If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
State-by-state comparison of child support guidelines
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? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
State-by-state comparison of child support guidelines
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
State-by-state comparison of child support guidelines
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"? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
State-by-state comparison of child support guidelines
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 Dave©" 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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
State-by-state comparison of child support guidelines
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.) |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
State-by-state comparison of child support guidelines
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"? |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
State-by-state comparison of child support guidelines
"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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
State-by-state comparison of child support guidelines
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message ink.net...
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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
State-by-state comparison of child support guidelines
"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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
State-by-state comparison of child support guidelines
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message link.net...
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. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Canadian Judge ok's Dad's apanking in Calgary divorce case | Fern5827 | Spanking | 8 | October 4th 05 03:43 AM |
So much for the claims about Sweden | Kane | Foster Parents | 10 | November 5th 03 06:31 AM |
| Ex Giants player sentenced-DYFS wrkr no harm noticed | Kane | Foster Parents | 10 | September 16th 03 11:59 AM |
Helping Your Child Be Healthy and Fit sX3#;WA@'U | John Smith | Kids Health | 0 | July 20th 03 04:50 AM |