Have time for a good read?
Recommendations for Modification of Child Support Guidelines
and Reform of their Use
Corresponding to the Views of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court
The purpose of this paper is to introduce recommendations for reform of child support guidelines and their use.
Primary reference documents include excerpts from an opinion on child support law and the development of child support guidelines by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, Melzer v. Witsberger (505 Pa. 462; 480 A.2d 991, 1984), a similar opinion cited in Melzer from the Oregon Supreme Court, Smith v Smith, 290 Or 675, 626 P2d 342, 344 (1981), and a report written as part of the Project for the Improvement of Child Support Litigation Technology, in which work cited in both Court's opinions has been extended to produce a more complete child support decision model. (See reference to Franks' mathematics of child support in both Court opinions.) Current Pennsylvania statutes are also cited, both for the purpose of urging consistency with related statutes and improvement.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court opinion in Melzer v. Witsberger, the Oregon Supreme Court opinion in Smith, and Maurice Franks' papers on the mathematics of child support offer a good starting point for research on developing child support guidelines. In the early 1980s however, the science of child support was in a fledgling state. Franks' work was repeatedly cited at that time as it offered the best theoretical foundation available. To date, the solid relationship he provided between statute, case law, and mathematics has no equal. As is typical with pioneering efforts however, there was still more work to be done.
The Project for the Improvement of Child Support Litigation Technology (PICSLT) was started in 1989 as a research project at Intelligent System Research Corporation. The work on developing a more complete child support science rests largely upon that of Franks' pioneering work along with associated case law and statutes. Other developments, such as Judge Melson's practical work on the early version of the Delaware guidelines and Judith Cassetty's relentless pursuit of understanding the relationships between child support law and mathematics were also influential. For the past few years, the project has focused more on international studies, including the effects of cooperative agreements and child support mathematics in other countries.
Of necessity, a thorough review of the recommendations of Robert G. Williams / Policy Studies, Inc. were made. Because his work was published by the Office of Child Support Enforcement as congressionally mandated "assistance to the states in developing child support guidelines", Mr. Williams' work has had the greatest impact on the design of guidelines in the states. His technical work on guideline design was not based on established child support law but on speculations allegedly derived from fundamentally off-target statistical data. No scientific value was found in the work and it was deemed inappropriate as a basis for further study.
During the first half of the 1980s, a wealth of literature on development of child support guidelines for general use (not just in welfare cases) began to emerge. Efforts were undertaken by bar and judicial associations and individuals. Reports were written, papers published, and the issues of the application of guidelines in non-welfare cases reviewed by state courts. This stronger effort was stimulated partly by the early publication of Franks' mathematics and partly because a signal had already been sent by federal government sources of the intent to make use of child support guidelines mandatory in all cases. It is a source of wonder that when Congress passed the bill requiring development of state guidelines and mandated technical assistance for the states, the Office of Child Support Enforcement would select people to provide that assistance who knew little to nothing about child support decision-making or the development of child support formula and had no history ! demonstrating fundamental strength related to any aspect of the problem.
In almost 10 years, PICSLT has investigated an extensive list of issues involved in the design and application of child support guidelines. Much of the study involved merging law and mathematics into one science. Franks certainly began in that vein. Judge Melson's solid understanding of child support law provided the same orientation to the work. The most significant new contribution to the mathematics of child support was in providing a solution to the standard of living adjustment problem. Child support law has traditionally held that payment beyond the basic essential needs of children can be awarded to provide children some protection against the standard of living loss that often accompanies divorce. Until 1994, no formula for calculating the appropriate adjustment existed. In fact, some researchers were concerned that the problem might not be solvable.
The most important recommendation is for the restoration of traditional "due process" in making a child support order. The importance and reasoning should be illustrated. We would have precedence in law for setting all child support awards to $15 per month. At least one state set $15 as the minimum monthly child support award. If we set all awards to this same amount, child support awards would be uniform, uncertainty in the outcome of a child support hearing would be reduced, administrative and court procedures would be simplified, the inability to get a different outcome would "encourage agreement and thereby reduce conflict between parents" ….. In short, we would accomplish all the things that we are supposed to accomplish with child support guidelines except one.
Those familiar with the subtleties of the child support question will know that we haven't considered everything. Although we based the formula on existing child support law, we didn't take all the law into consideration. We didn't consider all the factors that are essential in making an appropriate award. Certainly this method would not adequately consider the needs of children and the circumstances of the parents in most cases. We have no basis for a claim that the formula produces a "just and appropriate award in every case".
Although probably not as obvious to some, child support formulae used in the states today fail the same test. Unvalidated table values alleging themselves to be appropriate divided between parents in proportion to their income, or a fixed percent of the payer's income, have never come close to proving themselves worthy of the presumption that they produce correct child support award amounts. PICSLT has driven toward the goal of improving child support science and technology in support of mechanizing the process of making an award. Even when a much higher level of confidence can legitimately be placed in a more sophisticated formula, complete dependence on simple mechanics is not the ideal solution.
Not of lesser importance, federal law, state and the federal constitutions demand that presumptive awards be rebuttable. The accompanying report entitled, "The Child Support Guideline Problem" proposes the integration of child support guidelines with traditional child support law and procedures. A model child support statute meeting all federal requirements is provided and the report includes discussion on this integration in a section entitled, "Legal Construction". The remainder of the report focuses mostly on the history of child support guidelines, critical analysis of those in use today, and information related to international agreements.
Below, excerpts from an opinion on child support law and development of guidelines by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court are presented followed by commentary related to the recommendations presented in this overall report.
