Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Family Law topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate refines child‑support calculation, adopts bill to set 40‑hour baseline and allow limited consideration of consistent overtime
Summary
Senate Bill 49, clarifying that a 'full‑time' workweek presumptively equals 40 hours and permitting courts to consider consistent overtime during the marriage, passed to third reading after extensive debate about fairness to noncustodial parents and judicial practice. Amendment to remove 'reasonably anticipated' language failed.
Senators voted to advance Senate Bill 49, a child‑support statute clarification sponsored by Senator Lyle Hilliard, after protracted debate about how courts should treat overtime and anticipated future earnings in calculating support.
Hilliard explained the bill seeks to resolve conflicting judicial interpretations by clarifying that the "equivalent to a full‑time job" presumption will be 40 hours a week while allowing the court to consider consistent overtime worked during the marriage. He said the change was intended to prevent extremes: some judges read the existing law to base support on whatever hours a person later worked, while others stick strictly to 40 hours.
The floor saw a lengthy exchange on whether judges should be able to consider income a parent "reasonably anticipated" to receive in the immediate future. Senator Hall proposed an amendment to bracket and remove the phrase "or it is reasonably anticipated that in the immediate future," arguing it injected uncertainty; that amendment failed on a roll call. Opponents of the amendment and supporters of the bill argued judges are already able to manage contingencies by calling parties back to court and that the measure would reduce inconsistent outcomes.
Concerns voiced on the floor included impacts on construction and other seasonal workers who rely on overtime (Senator Wharton), fairness to noncustodial parents who later increase earnings, and practical judicial processes. Senator Hilliard and supporters said the bill clarifies practice and gives judges discretion while protecting children’s support.
Procedural outcome: The chamber called the question and passed the motion "Shall Senate Bill 49 pass to the third reading calendar?" by roll call; the clerk recorded 27 ayes, 1 nay and 1 absent.
Next steps: With passage to third reading, the bill will return to the floor for final consideration or further amendment on a later day.
