Posted on 09/16/2002 6:42:22 AM PDT by RogerFGay
Virginia Panel Votes to Leave 'Child Support' Undefined
September 16, 2002
By Roger F. Gay
The Virginia Child Support Review Panel is tasked with assuring that use of the state's child support guideline results in appropriate awards. One might think this job impossible if the term "child support" is not defined. That is exactly what panel member Murray Steinberg thought. Mr. Steinberg has been trying since early June to have the panel agree on a definition of "child support."
The child support guideline is a fixed formula used for determining the amount of child support that one parent must pay to the other. Judges are required by law to presume that the guideline result is correct. Parents have a right to challenge the amount if it is unjust or inappropriate. But without sufficient definition and principles, there is no statutory basis for understanding what "just" or "appropriate" means. This leaves Virginia parents without a practical way to exercise the right.
Federal law requires, as a condition for funding child support enforcement programs, that states review their guidelines at least once every four years. In 1999, during the state's last review, then panel member Barry Koplen raised the same issue. A recommendation was submitted defining child support and providing necessary and sufficient principles for determining appropriate child support awards. The recommendation suggested specific changes to Virginia law.
That panel ignored the recommendation and the legislature never considered making changes to the law. Without defining the term "child support," the state obviously has no basis for certifying that their guidelines have anything at all to do with supporting children.
On July 1st, without discussion, the panel voted 8-1 to "keep the current definition" meaning that the panel continue its review without defining the all important term. The motion to hold the vote was given by state Senator Frederick Quayle (R-District 13). Senator Quayle's two offices was contacted twice by email over a two week period asking for comment. A staff member responded that he was not available.
The design of the Virginia guideline rests heavily on the work of Robert Williams, a child support collection entrepreneur who provides consulting through Policy Studies, Inc. His collection company, which operates in Virginia, keeps approximately one third of the child support money paid through contracts it has with states and individuals, making the size of child support awards a direct factor in the company's profits.
States receive additional federal funding in proportion to the amount of child support collected. Like other states, Virginia counts all child support payments made through their system as "collections" even when they are made on time. Arbitrarily increasing the amount awarded increases the amount of federal funding they receive.
Williams contends publicly and in his consulting with states that his work is based on "economic studies." But in a deposition taken in P.O.P.S. v Gardner, he admitted that he made it up and said that acceptance of his design depends on states accepting his policy choices. The explicit goal of his "Income-Shares" guideline, introduced in 1987, was to increase the average amount of child support awards to 250 percent of what it would be under traditionally established child support law.
When questioned by the review panel in 1995, Williams admitted that he could not identify any of the components in his cost estimates, including food, clothing, housing, education, routine medical expenditure, and transportation. He was unable to identify how much of the estimated cost is fixed and how much of it varies according to visitation arrangements and other factors.
According to Mr. Murray, the panel has not presented any current research and data on the cost of and expenditures necessary for rearing children. "We have no data related to the actual cost of raising a child in a separated or divorced, two home situation."
Income-Shares guidelines have never been shown to correspond to any set of policy choices that are rationally related to "child support," and states have implemented the model by eliminating definitions and principles from their statutes. Williams has responded to critics by claiming that the arbitrarily high orders provide a higher standard of living in custodial parent households.
But the question of increasing standard of living through child support payments has already been addressed scientifically. There is a limit to the standard of living increase that can be obtained through a child support payment. Increasing child support amounts beyond the limit introduces what has become known as hidden alimony. Many experts agree that it is illegal (incl. unconstitutional) to include alimony in a child support award.
Virginia's approach uses extremely dubious estimates of what two parent families spend on children, which include arbitrarily high percentages of such families' expenditures on housing and transportation. What an intact family might spend is unrelated to post divorce spending. This leads to child support awards that are quite random in their relation to actual family circumstances and the needs of children regardless of the credibility of the estimates.
Another contentious aspect of the guideline is its intentional denial of credit for support provided by noncustodial parents during visitation periods, and inadequate credit for near or greater direct support provided by parents with joint custody.
Murray Steinberg has been through it all before. He previously served twice on the state panels, in 1993 and 1995. He refused reappointment in 1999 acknowledging that the majority of political appointees on each panel are predisposed to maintaining the status quo. He accepted reappointment for this review after receiving assurance that things would be different this time. Indications are however, that this review will be like the rest.
Copyright © 2002 Roger F. Gay
Roger F. Gay is a professional analyst and director of Project for the Improvement of Child Support Litigation Technology. He has also been an intensive political observer for many years culminating in a well-developed sense of honest cynicism. Other articles by Roger F. Gay can be found at Fathering Magazine and Men's News Daily.
It'll remain "undefined" simply to facilitate "maximum screw-age" to fathers or purported fathers. End of story.
It makes no difference how much your kids live with you, as long as you pay their mother as if they didn't.
This is often cheaper than litigation (actually, it's always cheaper than litigation)-offer the guideline (you will pay it anyway)-and take your kids.
As long as the $$ are flowing to mommy, no one will care.
Exactly the conclusion that I came to at the time. And you are right, it is cheaper than paying two lawyers. I learned how to keep my mouth shut and soldier on.
The benefits to your son, however, were precious beyond the ability of $$ to measure.
You did the right thing, the money game in divorce is a con anyway, just forget about it.
Income-Shares guidelines have never been shown to correspond to any set of policy choices that are rationally related to "child support," and states have implemented the model by eliminating definitions and principles from their statutes.
Neither does a Cost-Shares plan correspond to the stated public purpose of collecting from absent parents in support of dependent children. The term "child support" IS defined in case law, and is evident by a study of the law's history. See Sullivan v. Stroop, 496 U.S. 478 (1990). The cost to raise a child is considered in the states calculation for income levels resulting in the need for public assistance. This is the only relevant amount the state has an interest in maintaining because it determines whether the family is covered under the act, and whether the agency or court can evidence the need for a child support order in the first place.
In a private action for support, where a father has abandoned his family, it doesn't matter what the income of the mother is. In a public action for child support, a finding of dependency is required for jurisdiction over the "absent parent." If the agency and courts were held to the constraints imposed by the legislative authority assumed under the state's parens patriae power, the money equation would be reduced substantially.
And for those who beleive a "dead beat" has no chance of receiving a fair hearing, you may be looking for the wrong kind of releif. We're not asking here to make these orders more fair. We're demanding they be vacated, because they have failed to evidence dependency or absence under the law. "More fair" only means more discression. They don't have any, where there is no need. The guidelines were not intended to be fair. They are a means of recovering arrears from absent parents.
That's about as far away from my conclusion as you can get. A judge, lawfully, has absolutely no discression in setting a continuing child support obligation under the act. The amount of the obligation is the amount it takes to avoid the public expenditure. To recover any "actual" arrears, a judge has limited discression under the guidelines and related exemption sections to set an amount for reimbursement for public money already expended. That's what arrears are. Any on-going contribution (welfare assistance amount) must be considered in the amount calculated for reimbursement. It's the difference between an ongoing obligation that the state may impose, and the rate of reimbursement under the guidelines that get confused. It's the lawful application of the guidelines that's the problem. The cost to raise a child, beyond what it takes to keep them off the welfare roles, have nothing to do with reimbursement, or the guidelines. The only way to get fair is to constrain the act to it's lawful purpose, shrinking the abuses and the cost of the program dramatically.
My point is, if you were to find out the child support program were restricted to a particular class it was intended to protect, as it is clearly articulated in it's enabling act, and by the supreme court, you would understand the purpose of the guidelines statute.
What I am equating fairness to, is lawful. The guidelines are not unfair. They are misapplied, in violation of the Social Security Act, and various rights of the supposed "obligor." Advocating a "cost shares" model for the guidelines, for example, is incongruous, as it bears no relationship to the purpose of the act, and makes the law unconstitutional on it's face.
You don't need to ignore the guidelines in cases where an absent parent has built up arrears for past public assistance provided. But these are the cases that legitimately fall under the classification affected by the law. The mother may have a cause of action outside of this class, but the state does not have a cause of action under the child support program in all cases.
What's your point? You can call an absent parent a "non-custodial" parent too. Under Title IV of the Social Security Act, the terms mean the same thing.
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.