2023 Family Law Update – In Person Event

Join us for a series of in-person events this February from Wichita to Kansas City, where you’ll hear about the 2023 updates to the Bradley Software Child Support Calculator, important tips on how to get the most out of Bradley Software, and a look at the future of Bradley Software in 2023, 2024, and beyond.

These are interactive events and we encourage you to bring your questions and invite your staff to enjoy networking time with colleagues.

Food and beverages will be provided. Please be on the lookout for your invitation which will include more registration information coming soon.

February 6-10, 2023 Click and select the evening and location of your choice to register.

Monday, 2/6
4:30 PM to 6:30 PM
Wichita, KS
Tuesday, 2/7
4 PM to 6:30 PM
Topeka, KS
Wednesday, 2/8
4 PM to 6:30 PM
Overland Park, KS
Thursday, 2/9
4 PM to 6:30 PM
Kansas City, MO

Attendees will be entered to win a $250 Amazon gift card!

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

2023 Annual Program Updates

The 2023 update for all Bradley Software product(s) will be available soon.

Please be on the lookout for the release notification at the end of December. These updates should be installed promptly to ensure your calculations comply with all changes for the upcoming year.

For Kansas specifically – the update includes:

  • Updated any changes to federal and KS state marginal tax rates and brackets
  • Updated RPP index (Cost Of Living) – due out on Dec 15th
  • Updated poverty level – not due out until around January 12th … so it will mean an update to the KS program in mid-late January.

If you have questions, please contact us at orders@bradleysoftware.com or call us at 913-491-4476.

Thank you for choosing Bradley Software!

Posted in Child Support Guidelines, Family Law | Tagged | Leave a comment

2021 American Rescue Plan Act

On March 11, 2021, the 2021 American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) was signed into law. This law made two changes that are significant for Kansas Child Support Calculations. It is important to note that these provisions of ARPA (and therefore the changes impacting the Kansas Guidelines) are applicable only for tax filings for the 2021 tax year. Although there is talk on capitol hill of the desire to extend these credits indefinitely, until further changes are enacted into law, the ARPA provisions expire on Jan 1, 2022.

The 2021 Bradley Kansas Child Support program is impacted by the 2021 American Rescue Plan Act because of some wording in the guidelines that state “Current tax law should be reviewed for any potential changes”. However in Missouri there is no such language and therefore the Missouri Child Support program currently requires no adjustment.

Child Tax Credit (CTC)
The 2021 ARPA made some significant changes to the child tax credit.

Per Child Credit Increase – The tax credit replaced the $2,000 per child credit for children younger than 17 with two different credits:

– Children younger than 6 (at years end) are $3,600 per child.

– Children from 6 to under 18 (at years end) are $3,000 per child

Phase Out Changes – Like the 2017 Tax Cut and Jobs Act (2017 TCJA), the credit is gradually phased-out for higher income parents, beginning at the following Adjusted Gross income thresholds:

Tax Filing StatusThreshold
Joint / surviving spouse$150,000
Head of Household$112,500
All other$75,000

The credit is reduced by $50 for each $1,000 of the parent’s AGI over the threshold. The reduction in the credit amount is limited to the lesser of:

– the amount by which the CTC was increased under ARPA ($1,000 for each qualifying child;$1,600 for a child under six); or

– five percent of the difference in the phase-out thresholds between the 2017 TCJA and the ARPA for the same filing status.

Refundability of the credit – The Child Tax credit is now fully refundable (after the federal tax liability is satisfied) and is no longer limited to $1400 per eligible child but is instead limited to the total amount of the credit after the reduction has been applied.

Child / Dependent Care Tax Credit (CCTC)  

The applicable percentage of childcare costs has changed to begin at 50% (it was 35% with the 2017 TCJA).

Applicable Percentage – The percentage drops by 1% for every $2,000 of AGI beyond $125,000 until it reaches a percentage of 20%. The percentage is then maintained at 20% until the AGI exceeds $400,000 at which point it resumes the 1% drop for every $2,000 in AGI beyond $400,000 until it reaches 0.

Dollar Limitations – The dollar limit on the amount of the credit can now not exceed the following:

– $8,000 if there is 1 qualifying child with respect to the taxpayer for such taxable year, or

– $16,000 if there are 2 or more qualifying children with respect to the taxpayer for such taxable year

Refundability of the credit – The Child Care Tax Credit is now fully refundable.
The refund amount is the amount of CCTC remaining after satisfying the federal tax liability, with a maximum refundable amount equal to the amount of the credit (applying the new $8,000/$16,000-dollar limits).


The Kansas Child Support Calculator has been updated to reflect both the 2017 TCJA and the 2021 ARPA tax codes. During 2021, when you open a case that was saved before the release of the 2021 version, the Calculator will initially use the 2021 ARPA (because that is the current tax code).

However, for convenience of our subscribers who wish to compare the results under the 2017 TCJA and under the 2021 ARPA, we have implemented an optional drop-down menu, enabling you to choose which tax version to apply.  The drop-down menu can be found on the Optional Adjustments tab in the program beside the entry for the Section E Tax Adjustment entry.

Posted in Child Support, Child Support Guidelines, Taxes | Leave a comment

Diagnosing Differences in Child Support Worksheets

We have had numerous calls in the past where the customer says that the Child Support worksheet produced by our program in their office does not match what is on the worksheet sent to them by opposing counsel who also uses our program. The caller did not know how to determine what has made the two worksheets different.

The best way to do this is to ask the opposing counsel for a copy of the Client Data Report. This report is available on the Worksheet tab of the program and is listed at the bottom on the left. It is labeled, “Client Data”. This report is a listing of all inputs to the program along with the suggestions that the program produces.

If you have both Client Data reports, you can go through them side-by-side, entry-by-entry and you can clearly see where the differences are in the inputs. Then you can discuss why there are differences and come to an agreement as to what the values should be.

The other factor in differences in worksheets could be the version of the program. At the bottom of every report generated by the program is the version number. If those do not match between your worksheet and that of the opposing counsel, then one (or both) of you have an outdated version of the program. It is simple to learn what the current version released is: Open our website – www.bradleysoftware.com – and navigate to the SUPPORT menu and then click on UPDATES. This page lists the current version for all of our programs.

Please note that this process works for diagnosing the Section E tax adjustment as well. This complex calculation performed by the Kansas Child support Calculator is dependent on a variety of inputs. If your inputs match those of the opposing counsel and both of you are running the latest version, then the suggested amount on the Client Data report will match. If the suggestion matches, then check to see if the entry matches the suggestion. For Section E tax adjustments there is a report named “Tax Adjustments” on the Worksheet tab in the program that shows all of the calculation steps in determining the suggested Section E Tax Adjustment. Comparing your Tax Adjustment report with that of the opposing counsel will show you where these differences are.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Kansas Maintenance Twists

The 2020 iteration of the Kansas Child Support Guidelines adopted a couple of new twists on maintenance.

First, is the factor of when the maintenance order was entered — before or after January 1, 2019.  If the order was prior to 1/1/19, the maintenance paid is a deductible expense to the payor; taxable as Income to the recipient. Otherwise, it is neither deductible nor taxable.

Second, the Guidelines now provide for adjusting the amount of the maintenance by a percentage representing the marginal tax rate of each party (as to their side of the transaction) or a flat 25% by agreement.

Then, when you enter a maintenance amount, say $100, the program will increase the amount by the “marginal rate” adjustment (say 22% for Dad; 19% for Mom) and deduct $122 from Dad’s child support income while adding $119 to Mom’s CSI.

Posted in Child Support, Child Support Guidelines | Leave a comment


The residence of a child is a key component in the calculation of Kansas Child support, but the guidelines actually use the Federal tax law criteria for defining residence. Normally, Federal law uses as a child’s residence the place where the child lives, but it can also be the parent with the greater Annual Gross Income.

Kansas Guidelines incorporate shared residency concepts, but the Children screen makes the user to choose “Mother” or “Father” as the resident parent. Why doesn’t the program offer “both” or “shared” as choices under the “Resides with” item?

As one subscriber recently observed, as soon as you put in work-related child care costs in a “time shared equally” situation, you get a different child support amount depending on which parent you selected as “Resides With.” 

In the case posed by the subscriber, the parties alternated weeks, so they had a true 50-50 sharing. Each parent also paid some child care costs. He then observed “But you get very different child support numbers depending upon whom you list under “Resides With,” concluding “…that doesn’t make sense.”

The issue arises from the fact that Kansas law (i.e. the Child Support Guidelines) includes the concept of “Shared Custody;” a concept not recognized by federal law. The difference between the Kansas shared custody concept and the Federal concept of custody is not addressed in the Kansas Child Support Guidelines, but it impacts the application of the Child Care Tax Credit which reduces the work related child care costs of the custodial parent in Section D.9 of the Kansas Child Support Worksheet.

As the IRS explains in Publication 501, pg.13:

Sometimes, a child meets the relationship, age, residency, support, and joint return tests to be a qualifying child of more than one person. Although the child is a qualifying child of each of these persons, only one person can actually treat the child as a qualifying child to take all of the following tax benefits (provided the person is eligible for each benefit).

1. The child tax credit or credit for other dependents.

2. Head of household filing status.

3. The credit for child and dependent care expenses.

4. The exclusion from income for dependent care benefits.

5. The earned income credit.

Therefore, the Bradley Kansas Child Support Calculator program, to conform to both Kansas and Federal rules, forces the user to choose between the two parents (as to residence) in applying the Child Care Expense Credit adjustment (a Federal concept) and does not allow “both” or “shared” as choices.

Posted in Child Support, Child Support Guidelines | Leave a comment

Windows 7 – End of Support

On January 14th, 2020 Windows 7 will reach the end of the extended support period. This means that Microsoft will no longer issue feature and security updates for Windows 7. It also means that 3rd party software companies, like Bradley Software, will no longer update their programs for Windows7 nor will they support their programs running on Windows 7. This does not mean that you cannot use Windows 7 after this date, it merely means that it won’t get updated, which could put you at a higher risk of being hacked or getting a virus of some kind.

Here is a link to a Microsoft web page that discusses this information:


We have recently seen a number of customers who are getting new computers or upgrading to Windows 10, which is the latest and most popular version Windows. Here are some tips to know about before you do your upgrade or install your new PC.

  • Always run a backup of the old computer BEFORE you do anything. It is amazing how quickly things can go wrong and without a backup you might just lose everything!
  • You can transfer your Bradley Software license from the old computer to the new one without contacting tech support. But you must do this before you get rid of the old computer.
    Click here for a link to the instructions
  • Don’t forget to move any input files for your Bradley programs from the old to the new computer.
    Click here for a link to the instructions
  • If you don’t get things taken care of before you decommission the old computer, just contact techsupport@bradleysoftware.com and we can assist.

25+ years of providing trusted, high quality family law software solutions!

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment


The 2019 Bradley Kansas Child Support Calculator includes the federal child care tax credit (CCTC) worksheet as a part of the program. The CCTC worksheet calculates the federal child care tax credit and automatically applies it to the worksheet based on A) the amount of child care costs paid by the custodial parent for eligible children and B) the parent’s adjusted gross income.

Prior to 2013, Kansas Child Support Guidelines (Administrative order 261) included both the federal CCTC and the Kansas CCTC (which was a percentage of the federal CCTC). In 2012, however, the Kansas Legislature repealed the KS CCTC for tax years beginning in 2013. So, on Jan 1, 2016, Kansas Child Support Guidelines were changed (Administrative order 284 and subsequent Administrative Order 287) to include only the federal CCTC as an element in child support. A reference in those guidelines stated:

“IV.D.5.ed.: Note that the amounts and percentages used in this section may change from time to time due to changes in federal and/or Kansas tax law.  Current tax law should be reviewed for any potential changes.”

This language basically leaves it up to you to figure out if the KS CCTC applies or not in a given year.

A customer called recently to ask us if the KS CCTC could one again be included in our program. In 2017 the KS Legislature re-enacted the KS CCTC for tax years beginning 2018. (See notice at https://www.ksrevenue.org/taxnotices/notice17-07.pdf).

Therefore, in the August 2019 update of the Bradley Kansas Child Support Calculator we have re-implemented the KS CCTC. The 2019 program calculates the KS CCTC at 18.75% of the federal CCTC. A new stipulation of the KS CCTC is that the credit cannot exceed the amount of KS tax due. Since the program already calculates the KS tax due based on the entered AGI; it then compares the two values and uses the smaller amount as the KS CCTC.

We note that in the 2020 proposed update to the KS Child support Guidelines, the KS Child Support Guidelines Committee left in the language that indicates that the user should review current tax law to determine if changes might apply. Given the recent statistics that show a vast number of new filings for child support in Kansas involve one or fewer lawyers, the committee could assist the non-lawyer public by including the currently in-force KS CCTC tax rules in the CCTC provision section of the Guidelines. (Note: The 2020 appendix is being changed to an on-line only text so that it can be updated easily without change to the core of the guidelines, thereby circumventing the lengthy process of a publishing new Administrative Order to update the Guidelines).

Posted in Child Support, Child Support Guidelines, Taxes | Leave a comment


In our previous Blog, we addressed most of the changes in the Advisory Committee’s proposed changes to the 2019 Kansas Child Support Guidelines, but we saved a few for the following notes.

As previously mentioned, the 2019 revision proposals fall generally into two broad categories, the first of which was covered in some detail in the previous blog.

  1. General Comments – Changes to Particular Guideline Topics
  2. Omissions – Typos and Errata

We turn now to the last proposal category.

OMISSIONS and CONFLICTS. In Sec.III.B.7.b. Equal Parenting Time Formula, we find the following proviso: “Where the equal parenting time formula is utilized, the parent receiving the equal parenting time child support amount shall be responsible for the payment of the reasonable direct expenses listed in Section II.A.a.1.

This new proviso conflicts with other provisions of Section II.B.7.b, which provide other, additional criteria to be considered beyond which of the parents receives the EPT CS amount, INCLUDING such additional criteria as AN AGREEEMENT OF THE PARENTS.}

IV.C.3(a). Spousal Maintenance Paid (Line C.3.)

Maintenance actually paid under an Agreement or court order entered before 12/31/18 may be deducted online C.3. This remains true without regard to the date of the payment. The TCJA only affected the tax deductibility (and taxation) of the payment. It did not, as some have thought, abolish alimony as an element of divorce proceedings.

And then we have a new proposal which mixes several IRS provisions and the TCJA of 12/23/17 and offers an alternative maintenance deduction of 25%.

  • “For orders entered after Decmber31, 2018, as a result of the 2017 Tax Costs And Jobs Act Tax Reform, the amount of spousal maintenance paid pursuant to a court-approved separation agreement or court order, income for child support purposes by be calculated by taking the total maintenance awarded, increasing it by the federal and state marginal tax rate of the payor, and subtracting the total from payor income while also taking the total maintenance awarded, increasing it by the marginal tax rate of the payee, and adding this amount to the payee’s income

Here, we note that there can be a substantial difference between spousal maintenance paid and total maintenance awarded. As presently worded, the paragraph implies that total maintenance awarded should be counted as child support income even if not paid.

If the parties agree, the spousal maintenance paid may be “increased by an average tax rate of 25% and the amount is entered online C.3.

Payments for arrearages of maintenance shall not be deducted (?!?). {Once again, no explanation is offered}

Neither the genesis nor the rationale of the 25% alternative deduction (which, it appears, could exceed the amount actually paid) is revealed in the new proposal.

Other Irritations

Although it’s all too easy to introduce unintentional and erroneous “corrections” using “auto-correction” and “spell-check” utilities, that’s no excuse for failure to proofread your work, particularly when it comes to statutory materials.

Example: the phrase, “The cost to the parent or parent’s household to provide for health, dental, orthodontic, or optometric insurance coverage for the minor child or children is to be added to the gross child support obligation” – fails to say “added where?” (Guidelines Section IV.D.4.a)

Probably the most confusing issue we saw was the inconsistency in how the sections are numbered, the order of the sections (inconsistent with the revised worksheet) and many incorrect references to the line numbers on the worksheet. It took us quite a while to make sense of it and we had to assume some things that we hope others won’t have to assume in the final draft.

There is still no explanation of how to alternate the tax exemptions. There is discussion about the fact that you can do this, but no listing of methods by which this can be accomplished. Since a child support worksheet is usually only filed/modified once every few years, the worksheet outcome will be in place for years. How does one alternate the deduction each year and use an alternated tax every year?

A section of concise definitions is missing, and many new terms appear in the proposed guidelines without any guidance as to their exact meaning. Neither the table of contents nor the index at the back of the proposal have been updated and often do not refer to the correct sections.

There is no mention of the Kansas Child Care Tax Credit, only the federal credit. See KS Revenue Dept memo – https://www.ksrevenue.org/taxnotices/notice17-07.pdf

Lastly, the examples are very basic. We feel that the examples should at least cover the additional provisions in the proposed guidelines of things like the Ability To Pay, or the Social Security Disability Payments, and how those items are combined with EPT.

You Can Help!

Comments on the proposed revisions are being sought from the practicing Bar, as well as the general public and parents (both residential and non-residential) by means of an on-line-only survey form in which you can indicate your degree of agreement (1 through 5) with each proposed revision, as well as submit your comments.

Take the survey at https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/2019childsupportguidelines, adding comments as you wish; just be sure to submit the survey by 5 PM on August 10, 2019.

Get your own copy of the 111-page proposed Guidelines at http://www.kscourts.org/rules/Rules_Open_for_Public_Comment/CSG.proposed%20changes.2018.2019%20review%20(002).pdf

We hope the foregoing discussion is of some help in keeping the Guidelines (and permutations thereof) a little clearer.  Once again, thanks for you continued interest and support!!

Stay tuned – We’ve got a hunch more “refinements” are on the way!

Brad & Randy

Posted in Child Support Guidelines, Uncategorized | Leave a comment


Of all the blogs we’ve posted, this (the 67th) may be the most consequential.

Within the 100+ pages of proposed revisions for the 2019 Kansas Child Support Guidelines, are some of the most sweeping revisions seen since the adoption of the original Guidelines (Administrative Order No. 59) on October 1, 1987.

The 2019 revision proposals fall generally into four categories, which will be discussed in two separate blogs:

A. General Comments and Changes to Particular Guideline Topics
B. Omissions, Typos and Errata


In addition to the many edits proposed, several new calculations are required, and the child support schedules (Appendix I) have been modified with changes ranging from a support reduction of $138 per month to an increase of $37 per month per child.

There are also some significant omissions. Which we will cover in a subsequent Blog.

Without reiterating here each edit to Administrative Order 287, it is important that the Guidelines user carefully review the proposed Guidelines and consider the deletions (marked with strike though text) and additions (marked with underlined text), noting that underlining may have been used for emphasis in the prior Guidelines, as well as for additions that are new.

One of the issues we ran into while reviewing the changes was the fact that the organization and numbering of the sections was inconsistent and, in many cases, did not correctly correspond to the revised worksheet. Our recommendation to anyone reviewing these changes is that they pay close attention to the sections and where they actually relate on the worksheet.

The following comments address a few of the areas that seem most significant for the typical user – just a few.



Sec. III.B.7. The phrase “or nearly equal” has been deleted in referring to parents who share the children’s time. It now appears that only “equal” sharing of time is significant.

Sec. IV.B. Reasonable Business Expenses do not include the QBI (Qualified Business Income deduction); the “20%” deduction from self-employed and small business income allowable in determining child support income. Sec. II.E.2

The “Imputed Income” section Sec. II.F. is now renamed “Ability to Earn Income” and details specific circumstances of both parents which the Court must take into consideration, and mandates written findings in support of the imputation of income. Sec II.F.1.

The child support worksheet has been revised in ways which require the user to “show their work” in calculating the requested adjustments and may be confusing.

Sec III.B.7.b – Equal Parenting Time – Where the Equal Parenting Time formula is used, the Parent receiving the EPT differential CS amount shall be responsible for the payment of the reasonable direct expenses listed in Section II.A. However, step 3 of the EPT worksheet requires the selection of which parent is designated to pay the direct expenses. This creates a conundrum – you cannot select which parent pays the direct expenses until you know which one receives the EPT amount but the EPT amount is determined by who pays the direct expenses. If the new stipulation that the lower obligated parent always pays the direct expenses, then why have the decision in step 3 of the EPT worksheet?

{Note, however, that this new proviso also conflicts with other provisions of Section II.B.7.b, which provide other, additional criteria to be considered beyond which parent receives the EPT support differential payment, INCLUDING AN AGREEEMENT OF THE PARENTS.

The changes to Equal Parenting Time still do not fully address the situation where the EPT amount becomes negative. This can occur when the lower obligated parent is not the parent paying the direct expenses. Of all the support contacts we receive this is one the most common questions.

IV.C.3(a). Spousal Maintenance Paid (Line C.3.)

Maintenance actually paid under an Agreement or court order entered before 12/31/18 may be deducted online C.3.

And then, we have the following new proviso, which mixes several IRS provisions and the TCJA of 12/23/18, and then offers an alternative maintenance deduction of 25% (none of which reflect “…orders entered after December 31, 2018, as a result of the 2017 Tax Costs and Jobs Act Tax Reform”.

Neither the genesis nor the rationale for the 25% alternative are explained.

Payments in satisfaction of arrearages of court-ordered maintenance shall not be deducted (?!?). {Once again, no explanation is offered, nor is there a definition of “arrearages.”}

IV.C.4 {See the comments re Section IV.C.3 above, since the provisions in subsections 3 and 4 are identical)

While many think the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) abolished alimony, that’s not true. The TCJA only abolished the deductibility to the payor, (and taxability to the recipient) of alimony paid pursuant to a 2019 or later “Divorce Instrument” – a court order, divorce decree, settlement agreement or other document creating the alimony obligation.

Sums paid pursuant to a pre-2019 instrument remain tax deductible (and taxable to the recipient) even if paid during 2019 or later. Regardless of when paid, the payments must be “qualified” (just as before the TCJA was enacted). The guidelines use a mixture of two terms that seemly are in conflict – they use the term “maintenance paid” and the term “maintenance awarded”. In the case of a newly divorcing couple there would not be any maintenance paid yet.

IV.D.4.b Unreimbursed Medical Expenses

Here, the Guidelines proposals revert to the earlier, rejected, “save your receipts” approach to sharing a child’s medical expenses, accompanied by the problematic demands for reimbursement, accountings for insurance coverage, and court hearings. No explanation is given for the course reversal.

IV.E. Child Support Adjustments (Section E)

Section E adjustments apply only when requested by a party, in writing, before the hearing on child support.

IV.E.1. Long-Distance Parenting Time Costs.

Where parents share the costs equally, no adjustment should be allowed. Where the parents do not share the costs equally, the court should divide the costs by 2 in order to allocate ½ of the cost to each parent. (And then give credit to the party actually paying for the transportation.)

IV.E.2.b Parenting Time Adjustment The Parenting Time Adjustment has been increased as a percentage of the child support amount. It now ranges from 10% to 30% of the Nonresidential Parents child support obligation where the NRP time ranges from 35% to 49% of the child’s time.

The other significant change here is that the Parenting Time Adjustment has moved to be in Section D of the worksheet – which is now subject to income proportion. Note also that it is mislabeled as section IV.E.2.b when perhaps it should be labeled section

IV.D.5. IV.E.3. Income Tax Considerations

The Directions for the calculation of the ITC adjustment have, like all other information formerly included in Appendices within the Guidelines, been moved (for ease in updating and modifying) to the Supreme Court’s Website found at KSCourts.org.

IV.F.2 Ability to Pay Calculation.

This new section requires the court to determine the non-residential parent’s ability to meet his or her own basic needs in accordance with current federal poverty guidelines for a household of one. The NRP’s child support income is reduced by the federal poverty amount to arrive at the NRP’s child support obligation using the NRP’s poverty-adjusted child support income. Note that the published poverty guidelines are stated as annual amounts however the line D.1 in the worksheet is a monthly amount. The poverty guidelines amount should be divided by 12 before being subtracted from the line D.1 amount.

While there are instructions for line F.3 and F.5, note that what to do in subsequent lines, line F.4 is completely ignored in the instructions.

IV.F.5 Social Security Disability or Retirement Dependent/Auxiliary Benefit

If the child Receives Social Security Dependent/auxiliary benefits, as a result of the NRP’s disability or retirement, the amount of the child’s benefit is subtracted from the child support on Line F.5.b. If the result is 0 then the new parental child support obligation is $0; otherwise the final subtotal on line F.6.b. is the result of line F.5b minus line F.6 and becomes the new child support amount. NOTE: There is no “Line F.5.b” on the published CS Worksheet on pages 40, 85, 89 of the proposed Guidelines.

If you see something we’ve missed, we welcome your feedback.

Brad & Randy

NEXT: Omissions, Typos and Errata

Posted in Child Support Guidelines, Uncategorized | Leave a comment