Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Family Law Child Support topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

House approves child-support amendment limiting post-divorce second-job income

Utah House of Representatives · February 14, 1996
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The House passed SB49 (child-support amendments) 58–10, adopting a provision that generally limits child-support calculations to the equivalent of one full-time (40-hour) job at the time of divorce and narrows the circumstances in which subsequent second-job income can be recomputed into support obligations.

On Feb. 14, 1996, the Utah House approved Senate Bill 49, a child-support amendment carried on the floor by Representative Atkinson and sponsored in the Senate by Senator Lyle Hilliard. The bill changes how post-divorce income is treated in child-support calculations.

Under the measure, courts generally compute child support using the equivalent of one full-time (40-hour) job at the time of the original order. Income from a second job taken after the divorce would ordinarily not be used to increase child support unless the parent had a documented pattern of working more than 40 hours or holding multiple jobs prior to the original support order. Representative Atkinson described the change as a "snapshot" that fixes the income basis at the time of divorce and protects initiative for individuals who take additional work afterward.

Representative Howard offered and won a floor amendment inserting the words "and only if" on page 1, line 24 to clarify the circumstances in which pre-divorce overtime or multiple jobs may be considered. Sponsors and supporters said the change preserves incentives for post-divorce work while retaining protections for children when extra earnings were already a pre-existing trend used by the court.

Opponents warned the legislation risks micromanaging judicial discretion and could complicate enforcement. Representative Griffin Bradford urged caution about substituting legislative rules for judges' case-by-case assessments. Supporters, including Representative Atkinson, said the amendment is narrow and protects individuals who legitimately augment their income after the divorce.

The House called the question and, after debate and amendment, voted 58–10 to pass SB49; the bill will return to the Senate for further action.

Next steps: SB49 is returned to the Senate for consideration of House amendments.