Tips for Attorneys and Authorized Representatives

Attorneys and Authorized Representatives are invited to submit procedural and general substantive questions to OCSH by fax to 808-692-7114, Attention: OCSH Supervisor.  Questions and answers will be posted on this page.  Answers should be taken as information sharing and should not be taken as legal advice.  Any examples shown below illustrate basic principles, but the examples cannot  take into account all factors and  variables experienced in real life.  Be careful when applying the principles to specific factual circumstances. 

 

 

Question 11: I entered an appearance of counsel for a scheduled administrative child support hearing, but my client has since become my ex-client. I will not be representing him/her at the hearing. Do I need to file a motion to withdraw (as in court)? Or may I follow another procedure?

Answer: Title 5, Chapter 34, Hawaii Administrative Rules, does not require a motion before withdrawing as counsel with respect to an administrative child support hearing. However, having entered an appearance, all parties, the CSEA, and the OCSH will operate with the understanding that you represent the party until they receive notice otherwise. Please practice high standards of courtesy and fairness and give written notice as soon as the decision is made to all parties, the CSEA, and the OCSH. You may fax your notice to OCSH at 808-692-7114.

  

Question 10: I understand you do not apply the “Rules of Evidence”  that apply to courts.  What are your rules of evidence?  Do you have any?

 Answer: § 5-34-16, Hawaiʻi Administrative Rules, is the evidence rule that applies in OCSH hearings.  Click on this link to see Chapter 34:  Chapter 34, HAR

See also, HRS § 91-10.

If you wish to see a broader perspective, see the Revised Model State Administrative Procedure Act (2010), § 404: Rev. Model State APA (2010).

Additionally, American Law Reports, 36 ALR3rd 12, (originally published in 1971) provides extensive and updated case law on evidence in state administrative proceedings across the country.  Access to this document may be available through a legal research company. 

 

Question 9: Where can I find background information and commentaries to the amendments made to Chapter 576B, HRS, during the 2015 Legislative Session?

Answer: This is the link to the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, Uniform Interstate Family Support Act Amendments (2008):

NCCUSL 2008 UIFSA Amendments

The commentaries on the amendments provide excellent insights, rationale, and background to the original act and the amendments. 

This is the link for SB1066, 2015 Legislative Session:

SB 1066, SD1, HD1

Approximately 44 states have enacted the 2008 Amendments as of August 2, 2015.  Four states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have legislation pending.

 

Question 8: I heard that CSEA gets pay information from the Department of Labor and Industrial Relations (DLIR).  Please explain.

Answer: The CSEA may access information provided by employers to the DLIR on each employee’s pay per quarter.  This information may be helpful if you experienced difficulties in obtaining pay information on the other parent for the purpose of calculating child support.  Please understand, though, that not all employers report earnings to the DLIR, nor are all reports timely.

Question 7: Where can I find online information on military pay?

Answer: DFAS military pay charts

 Question 6: Following up on the answer to Question 5 below, what statutes of limitations apply in other states?

Answer: Great follow-up.  By asking the question you realize the party contesting the UIFSA registration must prove the limitations period under the law of both the issuing state and Hawaiʻi. Shared below are some citations to laws and cases that may help you conduct your research. The citations are not comprehensive of all limitations issues. Additionally, laws change over time, so your own, independent research must always be done to update and verify the laws that apply to your specific situations. 

 Hawaiʻi

            HRS §§ 657-5.5 and 657-5

            See, Lindsey v. Lindsey, 6 Haw. App. 201, 716 P.2d 496 (Haw. Ct. App. 1986)

Alabama

            See, Ala. Code Ann. § 6-2-32 (WestlawNext through Act 2015-183, 2015 Reg. Sess.)

            See, Mollohan v. Jelley, 925 So.2d 207 (Ala. Civ. App. 2005); Filer v. Owings, 975 So.2d 996 (Ala. Civ. App. 2007)

 Alaska

            See, Alaska Stat. Ann. §§ 25.27.225 and 09-10-040 (WestlawNext through 2015 1st Reg. Sess.)

            See, Koss v. Koss, 981 P.2d 106 (Alaska 1999)

 Arizona

            See, Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 25-503 (WestlawNext through Apr. 13, 2015 Reg. Sess.)

            See, Murren v. Murren, 191 Ariz. 335, 955 P.2d 973 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998)

Arkansas

            See, Ark. Code Ann. § 9-14-236 (WestlawNext through 2014 2nd Ex. Sess. and Nov. 4, 2014 election, including changes by the Ark. Code Rev. Comm. Received through 3/1/2015 and 2015 Reg. Sess. through April 8)

            See, Cole v. Harris, 330 Ark. 420, 953 S.W.2d 586 (Ark. 1997); Clemmons v. Office of Child Support Enforcement, 345 Ark. 330, 47 S.W.3d 227 (Ark. 2001)

California

            Cal. Fam. Code Ann. §§ 291 and 4502 (WestlawNext through Ch. 4 of 2015 Reg. Sess.)

             See, In re Marriage of Fellows, 39 Cal. 4th 179, 138 P. 3d 200, 46 Cal. Rptr. 3d 49 (Cal. 2006); see also, In re Marriage of Cutler, 79 Cal. App. 4th 460, 94 Cal. Rptr. 2d 156 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000)

 Colorado

            See, Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-52-102(2) (WestlawNext through May 15, 2015, 2015 First Reg. Sess.); see also, Col. Rules of Civ. Pro. Rule 54 (WestlawNext through 4/15/2015)

            See, In re Morris, 32 P.3d 625 (Colo. Ct. App. 2001); Robbins v. Goldberg, 185 P.3d 794 (Colo. 2008); Hauck v. Shuck, 143 Colo. 324, 353 P.2d 79 (Colo. 1960); Santarelli v. Santarelli, 839 P.2d 525 (Colo. Ct. App. 1992)

Connecticut

            See, Eagar v. Barron, 2 Conn. App. 468, 480 A.2d 576 (Conn. App. Ct. 1984); Fromm v. Fromm, 108 Conn. App. 376, 948 A.2d 328 (Conn. App. Ct. 2008)

Delaware

            See, Del. Code Ann. tit.13, § 517(c) (WestlawNext through 80 Laws 2015, ch. 38)

            Unpublished opinion, see, D M. T v. P J. A, 2002 WL 31445225 (Del. Fam. Ct. 2002)

District of Columbia

            See, D.C. Code Ann. § 15-101 (WestlawNext through June 24, 2015)

            See, Mayo v. Mayo, 508 A.2d 114 (D.C. 1986); Jasper v. Carter, 451 A.2d 46 (D.C. 1982); Lomax v. Spriggs, 404 A.2d 943 (D.C. 1979)

 Florida

            See, Fla. Stat. Ann. § 95.11 (WestlawNext through 2015 Reg. Sess.)

            See, Dean v. Dean, 665 So.2d 244, (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), rev. denied, 675 So.2d 926 (Fla. 1996); Gardiner v. Gardiner, 705 So.2d 1018 (Fla 5th DCA 1998); Bishop v. Bishop, 858 So.2d 1234 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)

 Georgia

            See, Ga. Code Ann. § 9-12-60(d) (WestlawNext through Acts 2 through 44, 200, 203, 207, 209, 211, 217, 225, 229, 236, 249, 252, 300, 304, 306, and 309, 2015 Reg. Sess.)

            See, Brown v. Brown, 269 Ga. 724, 506 S.E.2d 108 (Ga. 1998)

Idaho

            See, Idaho Code Ann. §§ 5-245, 10-1110, 10-1111 (WestlawNext through 2015 First Reg. and First Extraordinary Sessions)

            See. Peterson v. Peterson, 156 Idaho 85, 156 Idaho 85 (Idaho 2014); Thomas v. Worthington, 132 Idaho 825, 979 P.2d 1183 (Idaho 1999); Stonecipher v. Stonecipher, 131 Idaho 731, 963 P.2d 1168 (Idaho 1998)

 Illinois

            See, 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/12-108 (WestlawNext through P.A. 99-4, 2015 Reg. Sess.)

            See, In re Saputo, 363 Ill. App. 3d 1011, 845 N.E. 2d 901, 301 Ill. Dec. 36 (Ill. App. 3d 2006)

Indiana

            See, Ind. Code Ann. §§ 34-11-2-10; 34-11-2-12 (WestlawNext through June 28, 2015 First Reg. Sess.)

            See, In re Estate of Wilson v. Steward, 937 N.E.2d 826 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010); Skolak v. Skolak, 895 N.E.2d 1241 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008); In re S.J.J., 877 N.E.2d 826 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007); Thurman v. Thurman, 777 N.E.2d 41 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002)

Iowa

            See, Iowa Code Ann. § 614.1 (WestlawNext through 6/302015, 2015 Reg. Sess.)

            See, In re Griffey, 629 N.W.2d 832 (Iowa 2001); State v. Stafford, 584 N.W.2d 242 (Iowa 1998)

 Kansas

            See, Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-2403(a) and (b) and 60-2404 (WestlawNext through Ch. 53, HB 2111, 2015 Reg. Sess.)

            See, Hale v. Hale, 33 Kan. App. 2d 769, 108 P.3d 1012, (Kan. Ct. App. 2005); Summitt v. Summitt, 31 Kan. App. 2d 812, 74 P.3d 584 (Kan. Ct. App. 2003); Gardner v. Gardner, 22 Kan. App. 2d 314, 916 P.2d 43 (1996)

Kentucky

            See, Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 413.090 (WestlawNext through 2015 Reg. Sess.)

            See, Heisley v. Heisley, 676 S.W.2d 477 (Ken. Ct. App. 1984)

Louisiana

            See, La. Civ. Code Ann. Art. 3501.1 (WestlawNext through 2014 Reg. Sess.)

            See, State v. Lee, 728 So.2d 1042 (La. Ct. App. 1999); L.E.P.S. v. R.G.P., 59 So.3d 523 (La. Ct. App. 2011); State v. Peteet, 40 So.3d 1015 (La. Ct. App. 2010)

Maine

            See, Maine Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 14, § 752 (WestlawNext through Ch. 138, 2015 Reg. Sess.) 

See, Cloutier v. Turner, 34 A.3d 1146 (Me. 2012); Carter v. Carter, 611 A.2d 86 (Me. 1992)

Maryland

            See, Md. Code Ann. Cts. & Jud. Proc. Ann. § 5-102 (WestlawNext through June 1, 2015, 2015 Reg. Sess.)

            See, O’Hearn v. O’Hearn, 99 Md. App. 537, 638 A.2d 1192 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1994)

Massachusetts

            See, Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 260, § 20 and ch. 119A, § 13 (WestlawNext through Ch. 30, 2015 1st Ann. Sess.)

            See, Brown v. Greenlow, 330 Mass. 88, 111 N.E.2d 744 (Mass. 1953); Lombardi v. Lombardi, 68 Mass. App. Ct. 407, 862 N.E.2d 436 (Mass. Ct. App. 2007)

 Michigan

            See, Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 600.5809 (WestlawNext through P.A. 2015, No. 69, 80, 2015 Reg. Sess.)

            See, Rzadkowolski v. Pefley, 237 Mich. App. 405, 603 N.W.2d 646 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999); Wayne Cnty. Soc. Servs. Dir. ex rel. Yates v. Yates, 261 Mich. App. 152, 681 N.W.2d 5 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004)

Minnesota

            See, Minn. Stat. Ann. § 541.04 (WestlawNext through Chapters 1 to 15, 24, 43, 45, 46, 49, 51, 53, 58, 64, and 73, 2015 Reg. Sess. and Chapter 5, 2015 First Spec. Session)

            See, Gerber v. Gerber, 714 N.W.2d 702 (Minn. 2006); Froats v. Froats, 415 N.W.2d 445 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987); Bednarek v. Bednarek, 430 N.W.2d 9 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988)

Mississippi

            See, Miss. Code Ann. § 15-1-43 (WestlawNext through 2015 Reg. Sess.)

            See, Wilson v. Wilson, 464 So.2d 496 (Miss. 1985); Ladner v. Logan, 857 So.2d 764 (Miss. 2003)

Missouri

            See, Mo. Ann. Stat. § 516.350 (WestlawNext through 4/8/2015, 2015 First Reg. Sess.)

            See, Holt v. Holt, 635 S.W.2d 335 (Mo. 1982); Martin v. Martin, 334 S.W.3d 741 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011); In re Miller, 264 S.W.3d 664 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008); Coleman v. Coleman, 823 S.W.2d 6 (Mo. Ct. App. 1991)

Montana

            See, Mont. Code Ann. §27-2-201(3) (WestlawNext through 2/27/2015, 2015 Sess.)

            See, Momsen v. Momsen, 333 Mont. 463, 143 P.3d 450 (Mont. 2006); In re Hopper, 297 Mont. 225, 991 P.2d 960 (Mont. 1999)

Nebraska

            See, Neb. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 25-1515, 25-1420, 42-371 (WestlawNext through 2014 Reg. Sess.)

            See, Clarke v. Clarke, 139 Neb. 242, 297 N.W. 91 (Neb. 1941); Miller v. Miller, 153 Neb. 890, 46 N.W.2d 618 (Neb. 1951); Nowka v. Nowka, 157 Neb. 57, 58 N.W.2d 600 (Neb. 1953); Eliker v. Eliker, 206 Neb. 764, 295 N.W.2d 268 (Neb. 1980); Freis v. Harvey, 5 Neb. App. 679, 563 N.W.2d 363 (Neb. Ct. App. 1997); Fox v. Whitbeck, 280 Neb. 75, 783 N.W.2d 774 (Neb. 2010)

Nevada

            See, Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 125B.050 (WestlawNext through 2014 Spec. Sess.)

            See, State v. Bagley, 114 Nev. 788, 963 P.2d 498 (Nev. 1998)

 New Hampshire

            See, N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 508:4 (WestlawNext through Ch. 48, 2015 Reg. Sess.)

            See, Griffin v. Avery, 120 N.H. 783, 424 A.2d 175 (N.H. 1980)

New Jersey

            See, N. J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:14-5 (WestlawNext through 2015 Leg., act 61)

            Unpublished opinion: Adler v. Adler, 2009 WL 276763 (N. J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2009)

New Mexico

            See, N. M. Stat. Ann. § 37-1-2 (WestlawNext through 2015 First Reg. Sess.)

            See, Britton v. Britton, 100 N.M. 424, 671 P.2d 1135 (N.M. 1983)

 New York

            See, N.Y.C.P.L.R. Ann. §211(e) (McKinney, WestlawNext through L. 2015) (for orders entered from 8/17/1987)

            See, Zielinski v. Zielinski, 15 A.D.3d 575, 790 N.Y.S.2d 516 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005); Shavit v. Shavit, 279 A.D.2d 180, 719 N.Y.S.2d (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

 North Carolina

            See, N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 1-47 (WestlawNext through Ch. 38, 2015 Reg. Sess.)

            See, Belcher v. Averette, 136 N.C. App. 803, 526 S.E.2d 663 (N.C. Ct. App. 2000)

North Dakota

            See, N.D. Cent. Code Ann. §§ 28-01-15 and 28-20-35 (WestlawNext through 2013 and a portion of 2015 Reg. Sess.)

            See, Ruscheinsky v. Ulrich, 612 N.W.2d 283 (N.D. 2000); Fuson v. Schaible, 494 N.W.2d 593 (N.D. 1992)

Ohio

            See, Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2329.07 (WestlawNext through 2015 Files 1-7)

            See, Myers v. Myers, 2002-Ohio-405, 147 Ohio App. 3d 85, 768 N.E.2d 1201 (Oh. Ct. App. 2002); Smith v. Smith, 168 Ohio St. 447, 156 N.E.2d 113 (1959); and In re Estate of Mason, 109 Ohio St. 3d 532, 849 N.E.2d 998 (2006)

Oklahoma

            See, Okla. Stat. Ann. Civ. tit. 12, § 95A.10. (WestlawNext through Ch. 338, 2015 First Reg. Sess.)

            See, State v. Tarrant, 129 P.3d 173 (Okla. Ct. Civ. App. 2005); Thornton v. Thornton, 247 P.3d 1180 (Okla. 2011)

Oregon

            See, Or. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 18.180 (WestlawNext through Ch. 193, 2015 Reg. Sess.)

Pennsylvania

            See, 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. §§ 5525(a)(5) (effective 8/19/2002) and 5527 (WestlawNext through Act 2015-4)

            Prior to 8/19/2002, see, Bullock v. Bullock, 432 Pa. Super. 643, 639 A.2d 826 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1994); Miller v. Bistransky, 451 Pa. Super. 433, 679 A.2d 1300 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1996)

 Rhode Island

            See, R.I. Gen. Laws Ann. §§ 9-1-17, 15-5-6.2, and 15-5-6.3 (WestlawNext through Chap. 41, January 2015 Sess.)

            See, Silva v. Silva, 122 R.I. 178, 404 A.2d 829 (R.I. 1979)

South Carolina

            Compare, Strickland v. Strickland, 375 S.C. 76, 650 S.E.2d 465 (S.C. 2007) (equitable estoppel, not laches, was a defense to a claim for enforcement of alimony; court did not apply a specific statute of limitations on judgments)

South Dakota

            See, S. D. Codified Laws Ann. § 15-2-6 (WestlawNext through 2014 Reg. Sess., 2014 Gen. Elec., and Sup. Ct. Rule 14-10)

            See, Hershey v. Hershey, 467 NW.2d 484 (S.D. 1991)

            Compare, In re Foss, 637 N.W.2d 30 (S.D. 2001); but see, 2015 S.D. Laws Ch. 148 (SB37) §§ 604 and 607(a)(7)

 Tennessee

            See, Tenn. Code Ann. § 36-2-321 (WestlawNext through April 6, 2015, 2015 First Reg. Sess.)

Texas

            See, Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §§ 157.005(b) (WestlawNext through Ch. 46, 2015 Reg. Sess.), 157.263 (WestlawNext through Ch. 46, 2015 Reg. Sess.), and §159.104 (WestlawNext through Ch. 46, 2015 Reg. Sess.); see also, and Tex. Civ. Prac. and Rem. Code Ann. §34.001 (WestlawNext through Ch. 46, 2015 Reg. Sess.).

            See, In the Interest of D.W.G., 391 S.W.3d 154, 160 (Tex. App. 2012); see also, Isaacs v. Isaacs, 338 S.W.3d. 184, 187 (Tex. App. 2011).

 Utah

            See, Utah Code Ann. § 78B-5-202(6) (WestlawNext through 2014 Gen. Sess.)

            See, Veysey v. Veysey, 339 P.3d 131 (Utah Ct. App. 2014)

 Vermont

            See, Vt. Stat. Ann. § 606 (WestlawNext through law No. 25, 2015-2016 First Sess.)

            See, Hixson v. Plump, 167 Vt. 202, 704 A.2d 1159 (Vt. 1997);

 Virginia

            See, Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-251 (WestlawNext through 2014 Reg. and Sp. Sess. and 2015 Reg. Sess. cc. 1, 7, 8, 39, 61, 67 and 89)

            See, Adcock v. Virginia, 282 Va. 383, 719 S.E.2d 304 (Va. 2011); see also, Robdau v. Virgina, 35 Va. App. 128, 543 S.E.2d 602 (V. App. 2001)

 Washington

            See, Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 4.16.020(3) (WestlawNext through May 18, 2015, 2015 Reg. Sess.)

            See, In re Marriage of Wysling, unpublished opinion, 158 Wash. App. 1039 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010)

West Virginia

            See, W. Va. Code Ann. § 38-3-318 (WestlawNext through 2015 Reg. Sess.)

 Wisconsin

            See, Wis. Stat. Ann. § 893.40 (WestlawNext through Act 20, 2015)

            See, Hamilton v. Hamilton, 261 Wis. 2d 458, 661 N.W.2d 832 (Wis. 2003)

 Wyoming

            See, Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 1-17-307 and 1-16-503 (WestlawNext through 2014 Budget Sess.)

            See, Hollingshead v. Hollingshead, 942 P.2d 1104 (Wyo. 1997); see also, Hammond v. Hammond, 14 P.3d 199 (Wyo. 2000) 

Question 5: What statutes of limitations apply to foreign judgments registered (or that seek registration) in Hawaiʻi under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA), Chapter 576B, Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes (HRS)?

Answer: See, HRS §§ 576B-607(a)(7) and 576B-604.  These sections place the burden on the party contesting the registration to prove the defense.  The longer of the limitations period under the law of the issuing state or the law of Hawai’i for the enforcement of child support judgments will be applied.  See, HRS §§ 576B-607(a)(7) and 576B-604.  Therefore, the party contesting the registration must prove the limitation periods under the laws of both the issuing state and Hawaiʻi.

Question 4: An appeal from an administrative child support order has been or will be filed.  Can you give some tips to appellants  (and appellees)?

Tip #1: Know the difference between a CSEA order and an OCSH order.  Administrative child support orders may be signed by either the CSEA Administrator (CSEA orders) or a Hearings Officer of the OCSH (OCSH orders).  The CSEA Administrator signs orders when neither party timely requests a hearing on a proposed administrative order.  CSEA orders, therefore, arise from proposed administrative orders that were not timely contested by either party.  An OCSH Hearings Officer signs orders when a party timely requests a hearing on a proposed administrative order.  OCSH orders, therefore, arise from proposed administrative orders that were timely contested by a party.

    If the appealed order is a CSEA order, the OCSH had no involvement in the processing of the CSEA order, so the OCSH will have no record relating to the CSEA order.  Therefore, if you obtain an “Order for Certification and Transmission of Record” that orders only the OCSH to certify and transmit the record on appeal, the OCSH will  have no record to certify and transmit, and the order will be ineffective.  The CSEA should be ordered to certify and transmit the record on appeal.

    On the other hand, if the appealed order is an OCSH order, the OCSH should be ordered to certify and transmit the record on appeal.  The CSEA will not have the official record of the hearing, so an order that requires only the CSEA to certify and transmit the record on appeal will be ineffective.     

Tip #2:  Obtain an Order for Certification and Transmission of Record that allows for at least 40 days for the certification and transmission of the record on appeal.  Rule 72(d)(1) Hawaiʻi Family Court Rules requires the Family Court clerk to direct the “official or body whose…order…is appealed from…to certify and transmit…[the record] to the family court within 20 days of the date of the order or within such further time as may be allowed by the court.” 

    Preparation of a transcript from the audio recording of the hearing can take more than 20 days.  In addition, appellant will need time to arrange for and pay a court reporter, and notify OCSH so the audio recording can be transmitted to the court reporter.  Additionally, the court reporter will then need to transmit the transcript back to OCSH, and OCSH will then need to file the transcript with the Family Court.  So, 20 days is usually impractical.  A minimum of 40 days for most cases is much more practical. 

Tip #3: Follow your briefing schedule.  The Family Court will issue a briefing schedule.  Follow it.

Tip #4: Appellant must pay costs.  Rule 72(h), Hawaiʻi Family Court Rules, states:

(h) Costs. No appeal shall be heard, and the
appeal shall be dismissed, unless the appellant shall
pay all costs, if any, including costs for the
transcribing of the transcripts, and furnish every
bond or other security, if any, required by law.

 

The transcript will not be prepared if the appellant does not pay for the transcript.  The appeal may be dismissed if the appellant fails to pay all costs, including costs for preparing the transcript.

Tip #5: The OCSH will file and mail to the parties a “NOTICE REGARDING CERTIFICATION AND TRANSMISSION OF TRANSCRIPTS” after it receives the Order for Certification and Transmission of Record on appeal.  The notice will inform the parties of next steps regarding the preparation and filing of transcripts.

 

Question 3: My client will be appealing an administrative child support order.  What rules must be followed?  

Answer: Start with Rules 72 and 72.1, Hawaiʻi Family Court Rules. 

 

Question 2: We would like to calculate the average monthly income from some pay statements to take into account some ups and downs in earnings, but the pay statements show a pay lag.  If the pay statements are used, how should the income be averaged? 

Answer: The table below shows a 5-day lag in the pay date from the last day of each pay period.  The wage earner is paid twice a month. 

Paycheck date

1/5

1/20

2/5

2/20

3/5

3/20

Pay period

12/16-12/31

1/1-1/15

1/16-1/31

2/1-2/15

2/16-2/28

3/1-3/15

Pay

$2,000

$2,500

$2000

$2,500

$2000

$2350

As of the March 20th paycheck, the 6th paycheck out of 24 paychecks for the year, total earnings were $13,350.  $13,350 ÷ 6 = $2,225 per paycheck.  The worker is paid twice a month, so $2,225 x 2 =  a monthly average of $4,450.  The same result, $4,450 per month, is achieved by multiplying $2,225 by 24 (pay checks) and dividing by 12 (months).

Some parties have argued that the average should be $13,350 ÷ 2.5 months = $5,340 because the last pay period is 3/1-3/15.  However, that argument fails to take into account the first pay period, 12/16-12/31.  If all pay periods are counted, the divisor would still be 6, the same divisor used when counting paycheck dates.  So the monthly average from the pay statements under this example is $4,450, not $5,340. 

This answer cannot and does not take into account all factors and variables in life, so the monthly income for your particular child support case may be calculated differently. 

Question 1: My client needs a continuance because she/he will be out of town and won’t be available by phone on the day of the hearing.  What do I need to do to get a continuance?

Answer: You may submit a Request to Reschedule Hearing to OCSH.  We prefer that you use the form available on this website.  Click here for the Forms page.  An OCSH worker will contact the CSEA representative, and the other party if the subject of the hearing is more than enforcement, to see if there are objections.  No objection?  The request will likely be granted.  Objection?  The request might not be granted.  The Hearings Officer appointed for the hearing will weigh the request and the objections and make a decision on the request.

If both parents agree they may submit a joint request.