Chlid support before the guidelines

Historically, the amount of child support awarded was completely within the discretion of the judge, based on two primary factors: the ability of the obligor parent to pay and the needs of the child. In considering the ability of the obligor parent to pay, the court weighed the obligor parent's financial resources and personal needs. In considering the needs of the child, the court weighed the custodial parent's financial resources, the child's standard of living had the marriage not dissolved, the child's physical and emotional condition, and the child's educational needs.

Because the standard for the award of child support was amorphous, child support awards were subject to five major problems. First, many eligible parents had no child support awards at all, although they were entitled to such awards. In 1984, it was estimated that 30% of the 8.8 million custodial parents had no child support award. In 1989, 42.3% of the ten million mothers with children under age 21 whose fathers were living apart from the family did not have a child support award.

Second, among parents who were awarded child support, the empirical evidence suggested award inadequacy. One study found that most noncustodial parents paid more in monthly car payments than they did in child support payments.Another study found that in 1985, the average support award was only $208 per month, which is only 23% of the average expenditures for two children in a middle income household.

Third, studies showed the awards were inconsistent. One empirical study found that in one particular district court, support awards for one child ranged from 6% to 41% of the obligor's income; for two children, awards ranged from 5.6% to 40%. Another study reached similar conclusions. Thus, leaving the determination of child support to the complete discretion of judges based on "the needs of the child" led to inconsistent orders: two noncustodial parents with the same number of children, the same income, and the same circumstances, might very well obtain vastly different support orders.

Fourth, as a direct result of the inconsistency of the orders, obligors developed a disrespect for the court's orders, causing parents to simply forego their support obligations. In 1985, it was estimated that less than half of the women owed child support received the full amount due, and a full 26% received no support at all.In 1989, of the half-million women due child support, only 51% received the full amount, 24% received partial payment, and 25% received nothing. For 1991, before all the states had their guidelines in place, the result was not much better.

Fifth, because of the amorphous standard, neither parent had any means to predict what a court would order. Because neither parent could predict what a court would order, neither parent was willing to settle. With little incentive to settle for a party who could afford an attorney, negotiations would go on interminably. With parties unwilling to settle, courts reported tremendous pressures coping with an estimated one million divorces occurring annually, plus paternity cases and actions to modify existing orders.

These problems with child support awards were of direct concern to the federal government, because the federal government provided the "safety net" for those families whose support was inadequate or not forthcoming through the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program. Clearly, if these problems could be alleviated, the cost to the federal government would decrease. Thus, the federal government sought to curtail the traditional expansive nature of judicial discretion in determining child support awards.