The judge determined that the only credible evidence supporting the
challenge was contained in:

...the study of custody awards in 14 south Georgia counties between
1995-97 conducted by Kent Earhardt, J.D., Ph.D., which found that, in
82.2% of contested cases, custody was awarded to the mother. It
follows, therefore, that a support obligation under the Guidelines was
imposed on the fathers in those cases. Ehlers v. Ehlers, 264 Ga. 668
(1994). There has been no credible challenge to the methodology or the
result of the Ear[]hardt study. Therefore, this Court finds that men
are adversely impacted by the Guidelines as applied to a grossly
disproportionate degree, which constitutes an impermissibly
discriminatory effect on a group based upon their gender.

The points discovered in the FINDINGS OF FACT are as follows:

1.

The Guidelines adopted by Georgia as originally designed by the
underlying economic study were intended only for welfare situations -
the current use for all situations was not the intended purpose. The
underlying facts of the [original] presumptions ...no longer exist. The
presumptive percentages were based only on data for low-income cases
and were extended without the benefit of data for non-welfare cases.
.....
2.

Georgia's presumptive awards rise as a share of obligor after-tax
income. No child cost studies show child costs rising as a share of
after-tax income. All child cost studies show child costs declining as
a share of after-tax income. The state has presented no evidence that
child costs rise as a perc[e]ntage of household net income. ....
3.

There are no baseline components to the Guidelines. It is not
clear what is being rebutted, therefore they are arbitrary and a due
process violation.
4.

The Guidelines do not take into account the large tax-related
child cost offsets the custodial parent receives. ....
5.

The presumptive award results in the custodial parent receiving a
huge financial windfall - or profit - in excess of child costs. ....
6.

The Georgia presumptive award does not allocate the child support
burden according to the parents' relative ability to pay. ....The
outcome is that the custodial parent does not contribute to child costs
at the same rate as the non-custodial parent and, often, not at all.
7.

Evidence presented ...show that the Guideline presumptive awards
include such large amounts of hidden alimony (presumptive award less an
economics based award) that a non-custodial parent is unable to provide
for a child when in the non-custodial parent's care to the same extent
as in the custodial parent's household. Presumptive awards have been
shown to typically exceed total actual costs [of child raising]
according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. ...Such excessive
child support awards are not in the best interest of the child ...[and]
leave[] the non-custodial parent in poverty while the custodial parent
enjoys a notably higher standard of living.
8.

The Guidelines are biased toward including hidden alimony for the
custodial parent even when the custodial parent earns substantially
higher gross income than the non-custodial parent. The Guidelines do
not meet standards of fairness even for alimony. ...
9.

The use of a range of percentages allows substantial opportunity
for similarly situated individuals to receive dissimilar treatment.
That is, different obligors with the same income can end up with
presumptive obligations that differ by hundreds of dollars per month.
.....
10.

The presumptive award for low-income obligors (for example,
minimum wage workers) pushes low-income obligors below the poverty
level. A presumptive award that leaves the obligor with less income
than needed for basic living needs creates an extraordinary burden for
the obligor and, potentially, an additional burden on taxpayers. This
violates equal protection. This is contrary both to public policy and
common sense.
11.

The Guidelines do not take into account custodial parent income.
The presumptive child support award does not vary with family income -
only obligor income. This is not economically rational and violates
equal protection. ....
12.

Child costs of only the custodial parent are covered by the
Guidelines. Similar costs incurred when the child is with the
non-custodial parent do not receive similar consideration. ...Each
parent has an equal duty to provide financially for the children when
in the care of the other parent. ....in actual practice, typically the
non-custodial parent is not absent and incurs substantial child costs
that the guidelines do not require the custodial parent to contribute.
This violates equal protection and does not meet the financial needs of
the children when they are in the care of the non-custodial parent....
13.

Medical insurance costs are not treated the same for all
obligors. The presumptive award includes typical medical expenses. The
Guidelines allow the court to either treat an obligor's payment of the
children's medical insurance as an add-on or as a credit toward the
presumptive award. This dissimilar treatment violates equal protection.
.....The difference between these alternatives is $140 per month for the
obligor [Michelle Sweat].
14.

The Guideline criteria for deviation do not give any guidance on
how to apply the deviations in a consistent manner. This is
unconstitutionally vague and generally results in no deviations in most
cases - even when the circumstances to deviate exist.
15.

The Guidelines are arbitrary and bear no relationship to the
intended federal purpose of determining an economically appropriate
child support award. The Guidelines have no rational relationship to
child cost data. ...The Guidelines do not take into account where the
actual child costs are incurred - that is, which parent incurs what
costs. The Guidelines do not take into account child costs net of tax
benefit offsets.
16.

The Guidelines bear no relationship to the constitutional
standards for child support of requiring each parent to have an equal
duty in supporting the child.
17.

Which parent is the obligor and which is the obligee should be
determined only after examination of the relevant factors - not before.
The financial circumstances should determine which parent is obligor.
The Guidelines arbitrarily presume that the obligor is always the
non-custodial parent when the financial circumstances may indicate just
the opposite. Importantly, mere classification before-hand of the
obligor does not provide sufficient information to determine the
economically appropriate award. The classifications of obligor and
obligee are not rationally related to the intended purpose of the
Guidelines of determining the economically appropriate award.
18.

The Guidelines interfere with a non-custodial parent's
constitutional right to raise one's children without "unnecessary"
government interference. The Guidelines are so excessive as to force
non-custodial parents to frequently work extra jobs for basic needs -
detracting from parenting without state justification. Low-income
obligors are frequently forced to work in a cash economy to survive as
a result of child support obligations that if paid push the obligor
below the poverty level. This is the result of automatic withholding of
child support with payroll jobs and use of guidelines that
presumptively push minimum wage obligors below the poverty level. As
these workers are forced to "disappear" into unofficial society, these
obligors are deprived of the constitutional right to raise their
children without unnecessary government intrusion. In fact, any
government mandate beyond basic child costs interferes with this right
to privacy as occurs with the current guidelines.

For the current case, the presumptive award pushes Ms. Sweat, the
obligor, to just above the poverty level and below the poverty level if
she pays court ordered bankruptcy payments. This is an extraordinary
burden imposed on the obligor by the Guidelines.
19.

In the present case, the earnings of the obligee, Samuel Sweat,
significantly exceed those of the obligor. Nonetheless, the guidelines
require the obligor, Michelle Sweat, to pay out a significant amount of
her before tax income to the obligee, to whom this money will be tax
free. The income of the obligee will be considerably increased, and he
will have the tax advantages attendant to being a custodial parent.
Additionally, the obligee will have the additional benefit of his new
spouse's earnings. In the meantime, the obligor's net earnings will
probably put her at or below the poverty line, and will in any event
leave her with less than half of her earnings to live on. This scheme
thus constitutes a windfall to the obligee and financial disaster to
the obligor.

Thus, any calculation of a support award under the Guidelines
would be so far removed from any economically rational and apprpriate
award that it constitutes a gross error well beyond any "mere
imprecision."

With respect to issues of equal protection, judge Perkins stated:

....The egregiously different burdens and benefits placed on
persons similarly situated but for the award of custody, i.e., parents
with the obligation to support their child(ren) and the same means for
doing so as when they were married, has been explained at length above.
This Court finds that such disparate treatment violates the guarantees
of equal protection....

Relating to the right to privacy, he stated:

...it has been long recognized to apply to "family" concerns
whether the family exists within the confines of marriage or not....

....by requiring the non-custodial parent to pay an amount in
excess of those required to meet the child's basic needs, as the
economic analysis has shown, the Guidelines impermissibly interfere
with parental decisions regarding financial expenditures on children.
.....

In regard to unconstitutional taking of property, he stated that the
state-induced poverty in which Michelle Sweat finds herself will
prevent her from being able to afford to buy the court transcripts that
she'll need, if required, to make an appeal, and therefore ordered the
State of Georgia to pay for the required transcripts.
Furthermore, he stated that, in "seeking to impose an award under
the Guidelines against Ms. Sweat for the purpose of the state
continuing to receive federal funds," Georgia's Department of Human
Resources' action "constitutes a public taking for a public purpose."

About recent supporting foreign opinion, the judge stated:

One issue of equal protection is taking into account all of an
obligor's dependents - not just those involved in the instant case.
.....Any formula for deviation on this matter that Georgia DHR may have
is not presumptive, is not statutory, and is not applied statewide in
all cases in which an obligor has additional dependents other than
those in the instant case. ...Guidelines without such presumptive
formula likewise violate equal protection requirements as related to
multiple family situations and are unconstitutional.

With respect to the constitutionally acceptable child support standard,
the good judge stated that,

This Court finds, as a matter of law, that a constitutionally sound
standard for the determination of child support guidelines can readily
be determined.

First, it must acknowledge the principle ...that both parents are
obliged to support their children in accordance with their relative
means to do so. The Supreme Court of the United States has provided
ample reason to conclude that any guideline discriminating against
either parent would be found constitutionally defective. ....The
decisions of our sister States in holding unconstitutional statutory
presumptions that custody of children of "tender years" should be
awarded to the mother is also persuasive. ....Procreation is both a
joint act and a joint responsibility.

Secondly, it must conform to long-acknowledged limitations on
government intrusion into the rights of families....That is, the
government's interest in family expenditures on children, whether that
family exists before or after the dissolution of marriage, or even in
the absence of marriage, is limited to insuring that the children's
basic needs are met. Not extravagances, not luxuries, but needs. Once
that occurs, government intrusion must cease. ...

The third and final criteria is that the means chosen for the
purpose of determining need and allocating each parent's respective
responsibility in meeting that need, whether in the form of a
presumptive guideline or otherwise, must be based on a rational
relationship between the predicate facts and the conclusion(s)
directed. ....

This standard is not dissimilar to the former needs vs. ability to
pay standard, but with the additional criteria that the needs are not
excessive, the ability to pay is that of both parents and that the
method of calculation is economically rational.

As explained above, the Guidelines fail miserably in meeting these
standards.

CONCLUSION

In light of the Georgia child support guidelines being
unconstitutional, Michelle Sweat shall not be required to pay Samuel E.
Sweat any child support based upon her gross income of $1,862 per
month, the father's gross income of $2,647.50 per month, and the mother
having parenting time with the children at least 20 percent of the
time. The mother shall, however, continue to provide health insurance
for the children which currently costs approximately $70 per month for
so long as it is available through her employer. The mother shall also
pay 14.3 percent of any unreimbursed medical expenses of the children
that exceed $250 per year. This percentage is based on her share of
combined income above self-support needs.

For the foregoing reasons, the Defendant's Motion to Declare
Georgia's Child Support Guidelines Unconstitutional is hereby GRANTED.

SO ORDERED this _25th___ day of __February_, 2002,

_______________________________

HONORABLE C. DANE PERKINS
Judge of Superior Court
Alapaha Judicial Circuit
State of Georgia


Too bad it was struck down, seems reasonable.