|
|
Issues - cSA - Child support flawed
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. http://www.glennsacks.com/new_study_shows.htm
|
