New Study Shows Child Support Guidelines in Need of Reform

New Study Shows Child Support Guidelines in Need of Reform

By Jeffery M. Leving and Glenn Sacks

Jun 29, 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 .

Editor -- Child Support News wrote:
New Study Shows Child Support Guidelines in Need of Reform

Yep, they need to be ripped up and tossed in the nearest trash can.

Bob






By Jeffery M. Leving and Glenn Sacks

Jun 29, 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 .





--

When did we divide into sides?

"As president, I will put American government and our legal system back
on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for
President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/


























[Bob does not advocate any illegal, seditious, or immoral acts. All
posts are for discussion, rhetorical, or humorous purposes only.]

Editor -- Child Support News wrote:
New Study Shows Child Support Guidelines in Need of Reform

Yep, they need to be ripped up and tossed in the nearest trash can.

Bob






By Jeffery M. Leving and Glenn Sacks

Jun 29, 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 .





--

When did we divide into sides?

"As president, I will put American government and our legal system back
on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for
President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/


























[Bob does not advocate any illegal, seditious, or immoral acts. All
posts are for discussion, rhetorical, or humorous purposes only.]

Editor -- Child Support News wrote:
New Study Shows Child Support Guidelines in Need of Reform

Yep, they need to be ripped up and tossed in the nearest trash can.

Bob






By Jeffery M. Leving and Glenn Sacks

Jun 29, 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 .





--

When did we divide into sides?

"As president, I will put American government and our legal system back
on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for
President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/


























[Bob does not advocate any illegal, seditious, or immoral acts. All
posts are for discussion, rhetorical, or humorous purposes only.]