"Blatt" wrote in message
om...

For the moment the USA project is aimed at seeing whether there are
geographic incentives to game the system. (There is a presumption that
Americans are more mobile than Europeans, and that the differences in
laws of the different states may exacerbate that tendency.) Presumably
unmarried mothers are not bound by The Hague rules on last 6-months
residence of the infant. They may also have an incentive to delay
legal determination of paternity. Is there migration to California
(and wherever else benefits are generous and the authorities ride
slipshod over father's rights, not to mention the rights of prior or
subsequent children)?

Okay, now you have defined the project more narrowly, I can comment on it
further.

In the US there are three primary CS models that are used. States have the
ability to use the model that they believe is best. Your student can
research which states use which CS models. The CS models include:

1. Cost-Sharing - This model was created before mathematics had been
developed for making standard of living adjustments. The cost of raising a
couple's children was a comparative starting point. Judges are allowed to
use discretion to formulate a final order. The recipient seeking CS has
access to cost and payment records. the payer wishing to show that expenses
are too high has no way to prove the point. This is the most subjective way
of setting CS orders, but being used less as economic models for CS are
perfected.

2. Percent-of-Income - This model is the simplest of the income
redistribution models. It is sometimes referred to as the Wisconsin Model.
The CS model comes from highly controlled economies such as the Soviet
Union. It is based on the child's entitlement shifting from the family unit
to the custodial parent. This model is also very subjective because of its
reliance on centrally controlled wealth redistribution in the failed
Communist system. Some state still use it. It can be applied against gross
or net incomes depending on state preferences.

3. Income-Shares - The only consideration in the Income Shares Model is
that of attempting to guarantee the custodial parent a standard of living
similar to that they might have if marriage was chosen over single
parenthood. It is not based on any rational principles or valid economic
data. While on the surface it purports to allocate a portion of both
parent's income to the children, only the NCP's share is actually monitored
for payment and use on the children. This model is highly subjective
because it is filled with assumptions of parental behavior.

Federal law mandates quadrennial reviews of CS guidelines to determine if
state economic conditions differ from national conditions to warrant
adjustments to the CS model used, i.e. does the cost of raising children in
the state differ from the rest of the nation as reported in Consumer
Expenditure Survey? The problem that has been faced in the US is the states
have ignored this Federal mandate and claimed they did this step -or- worse
hired a consultant to write a confirming report.

Here is what the last report concluded in my state: (A) The state's cost of
raising children was within 5% of the national average. (B) Existing simple
methods for adjusting CS awards (judicial discretion) are available to
account for different incomes and costs of living when using the income
based approach. And (C) if the state really wants to do a thorough review
of CS guideline/cost of raising children economic conditions it should use
updated comparisons of incomes and costs of living to show current
variations.

So back to your student and the project - The conclusion noted above seems
to indicate economists consider a plus or minus swing of 5% from national
averages to be an acceptable swing in creating CS guidelines, but they also
recognize judicial discretion can be used to make up for any differences.
The underlying problem is "guidelines" are treated as "de facto law" and the
variances are in the form of add-ons. The single most abusive way the CS
guidelines get used is in assigning an imputed income to a CS payer. So all
the economic studies and consultant reports become worthless when a judge
decides to use an imputed income to set a CS award.

While you considered my comments about illegal aliens to be a red herring,
that is the only instance I am aware of where migration is used to secure a
favorable child support award. Late term pregnancy mothers who enter the US
and give birth on US soil are a unique group. By law, their child born on
US soil is considered a US citizen. We allow illegal alien mothers to
remain in the US to care for their US citizen children. These mothers are
classified as Permanently Residing Under Color of Law (PRUCOL) allowing them
to receive welfare benefits which are then reimbursed through child support
orders.