PDA

View Full Version : State-by-state comparison of child support guidelines


Blatt
August 29th 03, 07:51 PM
I was helping a student compile a state-by-state spreadsheet
comparison of child support provisions and was wondering if what we
were seeing could possibly be true: that California is by far the most
generous of all 50 states and 5 territories, with no maximum, so that
the mother who is jobless would get an infinite amount of support
(i.e., 12.8% without limit) from the father, whereas in other states
there is a cap. Thus, in New York, there is judicial discretion to
award the legal 17% figure (for one child) on more than $80,000 p.a.
of disposable income.

Other countries (the UK for example) have limits on the pattern of
(but greater than) New York's (disposable income of up to GBP 100,000
p.a., charged at 15% for one child).

No wonder that Liz Hurley and others have made a bee line for
California...

Any anomalies the student should know about?

The DaveŠ
August 30th 03, 04:07 AM
> Blatt wrote:

> I was helping a student compile a state-by-state spreadsheet
> comparison of child support provisions and was wondering if what we
> were seeing could possibly be true: that California is by far the most
> generous of all 50 states and 5 territories, with no maximum, so that
> the mother who is jobless would get an infinite amount of support
> (i.e., 12.8% without limit) from the father, whereas in other states
> there is a cap. Thus, in New York, there is judicial discretion to
> award the legal 17% figure (for one child) on more than $80,000 p.a.
> of disposable income.
>
> Other countries (the UK for example) have limits on the pattern of
> (but greater than) New York's (disposable income of up to GBP 100,000
> p.a., charged at 15% for one child).
>
> No wonder that Liz Hurley and others have made a bee line for
> California...
>
> Any anomalies the student should know about?

I've always been amused by the phrase "disposable income". Talk about
a nice euphemism.

dani
August 31st 03, 09:16 AM
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 11:51:23 -0700, Blatt wrote:

> I was helping a student compile a state-by-state spreadsheet comparison
> of child support provisions and was wondering if what we were seeing
> could possibly be true: that California is by far the most generous of
> all 50 states and 5 territories, with no maximum, so that the mother who
> is jobless would get an infinite amount of support (i.e., 12.8% without
> limit) from the father, whereas in other states there is a cap. Thus, in
> New York, there is judicial discretion to award the legal 17% figure
> (for one child) on more than $80,000 p.a. of disposable income.

Is it possible to get a copy of this comparison? It may help in a fight
against the CS laws here in California. The California guidelines are
supposed to be based on Federal standards and it would be interesting to
see how much difference there is, say, between California and New York
which has a much higher cost of living standard.

> Other countries (the UK for example) have limits on the pattern of (but
> greater than) New York's (disposable income of up to GBP 100,000 p.a.,
> charged at 15% for one child).
>
> No wonder that Liz Hurley and others have made a bee line for
> California...
>
> Any anomalies the student should know about?

"Judicial discretion"?

Dan Curry
September 1st 03, 02:52 AM
Disposable income has no clear definition in California. The typical
practice is to deduction only Federal and State withholdings. This creates a
false impression of fairness while ignoring the real cost of living in the
crap whole.


"The DaveŠ" > wrote in message
...
> > Blatt wrote:
>
> > I was helping a student compile a state-by-state spreadsheet
> > comparison of child support provisions and was wondering if what we
> > were seeing could possibly be true: that California is by far the most
> > generous of all 50 states and 5 territories, with no maximum, so that
> > the mother who is jobless would get an infinite amount of support
> > (i.e., 12.8% without limit) from the father, whereas in other states
> > there is a cap. Thus, in New York, there is judicial discretion to
> > award the legal 17% figure (for one child) on more than $80,000 p.a.
> > of disposable income.
> >
> > Other countries (the UK for example) have limits on the pattern of
> > (but greater than) New York's (disposable income of up to GBP 100,000
> > p.a., charged at 15% for one child).
> >
> > No wonder that Liz Hurley and others have made a bee line for
> > California...
> >
> > Any anomalies the student should know about?
>
> I've always been amused by the phrase "disposable income". Talk about
> a nice euphemism.
>

Blatt
September 1st 03, 08:31 AM
dani > wrote in message >...


> Is it possible to get a copy of this comparison? It may help in a fight
> against the CS laws here in California. The California guidelines are
> supposed to be based on Federal standards and it would be interesting to
> see how much difference there is, say, between California and New York
> which has a much higher cost of living standard.
>
> > Other countries (the UK for example) have limits on the pattern of (but
> > greater than) New York's (disposable income of up to GBP 100,000 p.a.,
> > charged at 15% for one child).

The kid's paper isn't due for months. It seems to me that the key
elements she's come up with so far are (1) caps on income taken into
consideration (as in the NY and UK examples I gave), (2) allowable
deductions -- especially consideration of afterborn children (in some
jurisdictions second, and third, families are allowed to starve and
the father virtually forced to abandon them, so that he can stay out
of jail/keep his driver license and passport/whatever), (3) priority
of claims: in some jurisdictions (England?) the child support
authorities are more interested in recapturing for the Government any
welfare payments that have been made than in getting money to the
kids.

There's also a matter of systemic efficiency and competence; and legal
issues (probably beyond the scope of her paper) relating to
enforcement of child support claims against men who are not the
biological fathers. The "best interests of the child" sometimes leads
courts to assess child support on any man whom the kid has ever called
"Daddy".

It is said that the bars of Asia and Latin America are full of the
victims of miscarriages of justice (as well as genuine deadbeat dads,
of course), frustrated at the unfairness of the system. It isn't too
hard to get a legitimate second nationality and passport (or at least
the right to stay in a country without a passport) if you've got a
couple of years to work on the project, and a few thousand dollars.
Think of Ronnie Biggs, the Great Train Robber. He only went back to
Britain because of declining health, figuring that the prison health
service would keep him alive a bit longer. (His son, who accompanied
him there, wound up with a nationality problem, but that's anther
story.)

dani
September 2nd 03, 08:08 AM
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 11:51:23 -0700, Blatt wrote:

> I was helping a student compile a state-by-state spreadsheet comparison
> of child support provisions and was wondering if what we were seeing could
> possibly be true: that California is by far the most generous of all 50
> states and 5 territories, with no maximum, so that the mother who is
> jobless would get an infinite amount of support (i.e., 12.8% without
> limit) from the father, whereas in other states there is a cap. Thus, in
> New York, there is judicial discretion to award the legal 17% figure (for
> one child) on more than $80,000 p.a. of disposable income.

Is it possible to get a copy of this comparison? It may help in a fight
against the CS laws here in California. The California guidelines are supposed to
be based on Federal standards and it would be interesting to see how much
difference there is, say, between California and New York which has a much
higher cost of living standard.

> Other countries (the UK for example) have limits on the pattern of (but
> greater than) New York's (disposable income of up to GBP 100,000 p.a.,
> charged at 15% for one child).
>
> No wonder that Liz Hurley and others have made a bee line for
> California...
>
> Any anomalies the student should know about?

"Judicial discretion"?

Bob Whiteside
September 2nd 03, 04:45 PM
"Blatt" > wrote in message
om...
> I was helping a student compile a state-by-state spreadsheet
> comparison of child support provisions and was wondering if what we
> were seeing could possibly be true: that California is by far the most
> generous of all 50 states and 5 territories, with no maximum, so that
> the mother who is jobless would get an infinite amount of support
> (i.e., 12.8% without limit) from the father, whereas in other states
> there is a cap. Thus, in New York, there is judicial discretion to
> award the legal 17% figure (for one child) on more than $80,000 p.a.
> of disposable income.
>
> Other countries (the UK for example) have limits on the pattern of
> (but greater than) New York's (disposable income of up to GBP 100,000
> p.a., charged at 15% for one child).
>
> No wonder that Liz Hurley and others have made a bee line for
> California...
>
> Any anomalies the student should know about?

The problem you have in not getting much of a response is the fact you have
a pre-conceived notion of what "generous child support awards" means. The
various state laws that have a cap on CS awards are not a real issue for
average CS awards. And using the high-end cap as the definition of CS
awards being "generous" limits the discussion to a narrow scope.

The real issues that make CS awards "generous" are things like:

1. How does the state treat imputed income and how often do they use the
imputed income to set CS awards above the actual earnings of the payer?

2. Do the states require any accounting of how CS is spent or do they
assume the money is spent correctly?

3. Are state CS guidelines set based on actual children expenditures or do
they include hidden alimony over and above actual children expenditures?

4. Are the states willing to make adjustments to CS when the NCP suffers
some serious event like losing his job, having bonuses cut, having stock
options tank, etc.?

5. Do the states cut off CS at age 18 or do they allow for post-secondary
education CS awards up to age 21 or higher?

6. Do the state publish how CS is defined or do they intentionally remove
the term "child support" from their statutes to prevent any disputes over CS
and its use?

7. Do the states make adjustments in CS awards for shared or joint custody
or do they make NCP's pay the full amount even though they spent lots of
time taking care of the children?

8. Do the states define NCP time with the children as days spent with the
children or do they define NCP time as overnight stays?

9. Do the state's CS awards consider the nearly 30% of the children's cost
that travel with the children or do they make the NCP pay for children's
time with the CP while they are simultaneously incurring visitation costs?

10. Do the CS guidelines treat all children equally or do they favor first
born children over later born children?

11. Do the CS awards cover all expenditures for the children or do the
states allow add-ons for child care, healthcare, special education needs,
etc.?

12. Do the states have a financial motive to increase CS awards to enhance
their collection-to-cost ration Federal bonus checks or do they treat all
cases equally for increases, enforcement, modifications, collections, etc?

13. Do the states require CS to be paid by illegal alien fathers to help
repay welfare benefits paid to illegal alien mothers forcing the fathers to
work illegally in this country or do they enforce the immigration laws,
deport the illegals, and report illegal aliens working in this country?

14. Do the states require fathers who have their children living with them
to pay CS to mothers who no longer have custody or do they continue CS
payments to the mothers even though the mother voluntarily gave up custody?

As you can see the list of what makes child support awards "generous" could
go on and on. The high-end cap on CS awards does not come close to showing
whether CS awards are generous or not.

Blatt
September 3rd 03, 08:22 AM
"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message t>...

> The problem you have in not getting much of a response is the fact you have
> a pre-conceived notion of what "generous child support awards" means. The
> various state laws that have a cap on CS awards are not a real issue for
> average CS awards. And using the high-end cap as the definition of CS
> awards being "generous" limits the discussion to a narrow scope.

The problem with dealing with the (very genuine) issues you raise is
that they are, most of them, subjective. And trying to set up a matrix
with 55 jurisdictions would be impossible: how many dimensions can you
work in at once on a PC?

There are a zillion anomalies, including many of those you cite. I
told the student that those could best be put in footnotes. To the
degree that they frustrate the aim of CS they need to be mentioned. I
am troubled by some of your arguments: the "illegal alien" issue is a
red herring. Here (in Britain) the issue is "asylum seekers". One case
I saw involved a legal Filipina who had a child by a bogus asylum
seeker. She was given benefits (including in due course a council
house) but he was deported (to Turkey or Kurdistan or somewhere). By
the time she was interviewed, she'd been naturalized and was working:
so the system succeeded for her in one respect, and failed her in
another.

The Child Support Agency system
http://www.csa.gov.uk/
suffers from exactly the perverse incentives you complain about, which
is why we think there are lessons (one way or the other) to be learned
from the USA.

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)?

Most of the questions you raise can only be answered by interviews.
That would be an undertaking not for a student but for a large
research entity! Meanwhile we have only anecdotes.

Bob Whiteside
September 3rd 03, 06:28 PM
"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.

Blatt
September 4th 03, 06:59 AM
"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message et>...


> 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.

Thank you for the explanation, which will probably be sufficient to
provide a road map through the professional literature.

As for PRUCOL, I note that having a US citizen child is not included
in the SSA definition/explanation:
http://policy.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/0500501420
I had always understood that the USA does deport parents of American
citizen children, essentially giving the parents the option of taking
the child with them, fostering them with friends or relatives, or
leaving them in care of the state, presumably leading to their
adoption.

While Ireland has had a practice (said to derive from religious theory
attributed to St Thomas Aquinus) of not deporting families with an
Irish-citizen child, Britain certainly does (and indeed since 1983 has
not granted nationality to a child born in Britain of non-citizen,
non-permanent-resident parents).

Of course a child support order is only meaningful if it is
collectible, and cross-border enforcement in the sort of countries
from which undocumented aliens come is, well, doubtful.

To return to the subject at hand: it's always interesting to look at
the high-profile, celebrity cases. For these, "guidelines" seem to go
by the wayside. In doing case research (LexisONE.com and Findlaw.com
searches under <"child support" AND million> seem to be the most
productive) you do get some interesting NY and CA cases of milionaire
dads and middle-class moms. Lester v. Lenane, 84 Cal. App. 4th 536,
101 Cal. Rptr. 2d 86 (2000) comes to mind on custody and other
matters; In re Duncan, 2001 Cal. App. LEXIS 533,*; 90 Cal. App. 4th
617; 108 Cal. Rptr. 2d 833 (2001) on disparity of earnings and a
6-digit child support award.

I don't mean to be doing the research on this; on the other hand the
subject has a lot of potential. Rather than learn from each other's
mistakes, Britain and the USA seem to copy them.

Bob Whiteside
September 4th 03, 05:53 PM
"Blatt" > wrote in message
om...
> "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
et>...
>
>
> > 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.
>
> Thank you for the explanation, which will probably be sufficient to
> provide a road map through the professional literature.
>
> As for PRUCOL, I note that having a US citizen child is not included
> in the SSA definition/explanation:
> http://policy.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/0500501420
> I had always understood that the USA does deport parents of American
> citizen children, essentially giving the parents the option of taking
> the child with them, fostering them with friends or relatives, or
> leaving them in care of the state, presumably leading to their
> adoption.

I mis-spoke when I referred to mothers on PRUCOL status as being under the
"law." Technically, they are allowed to stay in the US because of court
decisions. Check out:

http://www.fairus.org/html/04107604.htm

Please remember welfare and child support are tied together in the US. When
a mother applies for welfare benefits for her child she is required to name
the father so the state can establish paternity and get a CS order to have
the father repay the state for the welfare benefits paid out.

Blatt
September 5th 03, 02:31 AM
"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message et>...


> I mis-spoke when I referred to mothers on PRUCOL status as being under the
> "law." Technically, they are allowed to stay in the US because of court
> decisions. Check out:
>
> http://www.fairus.org/html/04107604.htm
>
> Please remember welfare and child support are tied together in the US. When
> a mother applies for welfare benefits for her child she is required to name
> the father so the state can establish paternity and get a CS order to have
> the father repay the state for the welfare benefits paid out.

Relying on FAIR for a statement of USG policy and practices with
respect to aliens is like relying on the Daily Mail for a picture of
UK policy on asylum seekers.

True refugees (so-called "Convention refugees") are entitled to
national treatment (i.e., to be treated substantially like the host
country citizens). Most asylum seekers are not (for that very reason)
granted Convention status even if they are allowed to remain.

I think it would be a very exceptional case where a parent was allowed
to stay in the US or in the UK solely by reason of a child's
nationality or place of birth. (A child would only have access to UK
nationality if s/he actually lived here the first ten years of life
(or, not relevant here, if the mother or the father if married to the
mother obtained UK nationality or permanent residence status during
the child's minority); while the UK Government in 1980 (when the new
nationality act was being debated) said that it would never deport a
noncitizen British-born child (although it would not hesitate to
deport that child's parents) it now does, or reserves the right to do,
exactly that.

In fact sometimes children are left with friends or relatives. Once
the child is 10, or anytime later in life, it can register as a
British citizen.

Many US (and Canadian, etc.) benefits are not citizenship- or
needs-tested. Thus child allowances ($100 or so a month) go to the
person who cares for any minor child.

The UK Child Support Agency's practices are consistent with what you
say about welfare and support. But it seems wildly improbable that
most child support cases involve poor persons. Divorce and nonmarital
children (the latter constitute more than half of all births in the
USA, UK and France although not, or not yet, in such (conservative?)
countries as Ireland, Belgium, Switzerland).

Bob Whiteside
September 5th 03, 02:57 AM
"Blatt" > wrote in message
om...
> "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
et>...
>
>
> > I mis-spoke when I referred to mothers on PRUCOL status as being under
the
> > "law." Technically, they are allowed to stay in the US because of court
> > decisions. Check out:
> >
> > http://www.fairus.org/html/04107604.htm
> >
> > Please remember welfare and child support are tied together in the US.
When
> > a mother applies for welfare benefits for her child she is required to
name
> > the father so the state can establish paternity and get a CS order to
have
> > the father repay the state for the welfare benefits paid out.
>
> Relying on FAIR for a statement of USG policy and practices with
> respect to aliens is like relying on the Daily Mail for a picture of
> UK policy on asylum seekers.

How about an official government source you claimed did not show what I am
saying. See:

http://policy.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/0500501420

I'm beginning to think you are the "student" rather than the "teacher."
Teachers are normally more open to offers of research sources and direction
for finding facts. Your arguments are against the facts and the sources.

Blatt
September 5th 03, 01:02 PM
"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message et>...
> "Blatt" > wrote in message

> I'm beginning to think you are the "student" rather than the "teacher."
> Teachers are normally more open to offers of research sources and direction
> for finding facts. Your arguments are against the facts and the sources.

No, I'm a human rights researcher and student advisor. I know nothing
about child support and do appreciate what you had to say.

I see the Daily Mail rant against bogus asylum seekers -- and
doubtless with justice -- but they wind up arguing against withdrawing
from Europe entirely and renouncing commitments made in favour of
escapees from terror in 1947-1951, after the reality of the Holocaust
and the Iron Curtain became obvious. (What then happened is that
clever lawyers recharacterised economic migrants as asylum seekers,
and the courts proved incapable of telling them apart.)

FAIR is a lobbying organisation, with an agenda. That's all I meant.
One would not go either to FAIR or to the Daily Mail to get "facts":
one would go to the Census Bureau, UNHCR, the IOM or another
disinterested collector of data.

BTW I have no "argument", it being none of my business what the USA
chooses to do in its political wisdom about anything that doesn't
concern me. We are amused, however, about your apparent death wish:
endless deficits blamed on shadow evildoers, smoke and mirrors to
advance the interests of hysterical partisans of a tax-free,
laissez-faire oligarchy.

Did I say I had no agenda? The only trouble is, when the USA gets a
cold the UK starts to sneeze.

But I thought this forum was to advance the interests of children.
Given a particular "client" one proffers the best advice possible:
even if that defies national interest (e.g., cross the border (from
Mexico to Texas, from Scotland to Northern Ireland) to have your baby:
give that baby a valuable "asset", a bankable nationality...