Child Support Overpaid by $15-20 Billion

Men's News Daily ^ | July 3, 2002 | Roger F. Gay

[RogerFGay]

Child Support Visitation Credit Gets International Attention

PRESS RELEASE July 3, 2002
Project for the Improvement of Child Support Litigation Technology (description below) Contact director Roger F. Gay; roger.f.gay@picslt.org

It might seem obvious that child support awards should be adjusted in recognition of the time children spend with each parent. While children are in the care of a parent receiving child support, the other parent is sending money to help cover costs. When the parent paying child support is taking care of the children the situation is reversed. That parent assumes direct responsibility for costs, relieving the parent that normally receives the child support payment.

When states began using fixed formulae for determining child support awards, known as child support guidelines, the door was nearly slammed shut on reducing orders in recognition of divided parenting time. Reopening the case on visitation and shared custody credits is the subject of an article in the current quarterly issue of the international journal IN SEARCH OF FATHERHOOD(R) Forum.

The article, High Child Support Awards Deny Contact between Fathers and Their Children summarizes results of research by Project for the Improvement of Child Support Litigation Technology (PICSLT) on the mathematics of crediting visitation and shared parenting. The research included derivation of credit equations accounting for two parental households and explored the economic effects of using various crediting formulae.

PICSLT first looked at the question of visitation credits when state-wide formulae for determining child support awards were just about to go into effect. Review of federally funded technical advice on design of child support guidelines indicated that more research was needed. Government consultants either ignored visitation and shared parenting or presented recommendations that minimized the possibility of properly adjusting child support orders. The resulting application of those recommendations has led to ludicrous results.

Arizona State University psychology professor Sanford Braver discusses the problem in his landmark book Divorced Dads: Shattering the Myths. He presents an example of a case in New York in which a father was ordered to pay more than $12,000 per year for support of his two children. (page 72) There was no great disparity in income between the parents and they spent nearly equal time caring for their children. If the shared parenting arrangment changed slightly the legal definition of each parent would have been reversed and the mother would have been ordered to pay about $10,000 per year to the father. The difference of $22,000 per year depended on only one overnight stay per week.

Braver followed the example with commentary that triggered the new research by PICSLT. Reducing the amount of an award would seem an obvious benefit to payers (mostly fathers) and provide support for the time children spend with them. On the other hand, wouldn't this lead mothers to battle against visitation in court if it results in loss of income? Would some fathers fight for more visitation merely to reduce the amount of child support they are ordered to pay?

PICSLT research is not psychology. How parents actually behave in court and what their motives might be are subjects not directly addressed. A mathematical "design study" was carried out to determine where the economic incentives lie and whether they can be eliminated. There is good news and bad for supporters of shared parenting and non-custodial parents who want to spend time with their children.

The good news is that the mathematics has been developed that can eliminate the perverse incentives. Adjusting a properly calculated child support award in consideration of the direct contributions of both parents can make things come out even. This might seem obvious, but it is not as simple as it seems. There are details to be considered. What happens for example when child support provides part of the rent money for a low income custodial parent? Rent is not prorated for the amount of time children are there. The design study adjusts for "fixed expenses."

There are limits to what coming out even can mean. Some parents cannot fully support themselves and their children in two housholds. Arrangements need to be realistic. Unless there is an additional source of support the adjustment might only be for a child's food during visitation. Coming out even might mean that $5 per visit spent on food can be balanced by a $5 reduction in child support. A father who is really strapped however, might find that essential.

Adjusting a properly calculated child support award for the direct contributions of both parents can make things come out even. The bad news is that child support is not calcuated properly. Ever since federal reforms took effect requiring the use of fixed formulae, award levels have been too high in an overwhelming number of cases. Guideline designers overcompensated for fixed expenses and then did so in a variety of ways. If orders are adjusted in proportion to parenting time it is obvious that recipients would be giving up a margin of profit in addition to fair compensation for expenses.

On average, child support awards are two to two and a half times what they should be. This means that in total non-custodial parents in the United States could be overpaying by somewhere between $15-20 billion annually because their court orders tell them to.

Things have really worked backwards. In the 1980s and 1990s laws were passed and procedures put in place without sufficient research and debate beforehand. Parents and children have been living through a vast and unnecessary experiment at their expense. "Deadbeat dad" politics even blocked consideration of the existing wisdom gained through hundreds of years of making child support awards. The federal reforms politisized child support to such an extent that it seems literally to require an Act of Congress or a Supreme Court ruling to get settlement on these issues. A parent can no longer get a proper adjustment by walking into a courtroom and saying "look judge, you know this would be fair."

Perhaps the most important contribution PICSLT research has made is to show that these issues can be objectively analyzed. There is no need to force divorced and never-married parents into the topsy-turvey world of politics in addition to struggling with the often difficult personal financial and emotional issues they face. A lot of basic questions can be settled in a scientific way. It is inappropriate and unethical to subject a quarter of the population to a bizarre social policy experiment and insurmountable political hurtles to fair treatment in the courts. We just need to do the math and set things up so that the courts can do their job properly.

Two detailed papers on the mathematics of visitation and shared parenting credits and the detailed design study are available at the PICSLT website.

The Alimony Hidden in Child Support is a related article in Fathering Magazine.

Project for the Improvement of Child Support Litigation Technology (PICSLT) is an R&D project that focuses on the science, engineering, and application of child support guidelines. Project work began in 1989 with investigations at Intelligent Systems Research Corporation (ISR) and has continued as an independent project since 1994. Director of the project is Roger F. Gay; roger.f.gay@picslt.org

[w1andsodidwe]

My suspicion is that you are either young and naive or work for the system in one of those so-called "Child Protective Services" that would have made Himmler proud.

Actually I am over 50 and a very conservative computer programmer. I just don't respect people who make the children suffer when a divorce occurs. It really messes up a kid to have their parents continually at odds with each other.

Yeah, divorce happens and you hate your spouse, but you are the adult and owe it to your kids to not make their lives miserable. I also know how unfair it is that women get the kids most often. I think that should change, but just because it hasn't yet, doesn't mean that the kids have to take the brunt of it.

[w1andsodidwe]

Love can't be court ordered. Love toward children can be seen as an unvarying attention to duty, devotion of time and effort to see they are raised according to principals of right and freedom, feeding and clothing and dicipline according to custom and society. Emotion has nothing to do with it, and be a plus OR a minus in the raising

Of course, people who love their children are emotionally attached to them.

Well if you don't have an emotional attachment to your children, then I guess they are better off with no relationship with you. Too bad for you. You will miss a lot.

[habaes corpussel]

What are we becoming? I agree the system needs to be scraped and made equal. But the fact is, you brought the child into the world, Both are responsible, equally. That includes visitation. The norm should be joint custody and not simply visitation, unless there is an abuse. The Family Court system in this country is in the need of a bad overhaul. I also think that people should be charged $10,000 for a marriage license and $1000.00 for the divorce. It will make people think.

[William Terrell]

Do you have or have had children? I raised three and loved each one. Love of children has little to do with emotion. Emotion comes and goes, but children are constant. The are many times when you absolutely don't "love" them, but you must do beyond the limits of endurance for them at those times also, specifically at those times.

Mary Poppins was a fictional character, so are all the "roll models" on television. The issue is court ordered "love", which you seem to think exists. Love and duty to children can no more be court ordered than the freezing point of water or the value of Pi be changed by legislation.

I think you are not being honest with yourself.

[balrog666]

I just don't respect people who make the children suffer when a divorce occurs. It really messes up a kid to have their parents continually at odds with each other.

I agree. But the current system makes it too easy for a woman to exact revenge, engage in spiteful tactics without cost, and use and abuse her children, her ex-husband, and the welfare system. And given the easy means and the extreme lack of culpability, a great many women who might otherwise condemn such practices, indulge in it. So, obviously, the welfare of their own children is rarely their highest priority.

[aruanan]

Arizona State University psychology professor Sanford Braver discusses the problem in his landmark book Divorced Dads: Shattering the Myths. He presents an example of a case in New York in which a father was ordered to pay more than $12,000 per year for support of his two children. (page 72) There was no great disparity in income between the parents and they spent nearly equal time caring for their children. If the shared parenting arrangment changed slightly the legal definition of each parent would have been reversed and the mother would have been ordered to pay about $10,000 per year to the father. The difference of $22,000 per year depended on only one overnight stay per week.

Shouldn't this read, "The difference of $2,000 per year"?

[balrog666]

Shouldn't this read, "The difference of $2,000 per year"?

No, the father pays $12,000 per year to the mother in child support.
If the children spent just a little more time with the father, the mother would have to pay the father $10,000 per year in child support.

Difference: a swing of $22,000 per year.

[Orangedog]

It's not about your feeling, it's about the kids.

This tired old connard about it being "about the kids" is a crock. You, ma'am, are more concerned with protecting the sense of intitlement that man-haters, the industry and goverment hacks have bestowed upon women in the domestic courts than anything that is "for the kids". You're not fooling anyone here with the "it's about the kids" mantra. We all know that it is really about money and control. But fear not, malicsious mothers are still a protected class and there are plenty of government hacks to preserve their "right" to extort alimony from the ex husbands above and beyond what it really costs to raise a child. Your fiefdom is safe. Mothers will still be able to use their children as pawns to in extortion. NOW and the other hateful women's groups have done a good job of stacking the deck, making the rules to their liking, and putting the right judges on the bench to do their bidding. But know this...the system breaks more and more fathers every day. They are beginning to wake up to what is being done to their families and how their own children are being used by the "Big-Sister" industry for nothing more than financial gain and revenge. More fathers who have been designated as "visitors" in their children's lives by Big-Sister are starting to register to vote and eventually will be a large enough voting block to get the biased judges off of the bench and their cohorts out of the legislatures. It will take at least a generation for this to happen. In the mean time, you and your kind have done fine job of destroying the American family and turning fathers into second-class citizens. Fathers will continue to be their puppets for many years to come. We will all continue to pay up and shut up until our children are grown. To you, a fathers love MUST have a dollar amount attached to it. Isn't it funny how that what you say is "in the child's best interest" is also always in the mother's financial best interest as well?

[William Terrell]

I don't know that it'll take twenty-five years. Four years ago I rarely saw an article about child-support inequities, much less court action, or any other kind of action. Two years ago I began to see a definite rise at the male grass roots level. If a good, solid case of mistaken child support hits the Supreme Court, the feminists can kiss the child-support-regardless-of-fatherhood end, at least, goodbye. That alone may break the system's back.

[Orangedog]

Are there any cases that appear to be on their way to the SCOTUS? There was a case in Ohio brought by Don Hubin to the Ohio Supreme Court, asking them to clearify the Ohio child support statute to allow for a parental time adjustment in the guidelines. It took something like 7 years to get that far, and the Ohio supremes refused to reverse the appellet courts ruling, with a one sentance statement and wouldn't even write an opinion. Has there ever been anything like a CS issue ever reached the SCOTUS?

[William Terrell]

I'd doubt it. An SC case would be cited too much for anybody to ignore. There might have been some cases pending, but the Ashwander v TVA (I'm pretty sure) case would keep constitutional issues out of consideration if there were anything else they can resolve the case on.

The right case would have to lock other issues out so they would have to consider the constitutionality of the laws behind the issue. I think the issue would be unequal access to the law created by the misprision of fraud allowed by the administrative court, in turn created by the courts using the current regulations or laws. The target would be the regulations and laws. Possibly the current child support system is a Bill of Attainder.

This is just my theory. I'm not a lawyer.

[RogerFGay]

Shouldn't this read, "The difference of $2,000 per year"?

No; $22,000. It's the difference between paying $12,000 and receiving $10,000.

[RogerFGay]

I think fathers are going to have to make a lot more noise before the USSC takes a child support case. Right now, the most interesting thing I know of in the US is the Georgia ruling that their guidelines are unconstitutional.

In the UK, I've just recieved word that there's a serious case in the courts about the division of the "Child Benefit" (European version of a dependent tax deduction). A father with exactly 50-50 time sharing is being supported in his suit to split the Child Beneift. Currently, they give it all to the mother.

In Sweden, the modified child support scheme that was heavily influenced by Clinton political advisors about five years ago has been scheduled for political review. This isn't just like the state guideline reviews in the US. It's a more serious step following widespread acknowledgement -- by the government included -- that it's all screwed up now.

[aruanan]

No; $22,000. It's the difference between paying $12,000 and receiving $10,000.

My point. It's an unreal difference since people either pay or receive rather than receive and then have to pay. In the few cases where someone has to receive $10K for a number of years and then have to pay $12K for another period of time, they would only be, in the end, behind or ahead depending on the relative number of years at either figure. Again, the difference would be due either to the sheer number of years operating at either figure (say 4 years at +$10K versus 5 years at -$12K) and to the difference between the two figures ($2K). One may as well talk about the price of a $24,000 car being $48,000 because that's the difference between "paying and receiving" $24,000. That $22,000 is a reification being used by the interested party to try to prove a point. But it's not a real number in terms of what any one person has to pay.

[RogerFGay]

That $22,000 is a reification being used by the interested party to try to prove a point. But it's not a real number in terms of what any one person has to pay.

Nope sorry. Can't let you get away with that. Those are real numbers from a real case and the $22,000 difference was pointed out by a New York state appellate court, then repeated by an extremely competent scientist who studied the issue in-depth. Then it was repeated by me -- I'm also an extremely competent scientist who has studied the issue in-depth and I can assure you that I have no problem handling this grade school math issue.

$10,000 - (- $12,000) = $22,000

alternatively:

$12,000 - (- $10,000) = $22,000

[RogerFGay]

Feel free to write a letter to the editor stating that I make good points (embellish this as much as you'd like). His email address is editor@mensnewsdaily.com

[Orangedog]

Respectfully, a lot of fathers are ordered to pay for those items on top of the guideline amount, even though those expenses are usually figured into the guidelines.

On top of that, in many cases the existing guidelines are not applied equally. My ex has an under-graduate degree as opposed to my technical degree. She could make just as much as I do, but chooses to only work 10 to 20 hours a week. And it's not that she has to be home for the kids (one is mine, the other is from her 3rd marriage) because they are both in school. If I decided that I only wanted to work 20 hours a week, the judge would waste no time in ruling that I would be found to be voluntarilly under-employed, and impute a fulltime income to me for guideline purposes. However in her case, her decision to only work part time was not taken into consideration.

Wait...it gets even better. I was the residential and custodial parent for 2 years. During that time, she was not ordered to pay anything....and she didn't pay for anything either. The support laws are a joke, and a rather bad one at that. The judges can interpret the laws as they see fit. Appealing a ruling of a domestic judge is not even an option in the majority of these cases. It is rare for a domestic court judge's decision to be overturned, and costs thousands of dollars to pursue. All a custodial mother has to do is call the support enforcement agency and claim that there has been a change in circumstances to get a review and increase. If this system was anything close to "fair" there would also be a visitation enforcement agency, but we can't have that, now can we?

[riverrunner]

Yes and all those can be put in the price of cost per day. The paying of a flat rate is not fair to one or the other partys. I figure can be worked out as what it costs perday then that amout payed.