Joint Tax Returns and the Innocent Spouse Doctrine   Many married couples file joint tax returns to take advantage of certain benefits offered by this filing status. This may result in the unfortunate and unintended consequence of one spouse being held responsible for the underreporting of income by the other spouse. Even when there is a divorce decree stating that one spouse will be solely responsible for any amounts due on prior tax returns, the IRS may withhold a tax refund of the other spouse to satisfy the former spouse's tax obligation.   When a married couple files a joint tax return and penalties arise as a result of an underreporting of taxable income, the IRS will relieve one spouse from liability if that spouse can prove that he or she is "innocent" of any wrongdoing. In order for the an individual to obtain relief as an "innocent spouse," the following criteria must be met: The return filed must be a joint return, or, if the return was filed while living in a community property state, the return filed may be a "married filing separately" return At the time the return was filed, the individual believed the correct amount of tax was, or would be, paid The individual's spouse failed to report or underreported his or her income The individual did not have knowledge of the unreported income or erroneous items at the time the return was filed It would be unfair to hold the individual liable for the tax deficiency The individual applies for relief no later than two years after the IRS's first attempt to collect the deficiency If an individual meets the criteria for innocent spouse relief, the individual will be relieved of responsibility for the tax due on the return or any penalties or interest. Depending on the facts and circumstances, the innocent spouse may be eligible for relief of all taxes due on the return, including penalties and interest, or only partial relief. Enforcing Child Support Orders Through the CSE Program   Under Title IV-D of the Social Security Act of 1975, states are required to establish programs for the enforcement of child support. Once a state complies with federal requirements, state agencies are granted federal funds to help run child support enforcement services. State Child Support Programs Established in 1975 under Title IV-D, the Child Support Enforcement (CSE) Program is a federal, state and local partnership that operates in all states and territories. The primary objective of the CSE Program is to collect payments from those parents legally obligated to pay child support. Ultimately, the CSE Program seeks to ensure that children are financially supported by both parents. Although child support programs vary from state to state, they are usually run through State Human Services Departments, Attorney General Offices or Departments of Revenue. Most states cooperate with prosecuting attorneys and other law enforcement agencies to ensure the program functions properly at the local level.   Services In general, the state child support programs provide the following services: Locate non-custodial parents to enforce child support orders or find a parent involved with a parental kidnapping or custody/visitation dispute Establish paternity (legal fatherhood) – a prerequisite to attaining a child support order when children are born out of wedlock Establish, enforce and modify child support obligations by reference to state guidelines Collect child support payments (e.g., by withholding income from the non-custodial parent's paycheck) Property settlement, visitation and custody issues, standing alone, are not generally considered to be within the scope of "child support enforcement." As such, the CSE Program generally cannot enforce court orders related to such issues. Instead, parents must address these issues through the courts or other state systems. Although, as mentioned above, the CSE Program varies among states, its services are typically available to all parents who require assistance. In fact, individuals are automatically referred for CSE services if they receive aid under any one of the following programs: Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Medicaid Federally assisted foster care programs Fees State CSE offices are required to charge an application fee of not more than $25 for non-AFDC cases, but many states instead pay the fee from a pool of state funds. In the alternative, states may also charge for the cost of services rendered. People receiving assistance under AFDC, TANF, Medicaid, or foster care programs typically do not have to pay for CSE services.   Parental Consortium Damages   In the words of the Texas Supreme Court, "The loss of a parent's love, care, companionship and guidance can severely impact a child's development and have a major influence on a child's welfare and personality throughout life."  For this reason, some states have recognized a child's right to recover for loss of parental consortium in personal injury actions.  "Consortium" typically encompasses love, companionship, affection, society, solace and comfort.   Significant Variation Among Jurisdictions The status of the law with respect to a child's right to recover consortium damages varies significantly among states.  In fact, the variation is so considerable that it is virtually impossible to set forth a generalized summary on the status of the law.  Instead, examples of state treatment of the issue are offered to illustrate the great variety of approaches to awarding parental consortium damages.   Among the significant issues that courts must address are the following: Whether a child's right to recover parental consortium damages is limited to wrongful death actions.  For example, some states only authorize consortium damages in cases where the parent dies.  Other states, however, additionally allow consortium damages in cases where the parent survives with severe injuries.  This article focuses exclusively on the situation where the parent suffers non-fatal injuries. Whether recovery is limited to minor children.  Some states only permit minor children to receive an award of consortium damages, while other states grant adult children the right to bring claims for loss of parental consortium. State Approaches to Parental Consortium Damages In November 2002, the Tennessee Supreme Court conducted a survey of the decisions of other state courts.  According to the court's research, a majority of jurisdictions had refused to recognize a cause of action for loss of parental consortium in personal injury cases.  In fact, American courts had unanimously rejected the claim until the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts first recognized it in 1980.       Alternatively, the Tennessee court observed that a minority of states had adopted an action for loss of parental consortium.  Those that have adopted the action did so either through statutory enactment (i.e., the state legislature) or through case law and judicial opinions: Massachusetts allows a child, if conceived before a parent sustains non-fatal injuries, to recover for loss of the parent's consortium after his birth.  Furthermore, a minor child may recover for loss of a parent's companionship and society due to injuries negligently inflicted on the parent by a third party. In 1990, the Supreme Court of Texas granted children the right to recover for loss of consortium in situations where the parent suffers a permanent disability: "The obvious and unquestionable significance of the parent-child relationship compels our recognition of a cause of action for loss of parental consortium."  Later, in 2003, the court affirmed the validity of a child's consortium claim for a parent's serious permanent injury.  Texas, moreover, does not limit the right to recover to minor children: "Although minors are the group most likely to suffer real harm due to a disruption of the parent-child relationship, we leave this to the jury to consider in fixing damages."  Florida has set forth a statute that includes loss of companionship as compensation for a minor child in a claim for permanent injury to a parent. In Michigan, a child has a cause of action for loss of parental consortium resulting from non-fatal injury to the parent. Subject to certain limitations, Arizona permits children to recover for loss of consortium "when a third party causes serious, permanent, and disabling injury to their parent."  Like Texas, Arizona does not limit recovery to minor children: "A defendant in a consortium case is liable to the child because the defendant injured the child's parent and thereby damaged the parent-child relationship." The Oklahoma Supreme Court has recognized a right to recover for loss of consortium "when for all practical purposes the parent is in a state which equates death." The Supreme Court of Washington, in 1984, granted both adult and minor children the right to recover for loss of parental consortium.  In Washington, the child's age is only relevant as a factor in assessing the amount of damages. A Louisiana statute permits the recovery of parental consortium damages in personal injury cases.   Standards for the Modification of Child Support Orders   Although the law with respect to child support modification varies considerably by state, generally, before a court will modify a child support order, the requesting parent is often required to show that changed circumstances legitimately warrant the modification. Without this requirement, frequent, repeated and arbitrary requests for modification would burden the already overcrowded court system, as well as the non-custodial parent. The Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act While some states have implemented child support modification standards derived from judicial decisions, other states have implemented statutory provisions that closely resemble the language set forth by the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act (UMDA). According to the text of the UMDA, a child support order may be modified, with few exceptions, "only upon a showing of changed circumstances so substantial and continuing as to make the terms unconscionable." Consider the following examples of state legislation: Arizona: "Substantial and continuing change of circumstances" Idaho: "Substantial and material change of circumstances" Pennsylvania: "Material and substantial change in circumstances" Typically, the parent requesting the modification has the burden of proving the change in circumstances. Factors Likely to Constitute a Change in Circumstances As noted, states differ as to the situations that warrant the modification of child support orders. From a broad perspective, however, reasons generally sufficient for modification (or to constitute a "change in circumstances," as defined by state law) may include: The parent paying child support earns a significantly higher (or lower) income, as compared to the income earned when the child support was originally calculated. Some states consider a certain percentage change in income as a presumption of changed circumstances. The custody arrangement has changed; e.g., the child moves in with the parent who was originally ordered to pay the support. Children's needs generally increase as they grow older. Inflation may affect the cost of living and rearing of the child. The non-custodial parent acquires assets available for support purposes. The child has special needs, including, for example, educational and/or health care expenses. In many states, the child's need for medical coverage is often a presumption of a change in circumstances. Severe changes in state child support guidelines occur. Some states have already incorporated a cost of living adjustment (COLA) into the original support order to provide for adjustments in the rate of inflation. Parents May Recover for Loss of a Child's Consortium   Husbands and wives have traditionally been entitled to recover damages for "loss of consortium."  In cases where a spouse is severely injured or killed, the non-injured spouse will typically sue the wrongdoer for her loss of consortium.  The resulting damages generally represent her inability to enjoy the same love, affection and companionship that she did prior to her spouse's injury.    In recent years, many jurisdictions have similarly recognized a parent's claim for loss of a child's consortium, or "filial consortium."  Filial consortium damages are intended to compensate the parent for various attributes of the parent-child relationship, including, for example, affection, companionship, solace and care.  Although some jurisdictions allow filial consortium damages in cases where the child is severely injured, this article will focus on parents' wrongful death claims with respect to a deceased child.    Recovery for Wrongful Death of a Child: A Historical Perspective In the early 20th century, largely based on general principles of English law, wrongful death statutes typically limited damages to economic losses; i.e., those losses that could be objectively measured by a monetary standard.  For this reason, when parents sued for the wrongful death of a child, the damages award was limited to the value of the child's services and earning capacity; e.g., the child's performance of farm chores or work for wages.       Due to changing societal and economic conditions, the American legal system no longer exclusively values children according to their monetary contributions to the family.  Instead, children are valued for their love, affection, companionship and society.  As a consequence, modern courts acknowledge that the value of a child's consortium far exceeds the economic value of the child's services.    Modern Legal Authority: Loss of Filial Consortium In wrongful death actions, most jurisdictions permit parents to recover damages for loss of consortium.  Although the law varies from state to state, filial consortium damages are usually available pursuant to the state's wrongful death statute.  While some states have set forth explicit statutory language to provide for filial consortium damages, other states permit parents to recover based on judicial interpretation of the statute.  The law similarly varies with respect to whether a parent may recover for the loss of an adult child.   Though not exhaustive, the following examples are illustrative of state law regarding filial consortium damages in wrongful death actions: Texas allows parents to recover consortium damages in wrongful death cases.  Oklahoma's wrongful death statute expressly permits recovery for the "loss of companionship of the children and parents of the decedent."  In Tennessee, parents may recover filial consortium damages in wrongful death actions.  Tennessee's statute allows recovery of filial consortium damages as part of the pecuniary value of the decedent's life.  Florida's Wrongful Death Act states, "Each parent of a deceased minor child may...recover for mental pain and suffering from the date of injury [causing death].  Each parent of an adult child may also recover for mental pain and suffering if there are no other survivors."  In Kentucky, parents may recover for the loss of affection and companionship of a minor child. Illinois permits parents to recover for the loss of society suffered upon the wrongful death of a minor child.