Posted on 05/25/2005 6:17:54 AM PDT by RogerFGay
Child Support Solution: What does it solve?
May 25, 2005
by Roger F. Gay
Earlier this month, an article was published announcing; Child Support Guideline Problem Solved. It reported that Project for the Improvement of Child Support Litigation Technology (PICSLT) has presented a formula that was derived by focusing first on the logic of child support decisions rather than gross statistics. The article link was posted in several discussion forums where people with interest in the issue were able to comment.
The first concern voiced by readers is that the article did not provide details about the solution. I recommend href="http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/g/gay/02/gay040902.htm">The Alimony Hidden in Child Support as the next step toward understanding the solution.
Those who are in a hurry to delve into greater detail can do so by reading the articles in the list at the end of this article. If you passed high school algebra, you have the tools to understand the derivation of the formula. But you should plan more than an hour of study, especially if your life experience with mathematics is very limited. Of course, it is easy to understand once you understand it.
My suggestion to anyone who gets into the math is to leave your preconceptions behind. Current guideline technology has been promoted and discussed for the past 20 years, leaving many people with a strong (and strange) indoctrination. It should be easier if you can clear your mind and start fresh. That is something I would recommend in any case, since it has been shown (again and again) that current guidelines are based on an arbitrary premise and constructed through incoherent reasoning. The current guidelines are the result of politics (and corruption) - not science. Finding the right answer requires an entirely different approach.
I have one more tip on understanding the derivation. If you conclude that the model only considers what custodial parents might spend on children, it will be obvious that you did not go through the math. The formula is derived from principles that allow a standard of living increase for children based on their parents' ability to support. Finding a valid formula for child support that includes this standard of living adjustment was the key unsolved problem. It is this problem that has been solved in the PICSLT derivation. The presentation of the child support formula is even supplemented (in the same paper) by an equation for producing the proper balance between child and spousal support to reach a target standard of living for a custodial household.
The decision principles that provide the basis for the formula were established in traditional child support law prior to the federal reforms that require presumptive use of guidelines in all child support cases. They are discussed in a lengthy paper entitled; On Developing Child Support Decision Theory: Principles. The principles are:
Purpose Principle: Child support is for the care and maintenance of children. Relationship (equal duty) Principle: Both parents have an equal duty to support their children. Context Principle: All relevant circumstantial information may effect the amount of the award.
The derivation begins by considering the standard of living of the custodial household, which is the controlling factor in the standard of living of the children of that household. The solution is found by considering the income of both parents to determine the standard of living increase that is consistent with the first two principles. Formulae have also been derived for accounting for visitation and shared parenting arrangements. (See below.)
It has also become clear in PICSLT research that dealing with the third principle is much simpler than expected. It is not important whether there might be countless reasons for adjusting awards due to special circumstances - extraordinarily high medical bills for example, or sharing day-care costs. The variations in the mathematics of accounting for special circumstances are extremely limited. It is rather obvious that if a family is spending $250 per month on day-care for example, that they will have $250 per month less to spend on other things. Income must be adjusted by that amount before applying the standard formula. As with any part of the solution, this conclusion is based directly on basic economics.
A second wave of concern expressed by readers involved the use of guidelines generally and extended to opposition to child support orders. In the 1980s, Congress passed a law requiring statewide guidelines as a condition for receiving federal funding. They then passed a law requiring state courts to presume that the amounts determined by the formulae are the correct amounts to be awarded in every case. In 1993, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals consented to presumptive use of child support guidelines even though they produced arbitrary results. (P.O.P.S. v. GARDNER, 998 F.2d 764 (9th Cir. 1993)) This changed family law in a fundamental way because child support ceased to be a private issue and became a public (politically controllable) issue. This decision fundamentally changed the relationship between the individual and the state, knocking constitutional rights and separation of powers out of the picture.
We need to be cautious when attempting to tie a valid mathematical derivation to politics. When first approaching the derivation, I recommend complete separation from any political issue. The mathematics does not itself care how it is applied, or whether it is applied. The standard of living adjustment problem was well defined prior to the federal reforms and is in no way dependent on those reforms for its existence. No solution had been found to this problem prior to the introduction of the guidelines that are currently in use. Technically speaking, that is why guidelines that give arbitrarily high results came to be accepted. For those who oppose child support awards completely, I can as a mathematician respond immediately. If no child support is to be awarded, the answer is zero.
In a more advanced look at the guideline problem, I would tie a formal solution to the standard of living adjustment problem to an extremely important political issue. It is a strong counter to the movement to eliminate constitutional rights and due process. That movement thrives on the presumption that there are no concrete answers to many questions dealt with by the courts. They contend that it is more efficient to force arbitrary standards than to deal with individual cases. The counter is that problems can be solved and the solution to this problem demonstrates that traditional due process worked extremely well after all, even when a complete theoretical solution did not exist.
But I will leave that to an advanced discussion. One must look very carefully at such an important issue. We should not be left with the sense that we must solve every theoretical problem that has not yet been solved in order to secure fundamental rights. Certainly it is instead entirely illogical to enforce "standards" that have not been properly developed from complete and valid theory and in any use of state power against individuals, the state should remain liable for its decisions in individual cases. If the state contends that this is too complicated, then they should retreat.
References:
The Alimony Hidden in Child Support
A Further Look at Child Support Guidelines, PS: Political Science and Politics, American Political Science Association.
On Developing Child Support Decision Theory: Principles
New Equations for Calculating Child Support and Spousal Maintenance With Discussion on Child Support Guidelines
Accounting for Visitation and Shared Parenting
Developing the Numeric Table for Child Support Award Calculations
Roger F. Gay is a professional analyst, international correspondent and regular contributor to MensNewsDaily.com, as well as a contributing editor for Fathering Magazine.
ping
ping
Interesting read.
Thank you and thank you. I've written to the editor about the broken link.
Regardless of one's mathematical abilities or the usage of political or scientific formulae, when the support payer's income in zero, the resulting calculation will always be zero. Such is my case.
While this may be true in the generic sense, it is not true with respect to child support guidelines statutes under the title IV-D program. The term "child support" is a term of art, used throughout title for to mean payments by absent parents for dependent children. This is not a legal theory. It is a fact supported by the Supreme Court in Sullivan v. Stroop, 496 U.S. 478 (1990). Your problem with this fact really should be taken up with Justice Rehnquist. http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/search/display.html?terms=sullivan%20v.%20stroop&url=/supct/html/89-535.ZO.html
The contention that the purpose of the act was changed by an amendment to extend services to those who were at risk of becoming dependent on the state for their support is unsupported by the proper interpretation of the law. The purpose of an act or the subject class it affects cannot be changed by an amendment.
The "relevant circumstantial information" (your last purpose principle) that defines the subject of the act is ignored in your computation of an "award." The relevant fact creating the liability under this program is need. It is the only interest the government has to justify intervention. The guidelines are simply a special garnishment statute that limits this liability based on an absent parent's ability to pay. It is not the basis for the liability, which I admit is the way it is generally perceived today.
No, the first question is who is an absent parent. Most beleive Congress extended the class by amendment to include those who are not on welfare. While this is true, it is also true that the extention did not go beyond those who were at risk of going on welfare. If the act is not interpreted with that restriction, it is unconstitutional under South Dakota v. Dole.
This was not argued in POPS. Rather their due process and equal protection claims failed because it did not substantially affect family relationships and the class they contended were adversely affected were not those outside the legitimate reach of the program, but other children within the non-custodial household. These were simply bad arguments that the court did not buy. The court did not establish a new rule of law, or "reclassify" family law to social policy. They suggested the social policy justifying the state law was legitimate because nobody objected to it on that basis. The question was not raised for them to decide.
You're confusing the political rhetoric and the law. Referring to limitations that politicians suggested that were not consistent with the laws they passed would have done nothing to help the P.O.P.S. case. The flaw is in the judgment ... treating non-welfare cases as "social policy" rather than private civil law cases. That's where the elimination of fundamental rights was upheld.
The reason non-welfare cases were allowed under the act is because it was assumed those cases created a risk of an obligation to provide public assistance if payments were not made. This risk would only be present in cases where the state agency can demonstrate that pecuniary interest. The purpose of the guidelines suggested in the P.O.P.S. case to "sustain the child at a standard of living concomitant with her divorcing parents' income" is contrary to the expressed purpose of the federal act, and was improperly borrowed from the purpose of alimony in an action under common law when the breadwinner abandons his family. It it not the purpose of title IV-D awards.
A private civil law case is one that does not affect a public monetary interest. This is why non-welfare cases cannot be classified as "all other cases." The P.O.P.S. case did nothing to expand the proper reach of this program to all other cases, or "give" jurisdiction where none existed. The fundamental right to be left alone, where there is no public interest in recovering or avoiding costs incurred under public entitlement programs was not upheld by this decision. The plaintiff's due process and equal protection arguments were simply and properly shot down.
The law was interpreted by the Sullivan court when they proclaimed title IV-D was meant to work in tandem with title IV-A of the act (now TANF). Any interpretation contradicting this ruling is political rhetoric. You really should read the case.
This is only imagined. The case you cited does not establish this. It may be an overly simple way for you to explain the improper application of administrative law to issues unrelated to the program it is intended to regulate, but courts don't create laws. Congress and state legislatures do, within the constraints of our constitutions. There has been no court that has interpreted the Spending Clause to have limitless application. There has been no court that has interpreted a state's parens patriae power to extend to all families with children.
You contend that family courts now have authority over all domestic relations issues. That is simply not the case. They are inferior to district courts and are restricted to hear only issues affected with a public purpose, and in special proceedings unlike district courts. The problem with "child support" is the general population's ignorance of the meaning of this special term of art. This leads to an improper application of laws restricted to its regulation.
You're wrong ... instead of beating me over and over again on the same point ... read the P.0.P.S. case ... it leaves absolutly nothing to the imagination regarding its classification of "social policy" and what that implies.
I have read the case. It does not establish what you think it does. The court shot down their arguments and nothing more.
You're denying what is explicitely stated in the decision. I provided a link a couple of posts ago, and will likely go through the decision in more detail in an article soon.
You have to distinguish between citable authority and dicta.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.