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.