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.
You seem to be completely unaware of current "child support" practice. Upon divorce, the father (99% of the time) is required to pay the mother by a rote formula. In Texas it's 20% of net monthly income for 1 kid, 25% of net monthly income for 2 kids, and so on.
This is imposed irrespective of whether the child spends significant time with the father, gets food, clothing and shelter from the father, or whatever.
Often the father is required to pay some goobermint office who transfers the dough to the mother, regardless of payment history or anything else. It has nothing to do with dependency on welfare, abandonment, or any of the other things you mentioned. It is entirely a rigged game run by our family courts to benefit the mothers and screw the fathers.
Let's have a little reality, please.
The reality is the history. Do the research. Maybe you believe everyting your "goobermint" halfwit employees do is authorized? Show me where, and I'll show you how the law is misinterpreted. How many applications have you filled out, that are accepted without any verification or eligibility criteria?
I'm very well aware of current practice. That's why our bill to add legislation incorporating eligibility criteria, and an application verification policy is getting significant attention (Minn. HF 1031). No one can believe there were no elgibility verification proceedures in place, until we pointed it out. It's a reletively simple concept, really, and it's proving to be difficult for the "players" to shoot it down. They point to vague language in CFR 302.33, while we can document our position with Congressional testimony and case law that confirms a requirement for the states to establish eligibility criteria for "former and potential" recipients of public assistance who are at risk of falling on the public for support without payments from an absent parent.
Current "child support" practice is unlawful under the act, and in violation of state and federal constitutions. The law is perhaps void for vagueness.
The reality is, people have to quit complaining and start supporting legislative reforms, but please do so with a little understanding of the program you're dealing with.
I wish you luck in your legislative attempts.
Your argument reminds me of the income tax folks who tell people how they can avoid paying income tax.
Theoretically they're right - practically they're wrong.
Whether child support was originally intended only to those who'd be on welfare without it - or not - is now a moot point. There is simply no consideration given to this, and family court judges would laugh you out the door (after doubling your payments) if you propounded it.
Child support is now a criminal collusion between family courts, lawyers, consultants and females.
It's going to take some drastic reform to change it. Too many folks are making too much money.
I can tell you, they are not laughing! Our legislature is giving plenty of consideration to this, and a policy committee hearing is being taped by a local TV news crew today. It's the money angle that has given us the opportunity to sell the bill. There are some huge savings here that are not going unnoticed.
Thanks for the encouragement. You'll hear us, if we get this through, and regardless, we have the issue on the table now, and too many people are involved for it to die easily.
No I don't think people should kill their ex-wives. But if you want to play a rough game, expect difficulties.
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.