Posted on 06/01/2005 6:48:21 AM PDT by RogerFGay
Solving the Child Support Riddle
May 29, 2005
by Roger F. Gay
In a previous article, I summarized the way in which a mathematical solution was found to the problem of calculating just and appropriate child support awards. The article responded to questions and comments following a simple news report that a solution had been found and included links to articles for advanced study.
The purpose of child support is not merely to prevent children from becoming public charges. Amounts awarded are not limited to a division of subsistence support between the parents. The calculation of a child support award includes consideration of the parents' ability to provide a higher standard of living for their children. The previously unsolved problem is finding the appropriate standard of living increase.
Prior to federal reform, state courts understood the child support problem quite well. Many generations had dealt with the problem and valid decision principles emerged in the shadow of the constitution. The article suggests that a solid understanding of the mathematical solution can be reached within a reasonable period of time for those who are prepared and persistent. I believe some people can make it through the lengthy review and analysis of principles, and the derivations of the basic calculation, the balance of child support with spousal support, and the adjustments for visitation and shared custody over a dedicated weekend.
All that being true, one might reasonably ask why a solution to the standard of living adjustment problem wasn't found earlier. My own experience in finding the solution lasted much longer than a dedicated weekend. It began with the perception that traditional child support decision principles were nothing more than old (but seemingly quite reasonable) policy choices and that an analyst's job could be nothing more than finding equations to match whatever policy a state selects. That perception deepened as I read the technical work that provides the basis of current guidelines. The underlying logic, one might say politely, is questionable at best. Its developers did nothing to validate their results. Yet, their new policy choices in the form of simple equations and "economic tables" were adopted as law in every state. This was clearly politics rather than science.
Project work began with the goal of developing mathematics that could easily be adopted to the nuances of policy choices (including welfare and non-welfare policies). I wanted to formulate equations that policy-makers, judges, and parents can understand. To do that, it is necessary to match variables and logic in the mathematics to the reality of family circumstances. It was in the pursuit of this goal that I eventually made the transition from policy analyst to child support scientist. When policy is defined for a specific purpose, such as enforcing the support of children, random policy choices are invalid in a scientific sense. The basic purpose of child support law, combined with the richness of constitutional limits against arbitrary government interference, provide a sufficient basis from which a valid solution can be derived.
Finding the solution to the standard of living adjustment problem was not simply a matter of having the will to do it. Others had tried before. Sociologist Judith Cassetty investigated the challenge of developing a child support formula for the State of Texas. She concluded that if the state wanted a formula that could be presumed to give correct answers, they would have to abandon traditional child support policy altogether because no one knew how to calculate the right standard of living increase. (She then suggested replacing "child support" awards with standard of living equalization between parental households.)
A theoretical solution to the standard of living problem did not emerge in the many efforts of judges, lawyers, and bar associations. A well-known example is the work of family court Judge Melson whose guideline model was adopted as the statewide guideline in Delaware. His formula was derived from traditional child support law. It is clear and rational. He divided basic (subsistence) support between parents along with extra expenses such as day-care. After subtracting the payers' contribution (so far) from his or her net income, he added another 5 percent of what remained. This was not a theoretical solution, but one that seemed reasonable on the basis of his years of experience.
But I have said that the solution is not difficult to understand. So I should also explain that finding the solution involves solving a riddle. It was a lot like the first time, as a youngster, someone asked me, "What's black and white and red all over?" I heard "red" which was also suggested in context by mention of two other colors. In order to reach understanding, one must realize that the answer is not something that is "red" but something that is "read." (newspaper)
The purpose of child support is support of children, but what is the actual economic role of a child support payment? Child support payments are not made to children. They do not result from specific child related expenses being billed to parents who are ordered to pay. They are in fact payments made by one parent to another. They play the same role in the recipient household as income from any other source. They increase the income and thus standard of living in one household at the expense of the other. Given that their actual economic role is increasing standard of living, the solution to the standard of living adjustment problem is found by matching that effect to the intended purpose of child support; no more, no less.
The problem does have the character of a riddle. I have no doubt that many will have some difficulty accepting the inevitability of the result regardless of how the problem is re-examined. A child support payment is income that increases the standard of living of the entire recipient household. Did I say "read" or "red?"
I also understand that those of you who have no preconceptions, who may be looking at this problem for the first time, might be left wondering what all the fuss is about. Count yourself lucky if your only thought is - of course, child support money is the same color green as the rest. People involved in the debate understand the level of confusion that has persisted since the federal government reforms went into effect (1989) and that there is still a steep hill to climb before politics accepts rationality.
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
You're right. The REAL purpose is to "empower" bitchy women to dump the males, gain the leftist moral high ground, and soak the poor bastards who only thought that fathers had rights. Short version: Destruction of the American Family, at the expense of fatherhood. All in the name of "the children".
Just not the fathers' children.
>>>You're right. The REAL purpose is to "empower" bitchy women to dump the males, gain the leftist moral high ground, and soak the poor bastards who only thought that fathers had rights>>>
Ok, so what about the men who after having several children with a woman decides the grass is greener on the not being responsible side and takes off with the first floozy that comes along, leaving the woman with the full burden of supporting AND raising the children?
My experience is its usually the woman who leaves. Since my wife left me for stupid selfish reasons, I've dated 8 women. All 8 of them left their husbands.
My experience is its usually the woman who leaves. Since my wife left me for stupid selfish reasons, I've dated 8 women. All 8 of them left their husbands.
And for every example brought up about the “floozy” chasing father that dumps the mother, an example can be given about the mother who thinks that the “hot buff stud” at the gym is much better than her beer guzzling husband and takes the kids, the house, the cars, and 95% of his income. And then complains that’s not enough.
Thx. Hopefully, sanity will return soon.
>>>My experience is its usually the woman who leaves. Since my wife left me for stupid selfish reasons, I've dated 8 women. All 8 of them left their husbands.>>>
It's mine that the men want to leave for some young strange piece of tail. Mine also is $22,000 (at only $88.00 a week for 2 children) behind in child support and has three more children since we divorced. Of course I made a poor choice in a mate, but child support isn't just about burning the male. Just wanted to give you a new perspective.
What? Haven't learned anything? Why would you date them?
The only and best true solution: in a divorce, if there is one child and it is male, it goes with the father. If it is female, it goes with the mother. After that, the children are split up according to age, oldest first. No child support and no mandated visitation. Divorce and separating families is hell, but so can child support and visitation be. This would probably even force the parents into being civil to each other.
Over 70 % of divorces are initiated by women. In a perfect world (read.. one not biased toward the ex-wife) it would be closer to 50 %. I'm sorry your ex-hubby was a louse, but thats not the average case, despite popular culture's myth-making. When an adultress woman (assuming the man isnt) can still end up with the kids, house, etc as a matter of course, then something is rotten in Denmark. But of course, men and women are both people, and people are just capable of the most rotten behavior, no doubt about it.
I employ fourteen gentleman. Until last week, I withheld child support from six of their paychecks via court order. I take it they don't support their children voluntarily. Now that number is down to five as one gent quit (without notice) after the first week's deduction. My experience does not show this to be a myth made by popular culture.
Didn't say all men were saints. Just wanted to point out that alot of women are cheating on their husbands these days and leaving them for stupid selfish reasons like 'I love you but I'm not in love with you anymore'.
Who said anything about marrying them?
I just love these man/woman bashing threads aren't they fun?
....why would you date them?
That's where the money is....duh!
Many times that withholding is court or state mandated, regardless of the parent's previous payment record, etc.
Don't assume they're deadbeats because of that.
Usually, once you are divorced, the man is nothing but a checking account. I bet the "gentlemen" you refer to are not making exorbitant incomes, eh?. How would you like to give up half of almost nothing to a miserable, resentful ex-spouse who controls how much you can see your kids? I bet you wouldnt.
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.