View Single Post
  #2  
Old January 29th 04, 07:52 PM
Bob Whiteside
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default I was wrong, Bob


"Mel Gamble" wrote in message
...
I recently posted that oregun's new guidelines had upped the tables so
that, even with the new "parenting time credit", dads with standard
access would see no decrease in their support...I was wrong. I finally
got a chance to play with a few numbers and found that under the new
guidelines, and in a situation looking only at support (no childcare or
insurance) and with 1 joint child and the mother having 4 non-joint
children, with both parents making $3K/month and dad having 20% of the
yearly overnights, the father's support obligation will actually be $20
LESS using the new calculator than under the old guidelines/calculator
and $80 less than with no parenting credit using the new calculator.


The Policy Studies Inc. CS guidelines the state uses were developed in 1986.
During the 1991 review Oregon started to deviate from the "suggested"
guidelines. PSI took the state to task in their 2002 report for three
things: 1.) the state starting to deviate from the "economic estimates" for
raising children in 1991, 2.) the state not fully implementing their
recommendation in 1994, and 3.) the state ignoring PSI's attempts to being
the guidelines back "into range" in 1998.

The state caved in during the 2002 review and did a bunch of "make up"
adjustments to the CS guidelines to fully implement the PSI CS guideline
recommendations. (This means PSI is running CS in Oregon, not the
bureaucracy.) So it is not surprising, even with a 20% parenting plan, a
parent would pay more CS at the same income level than they were required to
pay without a parenting plan under the old schedule.

Of course, what this all means is the CS guideline amounts are created with
smoke and mirrors economic estimates. The states' line of reasoning is the
previous guidleines were too LOW, because they didn't include the full PSI
recommendations, and simultaneously too HIGH, because they were based on an
erroneous assumption they included visitation time credits. Pretty slick,
huh? Too low and too high at the same time!