Accounting of Child Support Spending

Published on
November 11, 2021
Written by
Angel Murphy
Category
Custody and Child Support

Can I, as the non-custodial parent, obtain an accounting of how child support money is being spent? The fact that this question is commonly asked isn’t too hard to understand. When non-cuacstodial parents pay child support, they don’t pay the money directly to their children. They pay child support directly to the custodial parent. This means that they are paying money to their ex-spouse.As we are all aware, sometimes divorces can end with mutual bitterness between the parties. Given this reality, non-custodial parents may want to know how the custodial parent is using the funds. There may be cases in which a parent is genuinely concerned that funds are being used improperly.Let’s briefly review how Maryland determines child support and then address the question posed in the title directly.

Review of Maryland’s Income Shares Model

The State of Maryland uses something called the “income shares model” to allocate child support obligations between the parents. This model basically assigns a support obligation based on a parent’s relative share of the combined gross income (CGI). The court will assign a parent a 60% of the child support obligation if he or she contributes 60% of the CGI.They determine support amounts according to established guidelines. Maryland courts assign amounts using a formula involving the parents’ combined income and number of children. The guidelines, derived from reliable sources, contain the child support amounts. Some of these sources are economic research, consumer spending surveys, market data, and so forth.

So, Can You Obtain an Accounting of Child Support Spending? The Short Answer.

The short answer is, “no, a non-custodial parent isn’t entitled to an accounting of child support spending.” A non-custodial parent cannot go to a Maryland court and demand that the custodial parent send him or her detailed accounting records of spending. This may be depressing for some parents to hear, but it is the reality. Maryland courts invest significant quantities of energy in determining child support amounts. They created those amounts using a system that is fair and reasonable. Given this situation, courts are understandably reluctant to allow parents to demand accounting records of spending. Plus, there is a presumption (a reasonable presumption) that the custodial parent is using support funds to take care of the child(ren).

Can You Obtain an Accounting of Child Support Spending? The More Complex Answer.

The more complex answer is that a non-custodial parent may be able to have the court review the custodial parent’s behavior. We can do this if there is evidence of improper spending. Let’s consider an extreme scenario: the non-custodial parent has clear evidence that the custodial parent has been using all child support funds to gamble at local casinos. In this situation, the non-custodial parent can request a review of the child support order. The court can modify the current order based on the determination it makes. The non-custodial parent still wouldn’t be entitled to an accounting record, but the support order may be modified in a way that fits the circumstances.

Contact The Murphy Law Firm for More Information

Again, this is a very common concern among parents. If you’d like to learn more, reach out to The Murphy Law Firm today by calling 240-493-9116.

Angel Murphy

Personable. Passionate. Persistent.

Accounting of children|Child Support|Child Support Accounting|Children support obligation|Custodial parents|income share model|Maryland Court|Maryland Family Court|Record of spending

Subscribe to our newsletter

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.

Articles & Resources

March 4, 2024

Rudnick v. Rudnick (2023) & Unconscionability in Maryland Prenuptial Agreements

In Rudnick v. Rudnick (2023), a prenuptial agreement signed in 1992 became the subject of dispute during the couple's divorce in 2019. The agreement, which prohibited the division of assets or alimony, was initially considered fair but was deemed unconscionable at the time of enforcement. Massachusetts law, where the case arose, applied an unconscionability analysis at the time of enforcement. The courts ruled in favor of the wife, highlighting the importance of skilled legal representation well-versed in relevant state laws.

April 1, 2024

Carrington v. Richards (2017) & the Role of Participation in Custody Modification

In Carrington v. Richards (2017), a custody battle turned tragic due to the mother's failure to participate in court proceedings. Initially seeking full custody of their son, the father was awarded sole custody when the mother failed to appear at the final hearing. Despite subsequent attempts to overturn the decision, the mother's non-compliance with court orders and absence from proceedings hindered her case. Ultimately, the father's custody was affirmed, but the case took a devastating turn when the mother shot and wounded the father. This case underscores the importance of active participation in custody proceedings and the serious consequences of non-compliance.

March 29, 2024

Wiles v. Wiles (2017) & Modifying Alimony to Obtain a Longer Payment Period

In Wiles v. Wiles (2017), a divorced couple faced a dispute over alimony modification. Initially granted alimony for a limited duration, the ex-wife sought to extend the payments indefinitely and increase the monthly amount. Despite the ex-husband's opposition, the trial court granted the modification based on the ex-wife's claim of a change in circumstances. On appeal, the appellate division upheld the decision, emphasizing the need for a "material" change in circumstances to justify altering the alimony award, which would otherwise result in a harsh or inequitable outcome.

March 22, 2024

Hernandez v. Matiendo (2017) & the Impact of Previous Litigation on Visitation Modification

In family law, while the concept of "double jeopardy" may not apply, courts generally avoid relitigating settled issues without a change in circumstances. This principle was highlighted in the case of Hernandez v. Matiendo (2017), where a mother sought to modify a visitation order established in a Puerto Rican court. Despite her claims of sexual abuse, the Maryland court upheld the original order, emphasizing that the issue had already been litigated in Puerto Rico.

March 25, 2024

Mullen v. Robbins (2017) & How Settlement Agreements Impact Alimony Modification

In the case of Mullen v. Robbins (2017), a high-earning physician learned the importance of careful contract language when dealing with private agreements during divorce. Despite reaching a private agreement on alimony, the ex-wife sought modification in court citing a change in circumstances due to health issues. The trial court ruled in her favor, emphasizing the need for a "material change in circumstances" to modify private agreements. The appellate division upheld the ruling, highlighting the importance of precise contract language in determining modifiability.