So somehow or other I ended up on this email thread about changing child support guidelines and raising the income maximum to $7500. The first email I got made a valid point:

From: Ted Hulick
Subject: SB304/2005 USDA report on cost to raise a child...shows 100% burden placed on the NCP...

"This is the USDA report used to justify SB304:
http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/ExpendituresonChildrenbyFamilies.htm

The total annual cost to raise two children is estimated at approx. $22,000 in the report.

For the moment we will assume that this is accurate.

The new child support cap proposal for two children is 25% of $7,500/mo =
$1875/mo= $22,500/YR

THIS IS EXACTLY THE SAME AS THE TOTAL COST IN THE USDA REPORT AND….

PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS SHOWS THE NON-CUSTODIAL PARENT PAYING 100% OF THE COSTS TO RAISE A CHILD…AND THE REPORT INCLUDES HEALTH CARE WHICH IS ALREADY PAID BY THE NCP."
*****************


The response is by someone I'm not even sure who, but I think an official. Here are two paragraphs from that:
From: David Williams_SC
"An important point missed in your analysis is that a greater percentage of single-parent families fall below the $43,200 income level and their child rearing expenses consume a much greater percentage of income.

The purpose of child support is to provide financial assistance to the custodial parent for maintenance and care of the child. The custodial parent, in most cases, has the child more than 61% of the time. With that in mind, coupled with the fact that most custodial parents earn far less in wages, how do you propose computing child support for a child?"

******

Now, I'm not sure where he's getting the figures but there is a serious problem when calculating low income obligor child support or even tracking income in the child support system. The fact is, they don't track it or even have a place in the database for it in many states. So how can this guy make that claim?

So of course, I try to be diplomatic, but off on tangents I go... really, I need a moderator just for my own posts! Here's what I said:

"First off, I disagree with the statement about single family
households. But, even assuming that it is correct, I think it is wrong
to use one calculation for low income families and another for middle
or upper income families.

For everyone EXCEPT low income families, I think child support should
be based on actual child costs. Each family should fill out a sheet
with the amount spent on a set criteria of items. Those expenses would
then be tallied, and split 50/50. Timeshare should have no factor in
calculating child support. In collaborative law, when I have used this
formula, I get 100% buy in from the parents and absolute compliance. I
acknowledge that this is partially from the fact that the parents are
working together in the best interests of their children. But I also
would put out there that it is because nothing about the calculation is
arbitratry or taking place in a black box. The figures are there in
black and white and each line item can be argued if needed. Obviously
including in the child cost calculation a line item for child care for
a 16 year old is inappropriate. But that figure is included in
guideline calculations regardless of the age of the child.

I know plenty of families that do not spend $22,000 on their children.
That is not food, clothing, shelter, and neccessities. That would
include a significant portion of the rent, which I believe is the
responsibility of both parents. Both parents need to have appropriate
housing for their children, so the housing line item should in all
fairness be a wash.

When you use actual figures many of the markups in the guideline become
screamingly obvious. The child care item is just one example. Also,
in many cases, health insurance is hidden in the cost, but also tacked
on as an additional obligation. That's double dipping.

Now, in middle and upper class families, there is a bit more wiggle
room, but in low income families, there has to be a self support
reserve in every calculation. And there is none. When you talk about
very low income families, you are usually talking about TWO people who
both earn little to no income. To place a heavy financial burden, and
a complex legal systems requirements on one of those people, it is no
wonder that we have gone from merely $4 Billion in arrears to nearly
$20 Billion since the system was put into full gear.

The current system takes no consideration of fragile families, nor does
it allow for alternative family units. Since unmarried families have
surpassed married families in this country, we have to rethink our
programs that require a man to marry the woman (which eliminates her
elidgibility for welfare) or face persecutory child support
enforcement. There has to be a middle ground. And the child support
guidelines should take that into consideration. We should not be
digging holes that people cannot work their way out of.

We seem to have lost our sense of charity in this country, and of
forgiveness. The strident finger pointing and blame throwing must
cease if we are ever going to find a real and last solution. But by
bending the figures to support a broken system, the powers that be are
only prolonging the inevitable colapse of the program. Guidelines need
to be just that, Guidelines, not immovable mountains. And they should
be based on ACTUAL income, not inflated or imputed income. This is the
real issue with low income obligors. Often times they are imputed
income at 40 hours per week at minimum wage and that might be far more
than they will ever be able to earn.

Because of the federal mandates that require certain things, we have
lost all reason. I do not believe that anything to do with children
should be based on the almighty buck. Best Interest of the Child must
have some standard, not just an opinion and a dollar amount. It must
be measurable. But that is another topic all together.

My closing arguement is that by allocating such a significant portion
of one party's income and not requiring the other party to provide
proof of actual expenses, the system will never been seen as anything
other than a transfer of wealth scheme geared toward earning the state
money. For real progress, EVERY child's unique situation, and their
parents ability to pay, and the welfare of all the other children of
the family, needs to be accounted for. It does no good for one child
to get all of one mans money, while his other children live on Top
Ramen. It is unfair to treat children differently. But we do, because
the new children earn the States no money. THAT issue needs to be
dealth with. So if there was a way to make the guidelines change by
income level, consider all children, and parents actual ability to pay
(not ability to earn unless they have purposely reduced thier income),
then it could work. But it must be based on actual expenses. "
**********

OK, so I know I go on and on and off on tangents... that's my style and trust me it takes an army of editors to keep me on track when I'm writing books! But, in this case I think I opened up a point that the child support industry doesn't want to address... the fairness of the "system" to ALL children.


What do you think?