged its partnership with OPDV to use 

its existing relationships with local domestic violence (service providers to 

initiate contact and schedule Impact Expert Advisory Groups (IEAG) and 

Focus Groups. The project relied heavily on the local domestic violence 

service providers to obtain a diverse group of lived experience experts. The 

IEAG sessions were held in person and virtually, while focus groups were 

held in person only. 

DCSS and OPDV did encounter challenges while planning and conducting 

the IEAG sessions and focus groups. Recruitment and attendance were 

complicated by the fact that they were not directly working with survivors 

but rather with local community organizations. All lived experience experts 

were compensated for their time and input; however, lived experience 

experts receiving public assistance and participating in the IEAG meetings 

could not receive cash payments due to the potential risk of the payment 

counting towards their assistance grant. To overcome this barrier, DCSS 

provided gift cards as a method of payment. Another challenge was being 

able to incorporate all the feedback received. A tradeoff to having a robust

and expansive plan to engage lived experience experts is the large 

volumes of feedback that need synthesizing and compiling. The 

experiences of domestic violence survivors are diverse and unique, and 

DCSS and OPDV received an overwhelming amount of feedback, making it 

challenging to incorporate all aspects of the concerns and suggestions 

provided. Nonetheless, the successes outweighed the challenges. 

Based on the invaluable feedback, several policy and process changes are 

underway to better support their project objectives and goals. A statewide 

screening form is currently being created based on the feedback received. 

Additionally, connections were made between the child support program, 

the public assistance program, and the local domestic violence service 

provider programs in 

the pilot districts under 

the SAVES grant to 

increase 

communication. More 

frequent and 

consistent 

communication between the different agencies will benefit survivors and 

their experiences navigating the systems. With survivor input, pilot districts 

have also created an informational flyer describing child support processes, 

allowing individuals to make informed decisions when engaging in child 

support services. 

Conclusion 

The SAVES Center and 13 demonstration sites 

have been intentional in creating innovative and 

creative solutions that are responsive and meet 

the needs of domestic violence survivors. 

Substantial progress has been made across the 

sites to authentically engage lived experience 

and build a foundation for more inclusive policies, processes, and decisionmaking. 

System change is rarely linear, and the SAVES demonstration 

sites have been creative in approaching challenges along with their 

progress. Each demonstration site has been steadfast in its overarching 

goal to make child support safe and accessible for survivors of domestic 

violence and their children. To learn more about the work of the SAVES 

Center and the 13 demonstration sites, please visit https://savescenter.org/.

i Office of Child Support Services. (2022). A Starter Kit on Engaging People with Lived Experience in Child Support Programs. 

https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ocse/engaging_starter_kit.pdf 

ii Office of Child Support Services. (2022). Safe Access for Victims’ Economic Security (SAVES) Demonstration. 

https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ocse/HHS-2022-ACF-OCSE-FD-0017.pdf 

Jillian Young received her BA and MSW from the University of Wisconsin. She has spent over a decade 

supporting victim-survivors of domestic violence and leading system change within the legal and child 

welfare systems. During her time as the Legal Program Coordinator for Domestic Abuse Intervention 

Services (DAIS) in Madison, WI, she chaired the Legal Issues Subcommittee to the Dane County 

Coordinated Community Response to Domestic Violence and piloted a court watch program for restraining 

order hearings. With the Wisconsin Department of Children and Families, she led initiatives to build 

services for youth impacted by human trafficking and served as the Wisconsin Adoption Manager, providing 

contract administration to the State Public Adoptions program.

Field Guide to Military Child Support Cases 

by Kris Hilscher 

This article is to assist attorneys in handling a child support case involving 

a member of the Armed Services, particularly for those attorneys who do 

not handle such cases on a regular basis. Let’s consider a common 

scenario: you meet custodial parent Kristin Smith for an initial interview 

about obtaining child support. Sam Smith, her ex and the children’s father, 

is an active-duty servicemember in the Army stationed at Fort Hood. First, it 

is important to know what questions to ask. Here are some of the 

appropriate questions to ask Kristin, as well as a list of the documents to 

request. 

Ask the Custodial Parent 

At the initial meeting regarding obtaining support from an active-duty 

servicemember (SM), use this list of questions (modified as necessary) as 

your guide: 

1. What is SM’s full name? 

2. Do you have a settlement or an order determining child support? If 

so, what is the date of the document? How much support was set? 

What are the other terms? 

3. Has paternity been established or determined? If so, provide all 

important details (e.g. court-ordered paternity testing, admission in 

court documents, verified pleading, etc.).

4. If the parties were married, when did they separate? When, if 

applicable, did they divorce? Where was the divorce or dissolution 

granted? 

5. What is the SM’s pay grade or rank? What is the SM’s date of rank? 

6. What is SM’s Social Security number? 

7. What is SM’s branch of service (e.g. Coast Guard, Navy, Air Force)? 

8. What is SM’s location (e.g. Eglin Air Force Base, Fort Hunter Liggett, 

or Joint Base Lewis-McChord)? 

9. What is SM’s unit (e.g. 10th Air Support Operations Squadron, 

Seventh Fleet, or 31st Field Artillery Regiment)? The more detailed 

this information is, the better. For example, instead of 374th Airlift 

Wing, it would be preferable to identify the other party’s unit as “374th 

Medical Group, Unit 5071, Yokota Air Base.” 

10. Do you have a copy of SM’s Leave and Earnings Statement (LES)? 

11. What support have you received? Do you have a written history of 

support payments (i.e. dates of payment and amounts paid)? If not, 

the attorney may want to ask the parent to generate a list, 

spreadsheet, or chart. 

12. What attempts have you made to obtain support? Do you have any 

evidence of those attempts? 

Document Request 

Documents can make the case in many child support matters. Ask Kristin to 

produce the following (as applicable/available): 

1. Child support order or separation agreement; 

2. Leave and Earnings Statements (LESs); 

3. Record of support payments made by the noncustodial 

parent/spouse/former spouse; 

4. Decree of divorce or dissolution; 

5. Paternity adjudication or determination documents (e.g. 

written acknowledgment, court order, administrative 

determination); 

6. Military ID cards, military orders of the other party;

7. Written summary of attempts to obtain support payments, as well as 

supporting documents (e.g. letters, e-mails, text messages, social 

media messages); 

8. Any other documents reflecting the SM’s income; and 

9. All financial documents relevant to child support. 

Formal Discovery 

In many cases, the custodial parent may say she has limited access to 

documents or even no documents at all. Counsel should plan on using 

discovery to obtain information. This information can be used to facilitate 

settlement or to prove your case to the court. Consider the following 

discovery request questions in a military child support case: 

• Pay statements. These are typically called Leave and Earnings 

Statements (LESs). Determining how many past months of LESs you 

might need or want would depend on whether the servicemember 

may have been promoted recently, whether he or she is due an 

increase based upon years in service, and where he or she has been 

assigned over the past 6 months to 1 year. Ordinarily, pay information 

for the previous three months should be sufficient. 

Obtaining a copy of the December LES from the previous year will 

provide a helpful 12-month look-back period, rather than just a current 

snapshot. 

It is very common to have some difficulty deciphering all the information 

contained on the LES. Counsel might have additional questions about the 

information shown. In order to become familiar with the LES, the 

abbreviations, and the contents, counsel should look up “How to Read an 

LES” through an internet search engine as there is plenty of reliable 

information on the topic available. 

• Income from all sources. Servicemembers may have side businesses 

or other streams of income. Be sure to ask about all income. 

• Retirees are different. Attorneys should request a retiree account 

statement (RAS) for retired pay. Other pay types are common for 

retired servicemembers, such as a new career or job, Veterans Affairs 

(VA) disability pay, and special pay types such as combat-related

special compensation (CRSC). Again, be sure to obtain all income 

sources. 

• Depending on what the parent can tell you, you may want to ask the 

servicemember a few more questions as interrogatories: 

o Do you anticipate being promoted within the next six months? 

o Do you anticipate being reassigned to another permanent duty 

station within the next six months? If so, to what base or 

location? 

o Do you anticipate being deployed to another permanent duty 

station? 

o [For enlisted members] When is the end of your current 

enlistment? Do you plan to reenlist at that time? 

o Do you plan to retire or separate from service within the next 

twelve months? 

o Identify and describe your income from all sources, including by 

way of example only and not limitation, all special pay types, 

proficiency pay, and funds earned from any source whatsoever. 

Nonsupport Complaint 

A level of support is required by 

regulations of the Army, Navy, 

Marine Corps, and Coast Guard 

when spouses have separated or 

when the parents of a child are 

separated (or are not married), and no court order or agreement exists for 

child support. Often referred to as “interim support regulations,” the 

regulations are: 

• Army: Army Regulation (AR) 608-99 

• Navy: U.S. Department of Navy, Naval Military Personnel Manual 

Articles 1754-030 (Support of Family Members) 

• Marine Corps: U.S. Marine Corps Order P5800.16A; Marine Corps 

Manual for Legal Administration, ch. 15 (Dependent Support and 

Paternity)

• Coast Guard: U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast 

Guard Commandant Instr. (COMDTINST) M1600.2, Article 2.E. 

(Support of Dependents) 

An easy way to obtain details for support regulations on the internet is 

to type the number of the regulation and branch of service into a 

search engine such as Google. Typing “Army 608-99” into a search 

engine usually will take you to the text of AR 608-99, for example. 

You may be thinking that the servicemember is subject to rules and orders 

from command. As such, surely command could simply order 

servicemember Sam Smith to pay child support to Kristin, couldn’t they? 

While the initial enforcement for military support is the individual’s unit 

commander, the armed services cannot take money from Sam’s pay and 

send it to Kristin. However, military regulations establish the amount of 

required support for a servicemember. i The regulations establish a duty to 

pay support and allow the punishment of servicemembers who do not 

comply with this requirement. 

Note that a nonsupport letter may move faster than a court order. All 

branches of service will require servicemembers to comply with valid court 

orders for support. A court order provides more protection for Kristin. Child 

support orders have remedies such as involuntary allotment and 

garnishment and represent the best way to obtain enforceable child 

support. It is typically best to obtain a child support order at the earliest 

opportunity. ii 

When there is no order or agreement, the best course of action is to write 

to the SM’s commander, identify the applicant, set out the factual 

circumstances, describe any hardships 

suffered, and request regular monthly 

payments through an allotment. 

Primary Source 

The Army JAG School iii regularly publishes a series of deskbooks for use 

by judge advocates, legal assistance attorneys, and occasionally, civilian 

lawyers. Legal assistance, which involves family law, is covered in the 

Client Services Deskbook. The sub-part covering spousal and child support 

is “DoD Family Support Policy.” This Deskbook, which contains a summary 

of the support regulations of each branch of service, may be found at 

https://tjaglcs.army.mil/publications.

Determining Income 

Sam’s military pay is made up of basic pay and other entitlements. The 

wage paid to Sam is the basic pay, which is subject to taxes, just like any 

normal payment which shows tax withholding. However, this is not the end 

of the inquiry with a servicemember. A servicemember’s pay may include 

Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH), Basic Allowance for Subsistence 

(BAS), special pay types for skills (such as foreign language proficiency or 

“jump pay” for those on airborne status, variable special pay, etc.), 

bonuses, and special allowances. To find out how much Sam earns for 

child support purposes, review a copy of the LES. As they say, all money is 

green and each of the pay types should count. General rules on child 

support mean that the court should consider all pay and allowances in 

setting the child support obligation. iv Counsel must know the rules and 

cases in their state, however, as some states do not consider all pay types 

as income for support. v 

Pay careful attention to the allotments. An allotment should not be a 

true deduction from pay which reduces a servicemember’s income, 

such as Medicare withholding. Allotments can be used for elective 

payments, such as a car payment. 

Getting Paid Via Garnishment 

Garnishment of servicemembers’ pay is authorized by federal law. vi To 

obtain a garnishment, first you need to obtain a court order directing the 

pay to be garnished. Second, counsel must serve a certified copy of the 

garnishment order via certified or registered mail, return receipt requested 

on the proper agent vii or the proper agency. Be sure to include the full 

name, date of birth, and Social Security number of the servicemember to 

allow identification and processing of the garnishment. 

The maximum allowable garnishment is fifty percent of the 

servicemember’s disposable pay when the servicemember is providing 

more than half the support for family members other than those to whom 

the garnishment applies. The number goes up to sixty percent if the 

servicemember is not providing more than half the support to other family 

members. An additional five percent can be added to the above 

percentages if there is an arrearage of twelve (or more) weeks.

Conclusion 

While not a comprehensive overview, the above should help you along your 

way in a military child support case. These types of issues can be complex, 

causing even seasoned trial attorneys to reach 

for the closest headache medication. Counsel 

can assist with military child support cases with 

some hard “elbow grease” in the preparation 

phase. When in doubt, please seek the 

assistance of a trusted professional who 

handles these types of matters on a regular 

basis, such as a former judge advocate general 

or an experienced military family law 

practitioner. 

i The Air Force is an exception. The Air Force deems nonsupport issues to be a matter for civilian courts. 

ii In some situations, Kristin may want to run the risk of not having an order when the amount she is receiving directly as support 

under the branch’s regulation greatly exceeds the anticipated child support. 

iii Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School, or TJAGLCS. 

iv For example, Massey v. Evans, 886 N.Y.S. 2d 280 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., App. Div. 2009); In re Marriage of Stanton, 190 Cal. Appl. 4 th 

547 (Ct. App. 2010). 

v For example, see Kelly v. Kelly, 2003 Conn. Super. LEXIS 3573 (Conn. Super. Ct. Dec. 18, 2003) (unpublished) (holding that 

BAS was not includable as income for servicemember, and mother did not prove Family Separation Allowance was income). 

vi 42 U.S.C. § 659. 

vii A list of designated agents is available at 5 C.F.R Part 581, Appendix A. 

Kris Hilscher works with attorneys nationwide to assist with military pension division orders and all military 

family law issues. He is a fellow in the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, and a board-certified 

family law specialist practicing in Raleigh, North Carolina. Kris was appointed to the ABA’s LAMP 

committee and as the chair of the Military Committee of the ABA Family Law Section. For comments or 

corrections, he can be reached at 919.832.8507 or kris.hilscher@ncfamilylaw.com.

Everything You Need to Know About Colorado’s 

Newest Family Law Professionals: 

Licensed Legal Paraprofessionals (LLPs) 

by The Honorable Angela R. Arkin 

Filling the “Justice Gap” 

In Colorado, as in many states, the need for legal services for low to 

moderate income residents has outpaced the resources currently available. 

Historical data shows that the challenge for unrepresented litigants in 

domestic relations cases has been consistent for more than fifteen years 

and that the number of unrepresented litigants has grown along with 

Colorado’s population. i 

Many of these litigants either do not qualify for or have limited access to 

free or reduced-cost legal services, ultimately falling into the ever-widening 

“justice gap,” which is the disparity between the need for and availability of 

civil legal services. These litigants make too much money to qualify for free 

legal services but not enough to afford a lawyer at typical market rates. ii 

Family law is different from civil or criminal law: most trials are about 

something that happened in the past, but family law is primarily about the 

future. People create families on their own, but when the family breaks up, 

the court must decide what is equitable to move family members forward. 

The family history is therefore very important, but as a context for the 

court’s decision. The court can be fair only if it has lots of information from 

the litigants about their individual family, but litigants who have not had 

access to legal help struggle to provide the court with the extensive

financial and child-related information needed for a fair resolution. And 

every family is different. 

In Colorado, family law cases are addressed in a court of equity: litigants 

have a fiduciary duty to one another. This fiduciary duty requires significant 

information-sharing between the parties and with the court to reach an 

equitable resolution. These requirements cannot be simplified to a level 

that would not be challenging for self-represented litigants. Judicial staff 

and judges see many unprepared, confused parties; however, the courts 

cannot provide litigants with legal advice. 

As a result, in 2020 the Colorado Supreme Court chose to address this 

“justice gap” by creating a paraprofession for qualified individuals to provide 

more affordable legal advice to litigants. Licensed Legal Paraprofessionals 

(LLPs) are similar to nurse practitioners in the medical field: they can 

practice independently or with a law firm and can provide limited legal 

assistance/advice to parties who previously had no legal help. 

History 

Members of the Colorado Bar Association (CBA) and the Colorado Access 

to Justice Commission (CATJ) began looking at this issue in 2015, when 

Washington State created the first program in the United States licensing 

paraprofessionals to practice family law. iii At that time, the CBA decided not 

to pursue a paraprofessional program in family law, but by 2020 the 

Colorado courts were overwhelmed with litigants who needed help to get 

through their divorce, child custody, or child support case. 

The LLP program was initiated in February 2020 by the Chief Justice 

appointing co-chairs of a small subcommittee of ten professionals, 

including one Supreme Court Justice, three sitting or retired judges, one 

family court facilitator, two experienced family law attorneys, one

paralegal/mediator, the Colorado Attorney Regulation Counsel, and the 

chair of the Colorado Supreme Court (CSC) Advisory Committee on the 

Practice of Law. The subcommittee met 40+ times over the next 16 months 

and sought feedback from judges, court staff, attorneys, Child Support 

Services (CSS), 

multiple other 

states, paralegals, 

educators, family 

law litigants, and the 

public. 

In June 2021, the CSC approved the subcommittee’s 12-page preliminary 

report. iv Multiple working groups with many professionals were formed, and 

they engaged in a deliberate, transparent, inclusive process to create a 

400-page implementation plan. The plan was created by multiple working 

groups engaging in a deliberate, transparent, inclusive process, resulting in 

adoption of the proposed plan by the CSC in June 2022. The CSC sought 

comments and had a public hearing on November 16, 2022, on the 

proposed implementation plan. 

At the public hearing, the Supreme Court requested revisions to the 

implementation plan to allow LLPs to provide additional services to their 

clients and the court. The working groups re-formed to meet the CSC’s 

concerns, and in March 2023, the CSC issued a new LLP Rule (C.R.C.P. 

207) v and other rule changes that incorporated their requested updates to 

the implementation plan. C.R.C.P. Rule 207 was updated by the CSC again 

on November 16, 2023, to clarify the intended scope of LLP licensure, 

including establishing parentage under the Colorado version of the Uniform 

Parentage Act, vi and establishing, enforcing, and modifying child support. vii 

In April 2024, the Colorado legislature passed a bill allowing LLPs to 

practice under the Colorado Administrative Procedure Act for the 

Establishment and Enforcement of Child Support, in addition to the 

Colorado courts. viii 

Current Status 

The first LLP Exam was held on April 30, 2024. Of the 70 applicants for 

licensure, 62 passed the exam and are now practicing LLPs. The next LLP 

exam will be November 12, 2024, and there are currently 45 applicants to 

take the exam.

According to the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal 

System (IAALS) ix , Colorado is currently one of seven states with licensed 

paraprofessionals. Colorado’s LLPs can represent parties only in family law 

cases at this time. 

Implemented 

Approved and Under Development 

Under Consideration 

Being Studied 

Currently Not Moving Forward x 

Other states allow qualified paraprofessionals to practice in other areas of 

law in which they qualify, such as debt collection, landlord/tenant, and 

misdemeanor offenses. Some states require attorney supervision— 

Colorado does not. 

LLP Eligibility 

The Qualifications for Licensure working group considered the 

requirements for paraprofessionals in Washington State, Utah, and Arizona. 

The CSC thereafter adopted the following recommendations: 

Path A: Education + Experience 

Applicants to sit for the Colorado LLP “bar exam” must have the following 

education and experience. 

Education: 

• Juris Doctorate; or 

• Bachelor’s or Associate’s degree in paralegal studies; or 

• Bachelor’s degree (any subject) which must include either a 

paralegal certificate or 15 hours of accredited paralegal studies; or 

• Law degree from a foreign law school and a Master of Laws (LLM) 

meeting American Bar Association (ABA)-accredited U.S. law school 

criteria.

Experience: 

• Completion of at least 1,500 hours of law-related practice in the past 

three years; and 

• 500 of those hours must be 

specific to Colorado family 

law. 

Path B: Experience Only 

Applicants to sit for the Colorado LLP “bar exam” must 

have the following experience: 

• 4,500 hours of substantive law-related practical experience within 

five years, including: 

o 1,500 hours of Colorado family law work within the prior five 

years; 

o 1,500 hours substantive law-related practical experience within 

three years preceding the application; 

o 500 hours of Colorado family law work within three years 

preceding the application. 

No Qualifying Path: 

Some individuals in Colorado with significant family law experience did not 

fit into Path A or Path B. The CSC allows prospective LLPs, such as 

prospective attorneys seeking Colorado licensure, to apply for an 

alternative path to licensure: 

• An applicant may file a petition with the Colorado Supreme Court for 

waiver of LLP admissions requirements; 

• The petitioner must set forth the relief sought, the specific 

admissions eligibility requirements or restrictions at issue with 

citations to applicable rules, and the grounds for relief; 

• The petitioner has the burden of showing that the Colorado Supreme 

Court should grant the relief requested; 

• The petition also must include a statement that petitioner has 

conferred with the Office of LLP Admissions; a recital of the position 

of the Office of LLP Admissions as to the relief sought; and a 

certificate of service; and 

• Petitions must be filed with the Colorado Supreme Court.

LLP Rules Overview 

Many Colorado statutes, procedural and professional rules, and Chief 

Justice directives had to be modified to accommodate the licensure of 

LLPs. Most of these requirements mirror those for Colorado attorneys, 

where relevant. Although LLPs don’t go to law school, they can engage in 

the independent practice of law, so their licensure requirements are 

rigorous: 

• Before licensure, LLPs must: 

o Complete a legal professionalism class conducted by the 

Colorado Office of Attorney Regulation Counsel (OARC); 

o Complete an application for the LLP bar exam with OARC; 

o Pay the same application fee to OARC as law school 

graduates wishing to sit for the Colorado bar exam; 

o Pass an ethics class specific to LLPs or lawyers; 

o Pass the “LLP bar exam,” (a 6-hour substantive family law and 

ethics exam); and 

o Pass the same character and fitness review required of 

Colorado attorney applicants. 

• After licensure, LLPs must: 

o Register annually; and 

o Take at least 30 continuing legal education (CLE) credit hours 

every 3 years. 

Like attorneys, LLPs will be encouraged, but not required, to provide pro 

bono assistance to litigants. LLPs are authorized to provide unbundled 

legal services, xi and some may offer a sliding scale for legal fees. 

Scope of Licensure 

LLPs’ limited license to practice law is governed by Colorado Rules of Civil 

Procedure (C.R.C.P.) Rule 207 (2024). Rule 207 specifically sets forth what 

LLPs are authorized to do and what tasks/subject areas are outside the 

LLP’s limited scope of practice.

What Can LLPs Do? 

• Pursuant to C.R.C.P. Rule 207.1(2)(g), LLPs can: 

o Contract with the client; 

o Communicate with the opposing party or the opposing party’s 

LLP/attorney regarding authorized family law case filings, Title 

IV-D administrative process cases, and reasonably related 

matters; 

o Obtain, explain, prepare, sign, and/or file pleadings, exhibits, 

supporting documents, sworn financial statements, 

disclosures, discovery, and proposed orders; 

o Inform, counsel, assist, and advocate for a client in 

negotiations or mediation with the opposing party or the 

opposing party’s LLP/attorney; and 

o Assist their client during a court proceeding by: 

■ providing organizational and emotional support by being 

present at the counsel table; 

■ assisting the client in understanding the proceedings, 

relevant orders, and next steps; 

■ 

■ 

communicating with the client during the proceeding; and 

interacting with the court (making opening statements, 

closing arguments, answering the JO’s questions, etc.), 

other than examining witnesses. 

• LLPs are required by rule to refer the client to a lawyer for issues 

outside the LLP’s scope of practice. However, the LLP can remain in 

the case to assist the client with matters within the LLP’s licensure. 

What Can't LLPs Do? 

• Pursuant to C.R.C.P. Rule 207.1(2)(f), LLPs cannot: 

o Examine a witness (C.R.C.P. 207.1(2)(h)); 

o Represent their client in matters in which an expert report or 

testimony is required to value an asset or determine income; 

o Prepare documents allocating non-liquid retirement assets 

(such as a Qualified Domestic Relations Order) or the 

sale/distribution of business assets or commercial property; 

o Represent their client in contests to the court’s jurisdiction; 

o Register foreign orders (UCCJEA/UIFSA); 

o Represent their client in motions/orders regarding punitive 

contempt citations under C.R.C.P. Rule 107;

o Represent their client in disputed parentage cases where more 

than two parents or alleged parents assert or deny legal 

parentage; 

o Represent their client in non-parent requests for custody when 

contested by at least one parent (third-party/Indian Child 

Welfare Act (ICWA); 

o Represent their client in the preparation or litigation of marital 

agreements; 

o Represent their client in cases in which either party is a 

beneficiary of a trust and such information is relevant to 

resolution of the case; 

o Represent their client in common law marriage cases when the 

fact and/or date of the common law marriage is contested; xii 

o Perform tasks or address issues that fall outside of the LLP’s 

authorized scope of family law practice pursuant to C.R.C.P. 

Rule 207.1, including but not limited to criminal cases, civil 

cases, probate matters, immigration matters, adoptions, 

relinquishments, or dependency and neglect cases. 

How Will LLPs Help Colorado Child Support Services? xiii 

LLPs can give legal advice to help litigants with the majority of Colorado 

dissolution, parentage, child support, and allocation of parental 

responsibility (custody) cases. Specifically, LLPs will help litigants settle 

their family law disputes or help judicial officers make better, faster, more 

equitable decisions by providing information from litigants that judges need. 

In the vast majority of cases involving Colorado Child Support Services 

(CSS), the availability of LLPs to represent noncustodial parents will be a 

welcome change. LLPs are authorized to represent custodial xiv and noncustodial 

parents in the administrative process and in most contested court 

cases. LLPs are likely to provide more affordable representation than 

private attorneys. CSS can provide custodial and noncustodial parents with 

a list of LLPs from the OARC website xv to assist with access to justice.

Additionally, CSS may find that hiring LLPs and/or training caseworkers to 

become LLPs could address the challenges that smaller Colorado counties 

have in providing services to applicants for child support services. Colorado 

is one of the largest states in the U.S. and has many counties with “legal 

deserts” (no attorney residents). This will be an ongoing discussion within 

CSS over the coming years. 

i As of June 30, 2024, 75% of parties to domestic relations cases in Colorado were without attorneys. Case and Parties without 

Attorney Representation (coloradojudicial.gov). 

ii Pro Bono Reporting | Colorado ATJC (coloradoaccesstojustice.org). 

iii Limited License Legal Technicians (wsba.org). 

iv Future Lawyers - Attorney Regulation Counsel (coloradosupremecourt.com) . 

v Colorado Supreme Court Rules Governing Admission to Practice Law. 

vi C.R.S. §19-4-101 et seq. (2024). 

vii Adopted & Proposed Rule Changes | Colorado Judicial Branch. 

viii Licensed Legal Paraprofessionals | Colorado General Assembly. 

ix Homepage | IAALS (du.edu) Significant helpful information about “Allied Legal Professionals,” can be found at the Institute for 

the Advancement of the American Legal System (IAALS) website. 

x Allied Legal Professionals Knowledge Center | IAALS (du.edu). 

xi Microsoft Word - FormalEthicsOpinion_101.docx (cobar.org). 

xii Common Law Marriage by State (ncsl.org) Colorado is one of seven remaining states (plus the District of Columbia) allowing 

the formation of common law marriages in 2024. 

xiii The author acknowledges and appreciates the assistance of Tracy Rumans, Esq., Supervising County Attorney for the 

Arapahoe County, Colorado Office of Child Support, in preparing this section of the article. 

xiv Custodial parents seeking interest on child support arrears in Colorado may wish to have legal representation. 

xv Alphabetical Pass List for April 2024 LLP Exam (coloradosupremecourt.com). 

Retired Colorado District Court Judge Angela (Angie) R. Arkin has been the Co-Chair/Chair of what is 

now the Licensed Legal Paraprofessional (LLP) Committee for 4+ years. Judge Arkin practiced as an 

attorney and child support prosecutor/consultant in Georgia and Colorado from 1983 – 2000. Judge Arkin 

has served as an attorney, legal consultant, Magistrate, District Court Judge, mediator, arbitrator, and 

private judge in family law cases for a total of 41 years. Judge Arkin was a member of NCSEA from 1987 – 

1995. Judge Arkin is member of the Colorado Supreme Court Advisory Committee on the Practice of Law, 

the Colorado Chapter of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, and the Colorado Bar Association 

Family Law Section, amongst many other professional activities.

Differences in State Child Support Guidelines 

Including Their Low-Income Adjustments 

by Jane Venohr, Ph.D. 

The number of child support orders established or modified nationally 

within a given year is likely to be about one and half to three million. In 

federal fiscal year (FFY) 2023, the national child support program—which is 

a federal, state, tribal, and local collaborative effort— established almost 

600,000 new orders alone. i Although the Federal Office of Child Support 

Services (OCSS) makes the count of new orders in any given FFY 

available in its annual report, it does not publish the annual count of 

modified orders. Pennsylvania ii found that there are about two 

modifications for every one new order established in FY 2018. However, 

there is considerable variation among states, iii with Pennsylvania’s 

modification rate likely to be higher than those of other states. In addition, 

child support orders may be newly established or modified for cases not in 

the child support program. (Those not in the child support program are 

often called non-IV-D cases because the child support program is enabled 

by Section IV-D of the Social Security Act.) New Hampshire iv found that for 

each new IV-D order there were about two new, non-IV-D orders, while 

information from California v suggests that for each new IV-D order there is 

one new, non-IV-D order. The author knows of no counts of non-IV-D 

modifications. 

Regardless of how many new and modified orders are issued per year, a 

child support order must be set based on the child support guidelines of the 

state or tribe. Federal regulation (45 C.F.R.§ 302.56) requires each state to 

have one child support guidelines formula to be used by all judicial and

administrative officers with the 

authority to issue child support 

orders. Tribes face a similar 

requirement. The guidelines are to 

be applied to IV-D cases, non-IV-D 

cases, order establishments, and 

order modifications. Federal 

regulation also requires that the 

guidelines be applied presumptively 

but states must provide that the 

guidelines can be rebutted when 

inappropriate or unjust based on statedetermined 

criteria that consider the best 

interest of the child. 

Differences in State Guidelines Amounts at Median Incomes 

For the most part, states generally base their guidelines formula/table on 

economic data on how much families typically spend on their children. The 

underlying economic data considers income(s) of the parent(s) and number 

of children. A notable exception occurs at low incomes. All states provide 

for a guideline amount that is lower than what it actually costs to raise 

children for very low-income payer-parents. (Low-income adjustments will 

be discussed later.) A 2017 state comparison found little differences in 

guideline-calculated amounts for middle incomes despite large differences 

in state guidelines models, underlying economic data, and whether a state 

had updated for recent inflation. vi The economic data on child-rearing 

expenditures becomes quickly outdated in periods of high inflation (e.g., 

prices increased 21% from November 2020 prices, when price levels 

reached their lowest level due to the COVID-19 recession, through August 

2024). 

This article first uses 2024 data to compare state guidelines amounts for a 

case scenario based on the median incomes of all U.S. workers. The case 

example assumes one child, vii and 2024 median earnings for men and 

women ($4,295 and $3,574 gross per month viii ) for the incomes of the 

payer-parent and receiving parent, respectively. (In 2018, 75% of 

nonresidential parents were male. ix ) The case scenario assumes no other 

circumstances that could also be considered in the guidelines calculation 

(e.g., additional dependents, medical support, or timesharing. x ) Exhibit 1 

compares the guidelines amounts among states that established at least

20,000 orders in FFY 2023 according to OCSS data (i.e., California, 

Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, and 

Wisconsin). xi 

Exhibit 1 shows some disparities in the state guidelines amounts in 2024. 

California produces the highest amount ($866 per month). The California 

Legislature acknowledges that its amounts should be higher than those of 

other states due to California’s high cost of living. xii Illinois, Indiana, 

Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee yield similar amounts: they range 

from $620 to $685 per month. These states consider the incomes of both 

parents. Their small variations are attributed to differences in their 

underlying economic studies, years since the state guidelines were last 

updated, and consideration of federal and state income tax rates for the 

states based on gross income (i.e., Indiana, Ohio, and Tennessee). Texas 

and Wisconsin are higher because these states only consider the income 

of the payer-parent. In contrast, the income of the receiving parent offsets 

some of the child-rearing expenses in the other states that consider both 

parents’ incomes in their guidelines calculation. Finally, Ohio yields the 

lowest amount ($583 per month) largely because their guidelines have not 

been updated to 2024 levels. 

Low-Income Adjustments in State Guidelines 

Many parents have incomes lower than median earnings, particularly in the 

IV-D caseload. In the most recent year with available data (2017), 18% of 

nonresidential parents nationally had incomes below poverty, and 36% had

incomes below 200% of poverty. xiii 

These statistics are for all 

nonresidential parents nationally, not 

just those in the IV-D program. 

Within the IV-D program, the 

percentages are believed to be 

higher. In 2017, 33% of children 

receiving IV-D services lived in 

households with income below 

poverty. xiv 

Federal regulation [45 C.F.R.§ 

302.56(c)(1)(ii)] requires states to consider 

the subsistence needs of the payer-parent 

(and at the state’s discretion, the custodial family) 

who has limited ability to pay by incorporating a low-income adjustment, 

such as a self-support reserve (SSR) or some other method determined by 

the state. (The same requirement is not imposed on Tribal guidelines.) 

States meet this requirement through a variety of methods. Most states 

relate their definition of subsistence to the federal poverty guidelines for 

xv 

one person, which was $1,255 per month in 2024. Some states use more 

or less. The highest amount is 150% of poverty (i.e., $1,883 net per month) 

that the New Jersey guidelines xvi apply to after-tax income. Arizona is the 

only state to relate its self-support reserve (SSR) to its minimum wage 

($14.35 per hour in 2024). xvii It sets it at 80% of full-time earnings at 

Arizona’s minimum wage (which would be $1,990 gross per month in 

2024). Arizona will apply a zero order to a payer-parent whose income is 

xviii 

less than the SSR. A few states index their SSRs so they are updated 

annually with annual changes to the federal poverty guidelines. Otherwise, 

most states update their low-income adjustment when they update their 

guidelines schedule/formula. 

Application of low-income adjustments vary by state. Analyzing case file 

data from orders established in 2018 for its last guidelines review, 

California xix found that the low-income adjustment was applied to 34% of 

reviewed IV-D orders. Based on an analysis of Pennsylvania orders 

established or modified in FY2018, the rate was 25%. xx In all states that 

have analyzed payments among payer-parents that received or were 

eligible for the low-income adjustment, compliance with the child support 

order on average was low; hence, arrears would have accrued. In turn, this

would have triggered enforcement actions against the low-income, payerparent. 

The failure to fully comply with the child support order may reflect 

the circumstances of the payer-parent at the moment (e.g., unstable 

employment and incarceration xxi ) rather than reflect upon the amount of the 

low-income adjustment alone. California found that 37% of the amount due 

was paid among orders set using the low-income adjustment in 2018, and 

Pennsylvania found 61% of the amount due was paid in cases eligible for 

the SSR in FY2018, while 84% of the current amount due was paid in 

cases not eligible for the SSR. (The payer-parents not eligible for the SSR 

also had more income which also means a greater ability-to-pay.) Both 

states have updated their low-income adjustments since these analyses 

were conducted. 

Guidelines Amounts Based on Poverty Income 

Exhibit 2 compares guideline amounts among the same nine states when 

each parent’s income is $1,255 per month (i.e., the 2024 poverty 

guidelines). With the exception of Pennsylvania, most of these states have 

low-income adjustment mechanisms that are unique to each state. 

Nonetheless, these states comprise the bulk of the order establishments 

across the nation. 

Exhibit 2 shows that the state’s low-income adjustment applies in this 

scenario for all states except Illinois and Texas. xxii For example, the $41 

order amount under the Pennsylvania guidelines is based on the difference 

between the after-tax income of the payer-parent and the Pennsylvania 

self-support reserve (SSR). Despite most states relying on an SSR as their 

low-income adjustment, Pennsylvania is the only state compared in Exhibit 

2 that relies on an SSR as its low-income adjustment. Illinois and Texas

have unique low-income adjustments 

that only apply to income below 

poverty. In contrast, the other 

examined states have a low-income 

adjustment that applies to poverty 

income and gradually phases out as 

the payer-parent has more income. 

Guidelines Amounts at Minimum- 

Wage Earnings 

All state guidelines meet the federal 

guidelines requirement (45 C.F.R.§ 

302.56) to consider the specific 

circumstances of the payer-parent when income 

imputation is authorized. Most states apply their 

income imputation provision to both the payer-parent and the receivingparent. 

When income imputation is authorized, income imputation at 

minimum-wage earnings is common. xxiii Exhibit 3 compares the order 

amounts when each parent has full-time xxiv minimum wage earnings. It 

uses the minimum-wage applicable to the state. California, Illinois, 

Michigan, and Ohio set minimum wages above the federal minimum 

wage. xxv In all, 30 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and 

the Virgin Islands have a minimum wage greater than the federal minimum 

wage of $7.25 per hour. xxvi In other words, many of the states in the 

guideline comparisons are among the minority of states that do not have a 

state minimum wage higher than the federal minimum wage. 

Income from full-time employment at the federal minimum wage yields a 

gross income of $1,257 per month. Exhibit 3 shows that among states that 

do not have a state minimum wage above the federal minimum wage, the 

guidelines amount under the minimum-wage scenario is the same as the 

guidelines amount under the poverty-income scenario. This is because 

earnings from full-time minimum wage are $1,257 per month and the 2024 

federal poverty level is $1,255 per month. For those states with a higher 

minimum wage, Exhibit 3 shows that the guidelines of these states produce 

much higher order amounts.

Conclusions and Recommendations 

Child support guidelines affect millions of custodial families and payerparents. 

Federal regulation requires states and tribes to issue child support 

guidelines. Federal regulation also requires state guidelines to consider the 

subsistence needs of the payer-parent. States take a variety of approaches 

to fulfill that requirement. Most relate their definition of subsistence to the 

federal poverty guidelines. 

The author uses case scenarios applied to the guidelines of states where 

the state’s IV-D program issues at least 20,000 orders per year to 

demonstrate state differences in guidelines amounts. One case scenario 

shows how a state’s low-income adjustment can interact with a state’s 

minimum wage. It shows that among states with higher state minimum 

wages, the low-income adjustment is no longer effective. If this is an 

undesirable policy outcome to a state, that state should consider relating its 

low-income adjustment to its minimum wage rather than the poverty level. 

Besides this recommendation, more research on state differences and the 

impact of low-income adjustments on custodial families and payer-parents 

is recommended. Child support can help lift custodial families out of poverty 

and avoid poverty. Setting orders too high among impoverished payerparents, 

however, is detrimental. Another approach (or complement to lowincome 

policies) is to help unemployed and underemployed parents with 

employment. OCSS’s recent proposed rule change xxvii pertaining to the 

funding of employment programs would help more states and tribes 

implement this.

i This includes the counts from the 50 states, District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. It does not include 

tribes. It includes medical support only orders and arrears only orders. Data source: Federal Office of Child Support 

Enforcement. (2024). Office of Child Support Preliminary Report 2023. Retrieved from 

https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ocse/fy_2023_preliminary_report.pdf. 

ii Venohr, J., and Matyasic, S. (2021) Review of the Pennsylvania Child Support Guidelines: Updated Schedule and Preliminary 

Findings from Analysis of Case File Data. Center for Policy Research. Retrieved from 

https://www.pacourts.us/storage/rules/Preliminary%20Report%20Jan%206%202021%20-%20011012.pdf 

iii For example, see National Child Support Enforcement Association Research Subcommittee. (2021). Improving the Process for 

Modifying Child Support Orders: Findings from Previous Research and Selected Promising Practices. Retrieved from 

https://www.ncsea.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Improving-the-Process-for-Modifying-Child-Support-Orders-in-the-U.S._Nov- 

2021.pdf. 

iv Venohr, J., et al. (Dec. 2022). Review of the New Hampshire Child Support Guidelines. Retrieved from 

https://www.dhhs.nh.gov/sites/g/files/ehbemt476/files/documents2/css-2022-nh-child-support-guidelines-review-report.pdf 

v Judicial Council of California (2022.) Review of Statewide Uniform Child Support Guideline 2022. San Francisco, CA. Retrieved 

from https://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/Review-of-Uniform-Child-Support-Guideline-2021.pdf 

vi Venohr, J. (Apr. 2017). Differences in State Child Support Guidelines Amounts: Guidelines Models, Economic Basis, and Other 

Issues. Journal of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers. 

vii The U.S. Census Current Population Reports finds that most custodial families eligible for child support have one or two 

children. Most documented findings from the analysis of case file data for state guidelines reviews show more orders are for one 

child than for two children. See https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2020/demo/p60-269.pdf 

viii U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (May 2024). “Median weekly earnings $1,227 for men, $1,021 for women, first quarter 2024. 

TED: The Economic Daily. Retrieved from https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2024/ 

ix Congressional Research Service. (Oct. 2021). Demographic and Socioeconomic Characteristics of Nonresident Parents. 

Retrieved from https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46942 

x For Michigan, this also means not adding in the child tax credit as income. Most states do not count it as income to the 

custodial family. The child tax credit is not advanced rather families realize it with their annual tax filing. It applies to a limited 

range of incomes. Those with lower incomes do not receive the full child tax credit. 

xi State guidelines amounts were computed using the official agency or court automated guidelines calculator. All of the 

compared states with net-income based guidelines also had a gross to net income conversion calculator. Some of the states 

(e.g., Michigan and Pennsylvania) are in the process of updating their guidelines formula/schedule as well as their low-income 

adjustment. 

xii California Family Code section 4053(l). 

xiii Congressional Research Office (2021). Supra note 9. 

xiv Sorensen, Elaine. (Nov. 2021). Characteristics of Families Served by the Child Support IV-D Program: 2018 U.S. Census 

Survey Results. Retrieved from 

https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ocse/characteristics_cps_and_their_children.pdf 

xv U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation. (Jan. 2024). HHS 

Poverty Guidelines for 2024. Retrieved from https://aspe.hhs.gov/topics/poverty-economic-mobility/poverty-guidelines 

xvi New Jersey Rules of Court (n.d.) Appendix IX-A: Consideration in the Use of Child Support Guidelines (effective Sept. 1, 

2022). Retrieved from https://www.njcourts.gov/sites/default/files/app9a.pdf 

xvii U.S. Department of Labor. (Jul. 2024). Consolidated Minimum Wage Table. Retrieved from 

https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/mw-consolidated 

xviii Venohr, J. and Matyasic, S. (Feb. 2021). Review of the Arizona Child Support Guidelines: Findings from the Analysis of Case 

File Data and Updating the Child Support Schedule. Report to the Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Office of the Courts. 

Retrieved from https://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/74/FCIC-CSGR/SupplementalPacket-030121-FCIC-CSGRS.pdf?ver=2021-02- 

26-161844-187 

xix Judicial Council of California (2022), Supra note 5. 

xx Venohr, J. and Matyasic, S. (2021), Supra note 2. 

xxi These were the two most significant factors in Cancian, M.; Kim, Y. and Meyer, D. Who Is Not Paying Child Support? 

University of Wisconsin-Madison Institute for Research on Poverty, CSRA-2-22-T2. Retrieved from 

https://www.irp.wisc.edu/resource/who-is-not-paying-child-support/ 

xxii Although the Tennessee amount is high ($275 per month), it is adjusted for low income. Tennessee provides a higher amount 

because it is based on very old Consumer Expenditure Survey (CES). Administered by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 

(BLS), the CES is the underlying data source for most studies of child-rearing expenditures. The BLS continuously improves the

CES. It improved its measurement of low income since the Tennessee schedule was last updated. More information about the 

CES can be found https://www.bls.gov/cex/ 

xxiii Fleming, J. (Apr. 2017). “Imputed Income and Default Practices: The State Directors’ Survey of State Practices Prior to the 

2016 Final Rule.” National Child Support Engagement Association Communique. Retrieved from 

https://www.ncsea.org/documents/Imputed-Income-and-Default-Practices_CSQ-April-2017.pdf 

xxiv Several states (e.g., Colorado and South Dakota) will use less than 40 hours per week because labor market data indicates 

the average hours worked is about 35 hours per week but the average varies slightly by state. 

xxv U.S. Department of Labor (Jul. 2024). Supra note 17. 

xxvi Ibid. 

xxvii U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families Office of Child Support Services. 

(May 2024). “Employment and Training Services for Noncustodial Parents in the Child Support Program.” Federal Register. 

Retrieved from https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/05/31/2024-11842/employment-and-training-services-fornoncustodial-parents-in-the-child-support-program 

Jane Venohr is a research associate/economist with Center for Policy Research in Denver. She has 

assisted over 30 states and three tribes in the development and review of their child support guidelines. 

She is currently co-chairing the NCSEA Research Subcommittee.

Celebrating 50 Years of Excellence: 

NCSEA Leadership Symposium 2024 

by Konitra Jack and Sharon Pizzuti, 2024 NCSEA Leadership 

Symposium Co-chairs 

From August 4-7, 2024, in Detroit, Michigan, NCSEA 

hosted its Leadership Symposium, marking the 50th 

anniversary of the National Child Support Engagement 

Association. The event brought together 607 in-person 

and 47 virtual attendees, all eager to reflect on NCSEA's 

remarkable journey and explore forward-thinking 

approaches for the future. 

A Golden Celebration 

The theme, "Leading with Heart and Soul," perfectly captured NCSEA’s 

dedication to advancing child support for five decades. Attendees reflected 

on the organization’s rich history while looking toward the future. A key 

highlight was the “Ain’t No Mountain High Enough” plenary session, 

featuring NCSEA past presidents Alisha Griffin, Mary Ann Wellbank, Sharon 

Santilli, Scott Cade, and current president Erin Frisch. The panel discussed 

NCSEA’s evolution from a volunteer-led group to a professionally managed 

entity and its pivotal role in legislative advocacy over the years. 

Symposium Highlights 

This year’s symposium featured 6 plenary sessions and 24 workshops and 

learning labs, offering participants a wide range of opportunities for 

professional growth and collaboration.

• Inspiring Plenaries: Powerful plenary sessions, such as “Leadership 

at the Intersection of Pride, Joy, and Purpose,” provided valuable 

insights into leadership, policy, and trends, leaving participants with 

new ideas to take back to their offices. 

• A Taste of Detroit and 50th Anniversary Celebrations: Attendees 

enjoyed local treats and interactive birthday boards, reflecting on 

NCSEA’s 50-year journey while looking forward. 

• 50 Blankets for 50 Years: In collaboration with Fleece and Thank 

You, participants created 50 blankets for local hospitalized children, 

embodying the symposium’s theme of "Leading with Heart and Soul." 

• Exhibitor Showcase: Leading sponsors displayed cutting-edge 

technology designed to enhance child support programs, fostering 

innovation and collaboration. 

• Networking and Collaboration: Engaging activities like NCSEA 

Bingo and the Ideas Exchange encouraged networking and creative 

problem-solving. 

Attendees found a rich variety of workshops and learning labs to deepen 

their knowledge and hone their leadership skills. 

The success of this year’s symposium is a testament to the dedication of 

the planning committee. Their efforts ensured the content aligned with the 

theme while reflecting the vision of NCSEA President Erin Frisch. From 

selecting topics to securing top-tier speakers, their thoughtful curation 

provided valuable insights that honored the past and prepared us for the 

future. 

Attendee Feedback and Key Takeaways 

Participants expressed overwhelmingly positive feedback regarding the 

quality and diversity of sessions. Many highlighted the plenaries on poverty 

and artificial intelligence (AI) in child support as particularly impactful.

Attendees also valued the opportunity to network with fellow professionals 

and noted that the event was well-organized, with a seamless experience 

thanks to helpful volunteers and a diverse selection of exhibitors. 

Key takeaways from the symposium included: 

• Inspiration and Joy: Sessions focusing on finding purpose and joy in 

child support work left many attendees feeling recharged and 

motivated. 

• Leadership and Professional Growth: Workshops centered on 

leadership development, equity, and professional growth were highly 

valued. 

• Networking Opportunities: The chance to connect and share 

experiences with peers was repeatedly cited as a major highlight. 

Speakers such as Sonja Forte, Marcella Wilson, and Commissioner Gray 

stood out, receiving widespread praise for their thought-provoking and 

engaging presentations. 

Looking Ahead 

While the event honored NCSEA’s 50-year legacy, it 

focused equally on shaping the future of child support 

services. Workshops like “Leading By Listening” and 

“R-E-S-P-E-C-T: Leadership in DEI and Access to 

Justice” underscored NCSEA’s commitment to 

inclusivity, fairness, and incorporating family perspectives into 

child support programs. 

This year’s symposium was more than a conference—it was a celebration 

of community, resilience, and passion. The inspiration, knowledge, and 

connections forged during the event will continue to fuel NCSEA’s mission 

to make a positive impact on families for the next 50 years and beyond. 

Konitra Jack, MBA, Esq., serves as the Child Support Enforcement (IV-D) Director at the Louisiana 

Department of Children and Family Services. She oversees the state IV-D program, ensuring compliance 

with regulations and fostering partnerships to enhance service delivery. With a Juris Doctorate from 

Southern University Law Center, an MBA from the University of Phoenix, and a Bachelor of Science in 

Mathematics from Southern University and A&M College, Konitra's educational background supports her 

impactful leadership.

An active member of the National Child Support Engagement Association (NCSEA), Konitra co-chairs the 

Leadership Symposium Planning Committee, facilitating discussions on leadership and action. Her 

dedication to the field has been recognized with the 2023 NCSEA Outstanding Leader Award. Additionally, 

she holds roles in the National Council of Child Support Directors (NCCSD), National Association for 

Welfare Research and Statistics (NAWRS), and Louisiana Support Enforcement Association (LSEA). 

Outside her professional achievements, Konitra is committed to community service, teaching children at 

Jubilee Christian Center Church and co-leading Girl Scout Troop 10995 in Baton Rouge. A dedicated wife 

and mother, she strives to balance her professional endeavors with a fulfilling family life. "Collaboration is 

the key to making meaningful progress in our communities," says Konitra. 

Sharon Pizzuti is the Vice President of Courtland Consulting. She is a seasoned leader with over 36 years 

of experience in government and consulting, specializing in child support, courts, and human services. 

Throughout her career, she has managed high-impact business and technical contracts at local, state, and 

federal levels. Her leadership roles have spanned local government management for Oakland and Wayne 

County Michigan Friend of the Courts, and consulting for key agencies such as the Federal and State of 

Michigan Department of Health & Human Services, the Federal Department of Labor/Bureau of Labor 

Statistics, and the Michigan Supreme Court/State Court Administrative Office. For the past two decades, 

she has focused on driving improvement in court and human service programs, including fatherhood 

programming, conflict resolution, and initiatives focused on equitable access to justice. 

Sharon's leadership extends into her active involvement with major national organizations. She is an 

ERICSA Board member, and active contributor to numerous committees. She serves on WICSEC’s 

communication, year-round learning, and DEI committees, and is a dedicated member of the NTCSA 

conference planning and advisory committee. Currently Sharon serves on the NCSEA Board and is 

engaged in several committees. She is the immediate past co-chair of the 2024 NCSEA Leadership 

Symposium 2024. 

Sharon continues to use her expertise and strategic vision to foster partnerships and develop policies, 

programs and practices that prioritize family-focused, inclusive, and equitable child support solutions.

NCSEA U 2024: Leading with Heart

October 2024 Child Support CommuniQue

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?