New Study Shows Child Support Guidelines
in Need of Reform
By
Glenn Sacks and Jefffery
M. Leving
© 2004
A new study of child support has concluded that most
states' child support guidelines are poorly designed, inequitable,
and in need of reform. California's guidelines, which are among the
highest in the nation, exemplify this inequity, and often place such
privations on noncustodial parents that they are unable to remain a
meaningful part of their children's lives.
The study, "Child Support Guidelines and the Equalization of Living
Standards," was conducted by psychology professors Sanford Braver
and David Stockburger, and will appear in the soon-to-be-released
book The Law and Economics of Child Support Payments.
The researchers conclude that nationwide "under current child
support guidelines, the majority of custodial parents currently have
higher standards of living than their matched noncustodial parents,"
and that in some situations this inequity is "dramatic."
A recent study of California child support obligors conducted by the
Urban Institute reflects the effects of these high guidelines,
particularly as they impact low-income and minority men. According
to the report, only 25% of California's $14.4 billion child support
arrearage will be collected over the next decade, not because the
debt is owed by high living divorced dads who won't pay, but because
the support amounts demanded of noncustodial parents are often
wildly unrealistic. The average arrears amount owed is $3,000 higher
than the median annual earnings of employed child support debtors.
Those in the poorest category have a child support debt amounting to
their full net income for seven and a half years. Over a quarter of
the arrears total represents interest due on principal.
Braver and Stockburger conclude that the guidelines have become
tilted against noncustodial parents in large part because they fail
to consider the significant tax benefits accorded only to custodial
parents. Whereas child support income is tax-free to the custodial
parent, noncustodial parents must pay federal, state, and local
income tax, as well as social security or FICA, on the money they
pay in support. Also, in most cases only the custodial parent can
claim the $3,050 per child tax exemption. Additional custodial
parent tax advantages include: the Child Tax Credit (worth up to
$1,000 per child); the Earned Income Credit (up to $4,204, with two
children); deductions for school tuition and fees (up to $3,000 per
return); the Child Care Credit (worth up to $1,050 per child); and a
lower tax rate for "head of household" filing status.
Conversely, the federal tax code treats divorced and unwed
fathers--who are often paying 40 or 50 percent of their net income
in child support--as if they are childless bachelors.
Also, Braver and Stockburger point out that the current guidelines
and the studies upon which they were based ignore the many
child-related costs borne by noncustodial parents, including
transportation, entertainment, and food during visitation, as well
as money spent on clothes and out-of-pocket medical and dental
expenses. And because California has been extremely permissive in
allowing custodial parent move-aways, noncustodial parents often
shoulder sizable burdens in travel expenses.
If fact, the researchers probably understate the child support
inequities noncustodial fathers face. Because the child support
system is so inflexible, most fathers who lose their jobs or suffer
wage cuts are not able to get downward modifications on their child
support. These fathers end up paying support based on past wage
levels which do not reflect their current, diminished earnings.
In addition, while California is generally enthusiastic about
enforcing child support orders, its courts are indifferent at best
to enforcing noncustodial parents' visitation rights--rights which
studies show are frequently violated. Noncustodial parents must pay
out of pocket for legal representation to enforce these rights. Few
family issues are as heartbreaking as the common scenario of a
noncustodial father paying so much of his income in child support
that he cannot even afford to go to court to fight for his right to
see his children.
Many California fathers who fall in arrears on their child support
suffer punitive measures, such as suspension or loss of driver's
licenses, passports, and business licenses. Others struggle to stay
out of jail or feel it's hopeless and disappear. Most of these men
aren't deadbeats, but instead fathers who worked hard to support
their children both before and after their breakups with their
children's mothers.
Children need financial support, but they also need their parents'
love and emotional support. What rationale is there for California's
child support guidelines if they serve to harm or drive away one of
the two people who most love a child?
This column first appeared in the Daily Breeze
(6/20/04).
Jeffery M. Leving is one of America's most prominent family law
attorneys. He is the author of the book Fathers' Rights:
Hard-hitting and Fair Advice for Every Father Involved in a Custody
Dispute. His website is dadsrights.com.
Glenn Sacks is a men's and fathers' issues columnist and a talk show
host on KMPC AM 1540 in Los Angeles. His columns have appeared in
dozens of America's largest newspapers.
Glenn can be reached via his website, at www.GlennSacks.com or by
email at Glenn@GlennSacks.com.
Copyright 2004 Glenn
Sacks, all rights reserved
