|
hughes2it
|
|
(New)
|
|
03/22/07 12:13 PM
|
|
66.230.82.157
|
|
|
|
|
|
WHY DOESN'T ALASKA USE INCOME SHARE MODULE
|
|
Civil Rule 90.3 is not fair to noncustodial parents. Alaska needs to adopt a plan like Minnesota has now, where both parents incomes are at stake in deciding child support amounts since they are both responsible. Most parents are now working it is only fair that the courts in Alaska see that. Does anyone know when the next committe meets for updating Civil rule 90.3
|
|
Jada
|
|
(Platinum)
|
|
06/10/07 02:01 PM
|
|
69.115.74.232
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: WHY DOESN'T ALASKA USE INCOME SHARE MODULE
|
|
[quote]Civil Rule 90.3 is not fair to noncustodial parents. Alaska needs to adopt a plan like Minnesota has now, where both parents incomes are at stake in deciding child support amounts since they are both responsible. Most parents are now working it is only fair that the courts in Alaska see that. Does anyone know when the next committe meets for updating Civil rule 90.3 [/quote]
I live in a state that uses shared income when calculating child support.
My ex would be better off in a state that doesn't use shared income. The only time that it would be beneficial to the ncp is when it is a true 50/50 physical custody (ncp gets credit back for overnights) or the CP makes more than the ncp.
|
|
Samsung
|
|
(Platinum)
|
|
10/10/07 05:59 AM
|
|
75.163.18.190
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: WHY DOESN'T ALASKA USE INCOME SHARE MODULE
|
|
Minnesota does not use a system that is very fair. It is first, weighted in favor of the CP. What that means is CS goes up a certain amount if the NCP's income goes up, but goes down only a small portion of that amount if the CP's income goes up the same amount. In addition, CS is reduced only 10% if you have the kids up to 45% of the time. If you want a fairer system, look at CA's.
|