333

Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

  • Upload
    doxuyen

  • View
    222

  • Download
    2

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE
Page 2: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE
Page 3: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688

Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272

T A N I C A N T I L - S A K A U Y E

Chief Justice of California Chair of the Judicial Council

W I L L I A M C . V I C K R E Y

Administrative Director of the Courts

R O N A L D G . O V E R H O L T

Chief Deputy Director

Report title: Review of the Statewide Uniform Child Support Guideline 2010—Report

to the California Legislature

Statutory citation: Family Code section 4054(a)

Date of Report: June 2011

The Judicial Council has submitted a report to the Legislature in accordance with Family Code section

4054(a). The following summary of the report is provided as required under Government Code section

9795.

Family Code section 4054(a) requires the Judicial Council to review the statewide uniform child support

guideline at least every four years and recommend any appropriate revisions to the Legislature. Federal

regulations (45 C.F.R. section 302.56) also require that each state review its guideline at least every four

years. The primary purpose of this review requirement is to ensure that the guideline results in

appropriate determination of child support awards. Federal and state requirements further specify that

the review must include an assessment of economic data on child-rearing costs and a review of case data

to analyze the application of the guideline and ensure that deviations from the guideline are limited.

The report contains five recommendations: (1) Update and/or modify the low income adjustment in the

guideline; (2) evaluate the current income attribution policies to both parties (presumed and imputed

income); (3) educate stakeholders and equip them with information so they can make the current system

work better, and develop strategies to engage stakeholders and encourage active participation in the

child support process; (4) adopt necessary conforming changes so California can meet the 2008 federal

medical support regulation; and (5) encourage better and more detailed information in the case file.

Senate Bill 580 became law in 2010, so recommendation 4 has already been fulfilled.

The full report is available at www.courts.ca.gov/7466.htm. A printed copy of the report may be

obtained by calling 415-865-7739.

Page 4: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

Judicial Council Members As of July 1, 2011

Hon. Tani Cantil-Sakauye

Chief Justice of California and

Chair of the Judicial Council

Hon. Judith Meisels Ashmann-Gerst

Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal

Second Appellate District, Division Two

Hon. Stephen H. Baker

Judge of the Superior Court of California,

County of Shasta

Hon. Marvin R. Baxter

Associate Justice of the Supreme Court

Hon. Noreen Evans

Member of the California State Senate

Hon. Mike Feuer

Member of the California State Assembly

Hon. James E. Herman

Judge of the Superior Court of California,

County of Santa Barbara

Hon. Harry E. Hull, Jr.

Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal

Third Appellate District

Hon. Ira R. Kaufman

Assistant Presiding Judge of the Superior Court of

California, County of Plumas

Ms. Miriam Aroni Krinsky

Attorney, Lecturer, UCLA School of Public Affairs

Ms. Edith R. Matthai

Attorney at Law, Los Angeles

Mr. Joel S. Miliband

Attorney at Law, Irvine

Hon. Douglas P. Miller

Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal

Fourth Appellate District, Division Two

Hon. Mary Ann O'Malley

Judge of the Superior Court of California,

County of Contra Costa

Mr. James N. Penrod

Attorney at Law, San Francisco

Hon. Burt Pines

Judge of the Superior Court of California,

County of Los Angeles

Hon. Winifred Younge Smith

Judge of the Superior Court of California,

County of Alameda

Hon. Kenneth K. So

Judge of the Superior Court of California,

County of San Diego

Hon. Sharon J. Waters

Judge of the Superior Court of California,

County of Riverside

Hon. David S. Wesley

Assistant Presiding Judge of the Superior Court of

California, County of Los Angeles

Hon. Erica R. Yew

Judge of the Superior Court of California,

County of Santa Clara

ADVISORY MEMBERS

Hon. Sue Alexander

Commissioner of the Superior Court of California,

County of Alameda

Mr. Alan Carlson

Court Executive Officer

Superior Court of California, County of Orange

Hon. Keith D. Davis

Judge of the Superior Court of California,

County of San Bernardino

Hon. Kevin A. Enright

Presiding Judge of the Superior Court of California,

County of San Diego

Hon. Terry B. Friedman (Ret.)

Judge of the Superior Court of California,

County of Los Angeles

Hon. Teri L. Jackson

Judge of the Superior Court of California,

County of San Francisco

Hon. Robert James Moss

Judge of the Superior Court of California,

County of Orange

Mr. Frederick K. Ohlrich

Clerk of the California Supreme Court

Mr. Michael M. Roddy

Court Executive Officer

Superior Court of California, County of San Diego

Ms. Kim Turner

Court Executive Officer

Superior Court of California, County of Marin

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS

Mr. William C. Vickrey

Administrative Director of the Courts

Page 5: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS

Hon. Tani Cantil-Sakauye

Chief Justice of California and

Chair of the Judicial Council

William C. Vickrey

Administrative Director of the Courts

Ronald G. Overholt

Chief Deputy Director

CENTER FOR FAMILIES, CHILDREN & THE COURTS

Diane Nunn

Director

Nancy Taylor

Manager

Michael L. Wright

Supervising Attorney/Program Manager

Jane Venohr

Center for Policy Research Economist and Research Associate

Page 6: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

Review of Statewide Uniform Child Support Guideline 2010

A REPORT TO THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE

2011

Page 7: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

Judicial Council of California ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS

HON. TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE Chief Justice of California

Chair of the Judicial Council

HON. KIMBERLY NYSTROM-GEIST, COCHAIR HON. DEAN STOUT, COCHAIR

Family and Juvenile Law Advisory Committee

WILLIAM C. VICKREY Administrative Director of the Courts

RONALD G. OVERHOLT Chief Deputy Director

CENTER FOR FAMILIES, CHILDREN & THE COURTS

PROJECT STAFF

DIANE NUNN Director

CHARLENE DEPNER Assistant Director

NANCY TAYLOR Manager

MICHAEL L. WRIGHT Supervising Attorney

RUTH K. McCREIGHT Senior Attorney

ANNA L. MAVES Senior Attorney

JAMIE G. LAU Senior Research Analyst

YOUN KIM Staff Analyst

IRENE C. BALAJADIA Senior Administrative Coordinator

MARITA B. DESUASIDO Program Secretary

Page 8: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

Review of Statewide Uniform Child Support Guideline 2010

A REPORT TO

THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE

2011

Page 9: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

Judicial Council of California Administrative Office of the Courts Center for Families, Children & the Courts 455 Golden Gate Avenue San Francisco, CA 94102-3688 Copyright © 2010 by Judicial Council of California/Administrative Office of the Courts. All rights reserved. Except as permitted under the Copyright Act of 1976 and as otherwise expressly provided herein, no part of this publication may be reproduced in any form or by any means, electronic, online, or mechanical, including the use of information storage and retrieval systems, without permission in writing from the copyright holder. Permission is hereby granted to nonprofit institutions to reproduce and distribute this publication for educational purposes if the copies credit the copyright holder. This report is also available at the California Courts website: www.courts.ca.gov/7466.htm

Page 10: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ....................................................................................................... I

CHAPTER I: Introduction .............................................................................................. 1

Page 11: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

CHAPTER 2: Basis of Child Support Guidelines and Studies of Child-Rearing Expenditures ................................................................................................................. 8

CHAPTER 3: Guideline Application and Deviation: A Review of the Case Files ... 31

Page 12: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

CHAPTER 4: Low-Income Parents and Child Support Guidelines .......................... 64

CHAPTER 5: Medical Support Provisions ................................................................. 87

CHAPTER 6: Input From Stakeholders .................................................................... 107

Page 13: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

Major Themes .......................................................................................................................................................... 114

Chapter Summary ................................................................................................................................................... 120

CHAPTER 7: Conclusions and Recommendations ................................................ 121

Basis of Child Support Guidelines and Studies of Child-Rearing Expenditures ............................................... 121

Findings From a Review of Case Files ................................................................................................................... 123

Low-Income Parents and Child Support Guidelines ............................................................................................ 126

Medical Support Provisions .................................................................................................................................... 128

Input From Stakeholders ........................................................................................................................................ 130

Recommendations .................................................................................................................................................... 131

APPENDIX A: Parental Expenditures for Children: Rothbarth Estimates ............ 134

APPENDIX A-1: Annual Versus Quarterly Data ...................................................... 169

APPENDIX A-2: Construction of Analysis Sample ................................................. 176

APPENDIX A-3: Description and Construction of Variable ................................... 179

APPENDIX A-4: Theoretical Justification of Rothbarth Approach ........................ 183

APPENDIX A-5: The Engel Method and Its Critique ............................................... 188

APPENDIX A-6: Functional Form Assumptions ..................................................... 195

APPENDIX A-7: Estimate of Engel Model ................................................................ 205

APPENDIX B: Sampling and Data Collection .......................................................... 206

APPENDIX C: Calculation of State Guideline Comparisons .................................. 219 APPENDIX D: Public Comments..………………………………….………………..225

APPENDIX E: Project Staff Biographies .................................................................. 307

APPENDIX F: Acknowledgments ............................................................................. 310

Page 14: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

Executive Summary

Page 15: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

Background

Page 16: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

.

Review of Statewide Uniform Child Support Guidelinewww.courtinfo.ca.gov/programs/cfcc/resources/publications/articles.htm#childsupport

Page 17: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

Data and Analytical Methodology

Page 18: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

Conclusions

Conclusion 1: The California guideline and 36 other state guidelines are based on a “continuity-of-expenditures model”— that is, the child support award should allow the children to benefit from the same level of expenditures that would have been provided had the children and both parents lived together.

Page 19: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

Conclusion 2: The California guideline formula is generally within the range of measurements of child-rearing expenditures—but at the high end of the range of measurements of child-rearing expenditures.

Conclusion 3: Many other assumptions and factors besides measurements of child-rearing expenditures form a guideline formula.

Conclusion 4: The percentage of orders that deviated from the guideline has increased.

.

Conclusion 5: Commissioners and advocates agreed that the current low-income adjustment is inadequate.

Conclusion 6: Many of the guideline factors designed to yield more responsive orders are being applied very infrequently.

Conclusion 7: The percentage of orders entered through default, 46 percent, is back up. This is after a concerted effort several years ago to lower the number of orders entered by default in California.

Conclusion 8: The percentage of orders involving presumed income has increased since the last guideline review. The percentage of orders with income imputation, however, has not increased.

Page 20: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

Conclusion 9: Health insurance is frequently ordered, and medical support is ordered in most IV-D cases.

Conclusion 10: Information is frequently missing from case files.

Conclusion 11: Historically, many IV-D families and obligors have poverty or low incomes. The current high unemployment and underemployment rates likely contribute to even higher incidences of poverty and low income than were previously documented.

Conclusion 12: When child support obligations are set too high for low-income obligors, they are unable to meet their own subsistence needs.

Conclusion 13: The California guideline amounts for low-income obligors are high relative to other states. The low-income adjustment under the California guideline is inadequate.

Conclusion 14: California’s income presumption policy exacerbates the guideline problems for low-income parents; the obligor’s income is often presumed to be more than it actually is or job opportunities available for obligors are presumed to pay more than they actually do.

Page 21: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

Conclusion 15: Although the 2008 federal medical support rules impose many new requirements on states—including state provisions for the establishment and modification of medical support—2010 health reform will likely change future federal medical support requirements.

Conclusion 16: California statute already provides that either or both parents can be ordered to provide insurance coverage for the children and that orders allocate the child’s uninsured health-care expenses between the parents.

Conclusion 17: California statute currently does not provide an income-based definition of “reasonable cost” but does address what is “accessible” health-care. Although not called “cash medical support” (and states are not required to use the federal term), California’s provision of reasonable uninsured health-care expenses is a form of cash medical support.

Conclusion 18: The California guideline adjusts for the child’s health insurance differently than most state guidelines. While most states prorate the child’s share of the insurance premium between the parents, California subtracts the insurance premium from the parent’s income.

Conclusion 19: Focus group discussions among advocates reveal that parents frequently fail to comprehend what goes into the guideline calculation and need more education to improve their understanding.

Page 22: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

Conclusion 20: Advocates who attended the focus groups consistently believed that the guideline is unfair to low-income parents.

Conclusion 21: Many of the advocates’ issues concerned systematic issues involving the guideline or were beyond the scope of the guideline

Recommendations

Recommendation 1: Update and/or modify the low-income adjustment in the guideline.

Recommendation 2: Evaluate the current income attribution policies as it applies to both parents.

Recommendation 3: Educate stakeholders and equip them with information so they can make the current system work better. In addition, develop strategies to engage stakeholders and encourage their active participation in the child support process.

Recommendation 4: Adopt any necessary conforming changes so that California can meet the 2008 federal medical support rules, but also recognize that 2010 national health reform may produce changes to the federal rules in the future as well as changes in how states approach medical support.

Recommendation 5: Encourage better and more detailed information in the case file.

Page 23: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE
Page 24: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

CHAPTER I

Introduction

Purpose of the Study

The California Guideline and Federal Regulations

Page 25: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

Guideline Calculation

Income Used in the California Guideline

Description of the Numeric Formula

CS = K[HN – (H%)(TN)]

CSCS

1.6 for 2 children 2.0 for 3 children 2.3 for 4 children 2.5 for 5 children 2.65 for 6 children 2.75 for 7 children 2.813 for 8 children 2.844 for 9 children 2.86 for 10 children

KH% K H%

Page 26: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

H%H% K

H% K H%K H% K

Total net disposable income per month K-fraction$ 0–$800 0.20 + TN/16,000 $801–$6,666 0.25 $6,667–$10,000 0.10 + 1,000/TNOver $10,000 0.12 + 800/TN

K

HN

H%

TN

Exhibit 1-1: Illustration of California Formula Calculation: One Child High Earner Low Earner Total

Net disposable income per month $4,000 (HN) $1,000 $5,000 (TN)

Amount of time higher earner has with the child 20% (H%)

K-fraction 0.25 K= k-fraction x (1 + H%) (K) =0.30 = 0.25 x (1 + 0.20)

Child Support CS = K[HN - (H%)(TN)]

(CS) = .30 [4,000 – (.20)(5,000)] = .30 [4,000 – 1.000] = .30 [3,000] = $900

Children’s Health-Care Needs

Page 27: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

Guideline Deviation Criteria

Proceedings for Establishing or ModifyingChild Support Orders

supra

Page 28: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

.

Activities of the 2010 Guideline Review

Page 29: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

Previous Reviews by the Judicial Council

Previous Recommendations

Significant Guideline Changes in the Last Decade

Organization of This Report

supra

Page 30: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE
Page 31: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

CHAPTER 2

Basis of Child Support Guidelines andStudies of Child-Rearing Expenditures

Child-Rearing Expenditures and State Guidelines

IRPWorking Paper

Page 32: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

The California Guideline uses what is commonly called an “income shares” approach to the determination of child support. At its simplest, income shares means that the amount of money allocated to children in a guideline is based on a share of the income of both parents.

(Judicial Council of Cal., Review of Statewide Uniform Child Support Guideline (Dec.1993), p. 26.)

Findings From Last Review

Ibid.Estimates of Expenditures on Children and Child Support Guidelines

Page 33: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

Comparisons for the 2010 Guideline Review

On Measuring the Cost of Children

Investing in Children: New Estimates of Parental Expenditures Alternative Estimates of the Cost of

Children from the 1980-86 Consumer Expenditure SurveyExpenditures on Children by Families: 2001 Annual Report,

Review of Statewide Uniform Child Support Guideline Report on the Michigan Child Support Formula

State of Oregon Child Support Guidelines Review: Updated Obligation Scales and Other Consideration

Review and Update of Florida’s Child Support Guidelines

Expenditures on Children by Families: 2008 Annual Report,

Page 34: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

K K

K

Exhibit 2-1. Comparisons of the California Guideline K -Fraction to Measurements of Child-Rearing Expenditures for One Child

25% 25% 24% 25% 26% 25% 25%27%

24%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

California K-fraction for low

to middleincomes

van der Gaag(1981)

Espenshade(1984)

Betson-Rothbarth

(1990)

USDA (2002) Betson-Rothbarth

(2002)

Betson-Rothbarth

(2006)

USDA (2009) Betson-Rothbarth

(2010)Perc

enta

ge o

f tot

al e

xpen

ditu

res/

inco

me

devo

ted

to c

hild

rear

ing

Page 35: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

K

supra

K K

supra ,

Page 36: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

K

K K

Exhibit 2-2. California Multiplier for Two Children Compared to Multipliers Calculated From Estimates of Child-Rearing Expenditures

1.6 1.51.7

1.4 1.5 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.6

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

California guideline van der Gaag (1981) Espenshade (1984)

Betson-Rothbarth (1990) USDA (2002) Betson-Rothbarth (2002)

Betson-Rothbarth (2006) USDA (2009) Betson-Rothbarth (2010)

Exhibit 2-3. California Multiplier for Three Children Compared to Multipliers Calculated From Estimates of Child-Rearing Expenditures

2.0 2.0

1.6

1.81.6

1.8 1.71.9

California guideline van der Gaag (1981) Betson-Rothbarth (1990)

USDA (2002) Betson-Rothbarth (2002) Betson-Rothbarth (2006)

USDA (2009) Betson-Rothbarth (2010)

Page 37: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

K

K

Exhibit 2-4. Estimated Percentages of Total Expenditures Devoted to Child Rearing Compared to K-Value for Two Children

40% 38%41%

35%38%

35% 37%40%

37%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

California guideline van der Gaag (1981) Espenshade (1984)

Betson-Rothbarth (1990) USDA (2002) Betson-Rothbarth (2002)

Betson-Rothbarth (2006) USDA (2009) Betson-Rothbarth (2010)

Exhibit 2-5. Estimated Percentages of Total Expenditures Devoted to Child Rearing Compared to K -Value for Three Children

50%56%

40%

48%41% 44%

47% 45%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

California guideline van der Gaag (1981) Betson-Rothbarth (1990) USDA (2002)

Betson-Rothbarth (2002) Betson-Rothbarth (2006) USDA (2009) Betson-Rothbarth (2010)

Page 38: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

suprawww.bls.gov/CE

27 Review of the Statewide Uniform Child Support Guideline 2005

Page 39: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

van der Gaag (1981).

Espenshade (1984).

Betson (1990).

K

supra Id.,

Id.Development of Guidelines for Child Support Orders

suprasupra

supra

Page 40: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

USDA (Lino 2002).

Betson (2002).

Betson (2006).

McCaleb et al. (2008).

Evaluation of the New (2007) Minnesota Child Support Guideline Basic Support Schedule

suprasupra

suprasupra

supra Id

supra

Page 41: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

USDA (Lino 2009).

44

Betson (2010).

Limitations of the Estimates.

Other Limitations of the Estimates.

suprasupra supra supra supra

Page 42: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

Additional Assumptions and Considerations

Measuring Poverty: A New ApproachState of Oregon Child Support Guidelines Review: Updated Obligation Scales and Other

Considerations

Page 43: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

K K

K

2009 New Hampshire Child Support Guidelines Review and Recommendations

Exhibit 2-6. California Multipliers for 4 and More Children Compared to Those Implied by the Oregon Guideline

2.3002.500

2.6252.750 2.813 2.844 2.860

3.0522.885

2.7112.534

2.3512.163

1.966

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

Multiplier (4children)

Multiplier (5children)

Multiplier (6children)

Multiplier (7children)

Multiplier (8children)

Multiplier (9children)

Multiplier (10children)

California guideline Oregon gudeline (implied)

Page 44: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

K

K

Exhibit 2-7. Comparison of California, Oregon, and Minnesota Gudeline Amounts for One Child When Obligee Income Increases and Obligor Income Remains the Same

583558

603583

524549

583

429 448

583

358395

550

325

381

509

302

381

$0

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

$600

California Oregon Minnesota

Mon

thly

aw

ard

amou

nt

Obligee income = $0/mo Obligee income = $1,000/mo Obligee income = $3,000/mo

Obligee income = $5,000/mo Obligee income = $7,000/mo Obligee income = $9,000/mo

Page 45: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE
Page 46: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

http://factfinder.census.govIbid.

2006 Family Law Update,

Page 47: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

Exhibit 2-8. Comparison of Adjustments for Shared Physical Responsbility (Case A: Parents have equal incomes)

343

204

125

40

0

429

322

193

129

64

0

293263

167

67

0

276

403

257293

341

$0

$100

$200

$300

$400

20 percent 25 percent 30 percent 35 percent 40 percent 45 percent 50 percent

Percentage of child's time with obligor

Mon

thly

aw

ard

amou

nt

California Oregon Arizona

Page 48: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

Alternative Measurements of Child-Rearing Costs

supra

http://factfinder.census.govsupra

Exhibit 2-9. Comparison of Adjustments for Shared Physical Responsbility (Case B: Obligor gross income = $3,000; Obligee gross income = $2,000)

440

390

336

276

210

140

63

473

414

355

236

177

118

322296

141

233

91

393

349349

$0

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

20 percent 25 percent 30 percent 35 percent 40 percent 45 percent 50 percent

Percentages of child's time with obligor

Mon

thly

aw

ard

amou

nt

California Oregon Arizona

Page 49: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

Alternative Bases of State Guidelines

How Much Is Enough in Your County

Review of Child Support Guideline: Proposed Final Report

Page 50: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

Low Incomes

Multiple-Partner Fertility

supra Report of the Child Support Guidelines Task Force

”Estimates of Family

Expenditures for Children: A Review of the Literaturesupra .

supra Fathers

Under Fire: The Revolution in Child Support Enforcement

Child Support in Complicated TANF Families

Page 51: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

Standard of Living

Alternative Approaches to Child Support Policy in the Context of Multiple-Partner Fertility

Advocate Capital News

Technical Documentation: Multiple Family Adjustment

The Law and Economics of Child Support Payments,

The Law and Economics of Child Support Payments

Family Law Quarterly supra

Page 52: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

Children should share in the standard of living of both parents. Child support may therefore appropriately improve the standard of living of the custodial household to improve the lives of children.

(Fam. Code, § 4053(f).)

Chapter Summary

KK

Arizona Child Support Guidelines: Child Outcome Based Support Model Draft

Final Report of the Arizona Child Support Guidelines Review Committee

Page 53: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE
Page 54: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

CHAPTER 3

Guideline Application and Deviation: A Review of the Case Files

Sampling and Data Collection

Sampling Time Frame

Sampled Counties

Page 55: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

Exhibit 3-1. Study Counties by Location, Population Size, and Percentage of State Population and Total Sample

DelNorte Siskiyou Modoc

LassenShastaTrinityHumboldt

Tehama PlumasMendocino Glenn Butte Sierra

Yuba Nevada PlacerLake Colusa Sutter

Sonoma NapaSolanoMarinContraCosta

San FranciscoSan

MateoSantaCruz

Alameda

YoloSacra-mento Amador

Alpine

SanJoaquin Tuolumne Mono

SantaClara

Stanislaus

Merced

Mariposa

Madera

FresnoSanBenito

Monterey Kings Tulare

Inyo

San LuisObispo Kern

San BernardinoSanta Barbara

Ventura LosAngeles

Orange Riverside

San Diego Imperial

County

Percentage of State

Population

Percentage of 2010 Sample

Alameda 4.1% 7.9% Amador 0.1 1.6Fresno 2.4 19.3Los Angeles 27.2 21.4San Diego 8.3 14.7San Luis Obispo 0.7 4.1Santa Clara 4.8 13.4Siskiyou 0.1 1.3 Solano 1.1 4.4 Tehama 0.2 3.9 Tulare 1.1 7.9Total 50.2 100.0

Sampled large-sized county

Sampled medium-sized county

Sampled small-sized county

Page 56: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

Sample Sizes

Fresno

LosAngeles

SanDiego

Page 57: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

Exhibit 3-2. Sample Size (Number of Cases)

MinimumSample Goal

Targeted Sample Cases Usable for Analysis

Large-sized counties

Los Angeles 209 250 262

Alameda 79 95 97

Fresno 197 236 237

Santa Clara 121 146 164

San Diego 147 177 180

Medium-sized counties

San Luis Obispo 32 38 51

Solano 44 52 54

Tulare 73 88 97

Small and very small counties

Amador 17 20 20

Siskiyou 26 31 16

Tehama 55 66 48

Sum of sampled counties 1,000 1,199 1,226

Data Collection Methodology

Review of Preliminary Case File Review Findings

Page 58: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

Guideline Deviations

Page 59: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

Exhibit 3-3. Percentages of Orders With a Deviation in the 2010, 2005, 2001, and 1998 Reviews

14.6%

9.1% 9.7% 9.9%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

2010 review 2005 review 2001 review 1998 review

Perc

enta

ge o

f cas

es re

view

ed

Page 60: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE
Page 61: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

Exhibit 3-5. Percentages of Cases With Deviations Based on Selected Factors in the 2010 and 2005 Reviews

10.6%

7.3%

15.3%

12.0%

6.0%

20.7%

14.3%

25.7%

21.1%

8.7%

0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0%

Modified orders

New orders

Stipulated orders

Non-IV-D orders

IV-D orders

Percentage of cases reviewed

2005 review 2010 review

Page 62: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

Reasons for the Deviations

Direction of the Deviations

Exhibit 3-6. Percentages of Cases With Various Reasons for Deviations from the Guideline in the 2010 and 2005 Reviews

60%

20%

4% 3%

22%15%

36%

57%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Stipulation Unstated Other Unjust

Per

cent

age

of c

ases

re

view

ed

2010 review 2005 review

Page 63: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

Description of the Cases

Newly Established and Modified Orders

Exhibit 3-7. Deviations From the Guideline in the 2010 and 2005 Reviews (Percentages of Cases)

2010 Review 2005 Review Percentage of cases with a deviation* 14.6% 9.1%Of those cases with a deviation, the direction of the deviation:

Upward* 14 26Downward 69 60

Unstated 17 14* The difference between the groups is significant at <.05.

Page 64: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

Order Entry Method

Ex h ib it 3-8. Ne w ly Esta b lish e d a n d M o d ifie d O rd e rs in th e 2010 a n d 2005 Re vie w s

93%

49%

52%

7%

0 %

2 0 %

4 0 %

6 0 %

8 0 %

1 0 0 %

2010 Review 2005 Review

Perc

enta

ge o

f cas

es re

view

ed

New orders M odific at ions

Page 65: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

Exhibit 3-9. Order Entry Method for Cases in the 2010, 2005, and 2001 Reviews

46%29%

44%

23%

32% 10%

32% 39% 46%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2010 review 2005 review 2001 review

Perc

enta

ge o

f cas

es re

view

ed

Default Contested Stipulation

Page 66: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

Application of Other Guideline Factors

Hardship Deductions

“Comparative Data for Managing Program Performance: Federal Fiscal Year 2009,” “Comparative Data for Managing Program Performance: Federal Fiscal Year 2008,”

Exhibit 3-10. Order Entry Method in IV-D and Non-IV-D Cases (Percentages of Cases)

IV-D Cases Non-IV-D Cases Default* 68% 22%

Contested* 15% 31%Stipulations* 18% 47%

Number 628 569*The difference between the groups is significant at <.05.

Page 67: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

Exhibit 3-11. Hardship Deductions in the 2010, 2005, and 2001 Reviews

11%

6% 7%

2%2%1%

2%0%1%

3%4%4%

0%

5%

10%

15%

Fathers withhardship

deductions

Mothers withhardship

deductions

Fathers withdeductions for

child or spousalsupport

Mothers withdeductions for

child or spousalsupport

Perc

enta

ge o

f cas

es re

view

ed

2010 review 2005 review 2001 review

Page 68: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

The Low-Income Adjustment

Exhibit 3-12. Eligibility for and Application of the Low-Income Adjustment in the 2010 and 2005 Reviews (Percentages of Cases)

2010 Review 2005 Review Percentage of obligors not eligible for the LIA 86% 85%Percentage of obligors eligible for the LIA 14 15Of those eligible for the LIA: LIA applied 59 52LIA not applied 40 48Unknown 1 0

Page 69: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

Orders for Additional Support

Page 70: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

Comparative Data for Managing Program Performance: Federal Fiscal Year 2008

Page 71: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

Health Insurance

Exhibit 3-13. Orders for Additional Support in the 2010 and 2005 Reviews

2% 1% 2%1% 2%

12%

18%

3%

15%

25%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Child care Uninsuredhealth-care

costs

Child'seducation or

special needs

Travelexpenses for

visitation

Otherexpenses

Perc

enta

ge o

f cas

es r

evie

wed

2010 review 2005 review

Page 72: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

Income of the Parents and Other Case Circumstances

Page 73: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

Exhibit 3-15. Parent's Income Information Available in the 2010 Review

19%

5%

76%

No information foreither parentInformation for onlyone parentInformation for bothparents

Gender of the Obligated Parents

Parental Incomes

Exhibit 3-14. Parent Obligated to Pay Child Support in the 2010 Review

7%5%

87%

FatherMotherNeither or unspecified

Page 74: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE
Page 75: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

Exhibit 3-16. Cases With Missing Income Information, by Parent Gender and IV-D Status

23%20%

27% 27%

19%

13%

0%

10%

20%

30%

Mothers Fathers

Perc

enta

ge o

f cas

es

revi

ewed

All cases Non-IV-D IV-D

Page 76: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

Exhibit 3-17. Parents With Net and Gross Incomes of $0

42%

15%

46%

17%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Mothers

Fathers

Percentage of cases reviewed

Gross income is $0 Net income is $0

Exhibit 3-18. Average Monthly Net and Gross Incomes (Excludes Imputed- and Presumed-Income Cases)

2,7981,950

4,680

3,330

$1,655$1,153

$3,072$2,144

1,2821,680550619

$0$1,000$2,000

$3,000$4,000$5,000

All cases Non-IV-D IV-D

All cases $1,655 $1,153 $3,072 $2,144

Non-IV-D 2,798 1,950 4,680 3,330

IV-D 619 550 1,680 1,282

Mother's gross income

Mother's net income

Father's gross income

Father's net income

Page 77: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

Exhibit 3-20. Comparison of Parents’ Monthly Incomes in Cases With Income Information for Both Parents (Percentage of Cases)*

Mother’s Gross Income

Father’s Gross Income

$0$1– $1,000

$1,001–$2,000$2,001–$3,000$3,001–$4,000$4,001 or more

Number

38%9%

23%11%

6%12%618

11%9%

25%17%

9%29%618

* Excludes cases with imputed, presumed, or missing income information.

Exhibit 3-19. Median Monthly Net and Gross Incomes (Excludes Imputed- and Presumed-Income Cases)

1,800 1,684

3,640

2,642

0 0

$1,650$2,100

$772$9751,2021,387

$0

$1,000

$2,000

$3,000

$4,000

All cases Non-IV-D IV-D

All cases $975 $772 $2,100 $1,650

Non-IV-D 1,800 1,684 3,640 2,642

IV-D 0 0 1,387 1,202

Mother's gross income

Mother's net income

Father's gross income

Father's net income

Page 78: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

Attorney Representation

Exhibit 3-21. Presumed and Imputed Income in the 2010 and 2005 Reviews

3% 3%

5%

7% 7%

3%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

Obligor incomeimputed

Obligee incomeimputed

Obligor incomepresumed

Perc

enta

ge o

f cas

es re

view

ed

2010 review 2005 review

Page 79: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

Exhibit 3-22. Attorney Representation in the 2010, 2005, and 2001 Reviews

6% 3% 6% 5%

80%

12%23%

7%

65%

9%11%

75%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Neither parentrepresented

Both parentsrepresented

Only obligeerepresented

Only obligorrepresented

Per

cent

age

of c

ases

re

view

ed

2010 review 2005 review 2001 review

Page 80: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

Exhibit 3-23. Attorney Representation by Case Type in the 2010, 2005, and 2001 Reviews (Percentages of Cases)

2010 Review 2005 Review 2001 Review IV-D cases

Neither parent represented 96% 95% 96%Both parents represented 3 0 3

Only one parent represented 1 5 1Number 634 567 506

Non-IV-D cases Neither parent represented* 62% 36% 53%

Both parents represented* 22 44 22Only one parent represented 16 20 26

Number 578 535 485*The difference between the groups is significant at <.05.

Number of Children Covered by the Orders

Amount of the Child Support Order

Exhibit 3-24. Number of Children Covered by the Orders in the 2010 Review

65%

26%

7% 2%One Child

Two Children

Three Children

Four or MoreChildren

Page 81: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

Exhibit 3-25. Average Monthly Child Support Order Amounts in the 2010 and 2005 Reviews

$470$286

$685$574

$341

$795

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

All orders IV-D cases Non-IV-D cases

2010 review 2005 review

Exhibit 3-26. Average Order Amounts by Case Type in the 2010 and 2005 Reviews

$933

$652$570

$347$247

$517

$365

$805$869

$1,080

$764

$425$531

$430

$293

$603

$962

$1,244

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

All cases IV-D Non-IV-D All cases IV-D Non-IV-D All cases IV-D Non-IV-D

One child Two children Three children

2010 review 2005 review

Page 82: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

Exhibit 3-27. Median Monthly Child Support Order Amounts in the 2010 and 2005 Reviews

$324$252

$581

$400$293

$505

$0

$200

$400

$600

All cases IV-D Non-IV-D

2010 review 2005 review

Page 83: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

Exhibit 3-28. Average Order Levels for Obligors Having Orders Established With Attributed and Actual Earnings

Attributed Income Actual Income

Average all cases $237 $493

Average among IV-D cases 209 300

Average among non-IV-D cases 494 689

Child Support Order Levels as a Percentage of Obligor Income

Zero-Dollar and Reserved Orders

15.8%21.1% 19.1% 19.9% 18.5%

24.0%19.8%

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%

$1-$1,000 $1,001-$1,500

$1,501-$2,000

$2,001-$3,000

$3,001-$4,000

$4,001 or more

All cases

Exhibit 3-29. Child Support Obligation as a Percentage of Obligor's Net Income, All Cases With Known Income

Page 84: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

Exhibit 3-30. Percentage of Time the Child Spends With the Obligor in IV-D and Non-IV-D Cases (Percentage of Cases)

IV-D Cases Non-IV-D Cases Zero percent* 62% 9%

1 to 20 percent* 23% 48%21 to 40 percent* 7% 17%

41 percent or higher* 8% 26%Number 463 439

* The difference between the groups is significant at <.05.

Time-Sharing Arrangements

Page 85: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

Limitations of the Data and Analysis

Exhibit 3-31. Information Missing From the Case Files (Percentage of Cases)

2010 Review (n = 1,226)

No documents on the result of calendared child support court events

10%

Parents’ income not specified 19Amount of child support not specified 9Guideline amount not specified 22Above or below guideline amount not specified 19

Page 86: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

Chapter Summary

Page 87: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

CHAPTER 4

Low-Income Parents andChild Support Guidelines

Impoverished and Low-Income Families

The Great Recession of 2008 and 2009 has battered America’s families. The unemployment rate has more than doubled since the start of the recession, topping 10 percent—the highest level in over a quarter of a century. In addition, families’ capacity to weather economic downturns has been diminished as savings and assets have eroded due to simultaneous collapses in the housing and stock markets and the tightening of consumer credit. Even though the economy started growing again in the second half of 2009, most forecasters expect that it will take years for unemployment and family incomes to return to their pre-recession levels. 85

http://factfinder.census.gov.

www.urban.org/publications/412055.htmlsupra .

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_program=ACS&_submenuId=datasets_1&_lang=en&_ts=

Page 88: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

IbidOne in Four CA Children May Live in Poverty This Year

www.lpfch.org/newsroom/releases/mediaalertjan6-10.html.Characteristics of Families Using Title IV-D Services in 1999 and 2001

http://aspe.hhs.gov/HSP/CSE-Char04/index.htm.

New Federalism: National Survey of America’s Familieswww.urban.org/UploadedPDF/anf_b30.pdf.

www.childsup.ca.gov/Portals/0/resources/docs/reports/2003/collectibility2003-05.pdf.Id

Page 89: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study.

IdThe Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study: Baseline National Report

www.fragilefamilies.princeton.edu/documents/nationalreport.pdf.Unwed Fathers, the Underground Economy, and Child Support Policy,

www.fragilefamilies.princeton.edu/briefs/researchbrief3.pdf.J. Policy

Analysis & Management

www.urban.org/publications/309214.html.supra

Page 90: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

Guideline Amounts at Low Incomes

February 2010 California Employment Highlightswww.calmis.ca.gov/file/lfmonth/Employment-Highlights.pdf.

Daily Financewww.dailyfinance.com/story/underemployment-a-growing-problem-even-as-job-market-turns/19365801/#.

Minority Families and Child Support: Data Analysis www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pol/DCL/2007/dcl-07-43a.pdf.

, Economic News Releasewww.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.htm.

Policy Currents www.apsapolicysection.org/vol12_1/121.pdfDollars and Sense: Improving the Determination of Child Support Obligations for Low-Income

Mothers, Fathers, and Children www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pubs/2002/reports/commonground.pdf Realistic

Child Support Policies for Low Income Fatherswww.clasp.org/admin/site/publications/files/0061.pdf.

Fathers Under Fire: The Revolution in Child Support Enforcement, supra supra

Page 91: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

Federal Fiscal Year 2008www.childsup.ca.gov/Reports/tabid/147/Default.aspx.

Fathers Under Fire: The Revolution in Child Support Enforcement,

Demography Child Support and Child Well-being,

Page 92: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

High Orders and the Obligor’s Subsistence

Examining Child Support Arrears in California: The Collectibility Study

Ibid

www.cse.ca.gov/ChildSupport/cse/guidelineCalculator

supra

OCSE Responsible Fatherhood Programs: Client Characteristics and Program Outcomes,

Page 93: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

High Orders and Work Disincentives

Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study,

www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/410477.pdfsupra

supra

J. Policy Analysis & Management

J. Policy Analysis & Management

Page 94: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

Payments, Parent-Child Contact, and Child Outcomes

Compliance and the Accumulation of Arrears

supra .Research Brief

www.childtrends.org/files/dadchild.pdf.

J. Marriage & Family

Determining the Composition and Collectability of Child Support Arrearages, , The Longitudinal Analysis

Story behind the Numbers: Understanding and Managing Child Support Debt www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pol/IM/2008/im-08-05a.pdf.

Page 95: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

Best Interest of the Child and the Policy Dilemma

supra Federal Fiscal

Year 2008 www.childsup.ca.gov/Reports/tabid/147/Default.aspx.supra

Avoid Increasing Arrears: Practices Guide: Version 2 /www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pol/DCL/2007/dcl-07-17a.pdf.

J. Policy Analysis & Management

www.urban.org/publications/309440.html.Ibid.

supra

Page 96: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

Whatever philosophical statement they [the representatives] thought the guidelines should make about the obligations of each parent and society for the support of children, they recognized that setting awards for low-income noncustodial parents at an unrealistically level is unlikely to produce much additional income, and could be counterproductive.143

State Solutions

Income Imputation/Presumption Policies

supraJ. Human

Resources

supraIbid.Id.

Page 97: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

supra The Establishment of Child Support

Orders for Low-Income Noncustodial Parents,

Page 98: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

The Court may, in its discretion, consider the earning capacity of a parent in lieu of the parent’s income, consistent with the best interests of the children.146

In re Marriage of Regnery

Regnery

supra

Page 99: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE
Page 100: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

If the court finds that either parent is voluntarily unemployed or underemployed, it shall estimate the income that parent would otherwise have and shall impute to that parent that income; the court shall calculate child support based on that parent’s imputed income. In determining the amount of income to be imputed to a parent who is unemployed or underemployed, the court should determine the employment potential and probable earning level of that parent, based on that parent’s recent work history, education, and occupational qualifications, and on the prevailing job opportunities and earning levels in the community. The court may take into account the presence of a young or physically or mentally disabled child necessitating the parent’s need to stay in the home and therefore the inability to work.

(Ala. Rules Jud. Admin., rule 32(B)(5).)

Comparison of State Guidelines Regarding Unknown Income

Page 101: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

State Comparisons—Case A:

State Comparisons—Case B:

Page 102: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

State Comparisons—Cases C and D:

Page 103: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

Exhibit 4-1. Comparison of States’ Guidelines’ Amounts When Income Is Presumed at or Equivalent to Full-Time, Minimum Wage

Case A: Case B: Case C Case D One Child One Child Two Children Five Children

Obligor’s Income Is Presumed

Obligor’s Income Is Equivalent to Full-Time, Minimum Wage Earnings

Monthly Order

Rank Monthly Order

Rank Monthly Order

Rank Monthly Order

Rank

Alabama $272 19 $272 14 $333 24 $343 37Alaska 50 49 50 50 50 50 50 50Arizona 281 14 281 10 397 7 481 20Arkansas 261 21 261 15 377 12 542 9California 300 8 236 24 377 13 589 5Colorado 217 39 217 36 292 33 467 21Connecticut 312 6 312 2 464 3 607 4Dist. of Columbia 50 50 55 49 55 49 55 49Delaware 21 51 21 51 21 51 21 51Florida 257 22 257 17 399 6 499 16Georgia 197 44 197 44 283 34 404 29Hawaii 280 15 280 11 500 1 1,030 1Idaho 212 42 212 40 308 31 428 24Illinois 277 18 219 34 307 32 494 17Indiana 221 36 221 32 281 36 377 32Iowa 220 37 220 33 255 39 308 40Kansas 221 35 221 31 322 27 510 13Kentucky 229 33 229 28 346 23 451 22Louisiana 245 26 245 21 364 14 493 18Maine 268 20 260 16 329 25 346 36Maryland 233 30 233 25 360 19 482 19Massachusetts 333 4 303 3 364 15 411 28Michigan 210 43 210 41 222 43 259 42Minnesota 436 3 173 47 173 47 173 47Mississippi 176 47 176 46 251 40 326 39Missouri 279 16 279 12 384 11 397 30Montana 132 48 132 48 132 48 132 48Nebraska 225 34 225 30 243 41 295 41Nevada 235 29 226 29 314 29 414 27New Hampshire 279 17 279 13 353 22 353 35New Jersey 281 13 281 9 394 9 563 6New Mexico 243 27 243 22 329 26 362 33New York 192 45 192 45 283 35 396 31North Carolina 232 31 232 26 236 42 243 43North Dakota 282 12 282 8 356 21 510 14Ohio 248 24 248 19 362 17 425 25Oklahoma 249 23 249 18 363 16 515 11Oregon 307 7 203 43 203 46 203 46Pennsylvania 284 9 284 5 320 28 331 38Rhode Island 216 40 216 37 218 44 225 44South Carolina 284 10 284 6 402 5 519 10South Dakota 216 41 216 38 279 37 357 34Tennessee 616 2 339 1 479 2 683 2Texas 219 38 219 35 274 38 439 23Utah 238 28 238 23 388 10 553 8Vermont 795 1 209 42 209 45 209 45Virginia 232 32 232 27 360 20 502 15

Page 104: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

Washington 327 5 285 4 442 4 680 3West Virginia 248 25 248 20 361 18 511 12Wisconsin 179 46 213 39 313 30 425 26Wyoming 282 11 282 7 396 8 561 7

Average $257 $229 $310 $411

a Appendix C contains the amount of presumed income used by each state. The amount varies according to each state’s guideline, the state minimum wage, or both.

Page 105: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

Exhibit 4-2. Illustration of New York’s Self-Support Reserve Test 1. Obligor’s gross income $1,3862. Adjustments to gross income 1063. Income available for support (line 1 minus line 2) 1,2804. Preliminary child support order (line 3 multiplied by 17% for one child) 218Self-Support Reserve Test 5. Self-support (135% of the federal poverty level for one person) 1,2186. Income available for support (line 3 minus line 5) 627. Child support order (the lesser of lines 4 and 6) $ 62

Page 106: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

Minimum Orders

Page 107: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

When a parent has extremely low income the amount of child support recommended by use of the Guidelines should be carefully scrutinized. The court should consider the obligor’s income and living expenses to determine the maximum amount of child support that can reasonably be ordered without denying the obligor the means for self-support at a minimum subsistence level. The court may consider $12.00 as a minimum child support order; however, there are situations where a $0.00 support order is appropriate. A numeric amount of child support shall be ordered.

(Ind. Child Support Rules and Guidelines 2.)

[T]he Guidelines do not establish a minimum support obligation. Instead the facts of each individual case must be examined and support set in such a manner that the obligor is not denied a means of self-support at a subsistence level. For example, (1) a parent who has a high parenting time credit, (2) a parent who suffers from mental illness, (3) a parent caring for a disabled child, (4) an incarcerated parent, (5) a parent or a family member with a significant/chronic health issue, or (6) a natural disaster are significant but not exclusive factors for the Court to consider in setting a child support order. The court should not automatically attribute minimum wage to parents who, for a variety of factors, are not capable of earning minimum wage.

(Ind. Child Support Rules and Guidelines 2.)

Chapter Summary

Page 108: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE
Page 109: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE
Page 110: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

CHAPTER 5

Medical Support Provisions

Child Support Report, www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pubs/2010/csr/csr1001.pdf.

Page 111: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

Background Statistics on Medical Support

OCS FY2008 Preliminary Report to Congresswww.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pubs/2009/reports/preliminary_report_fy2008/#highlights

Federal Fiscal Year 2008www.childsup.ca.gov/Portals/0/resources/docs/reports/ 2008/Federal%20Fiscal%20Year%202008%20Performance%20Data.pdf

supraId.,

suprsupra

Page 112: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

ordered

supra note 155 tables 11 and 12.Health Care Coverage Among Child Support-Eligible Children

Section 1115 Demonstration Grant Project UNIMED A Unified Approach to Medical Support Through Intra-Agency Collaboration/Data Exchange: Final Report

Increasing Healthcare Coverage for Children: A New Coordinated Approach

supra

Page 113: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

Child Support Report www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pubs/2010/csr/csr1001.pdf.Medical Child Support: Strategies Implemented by States

http://statehealthfacts.org

Page 114: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

supra .Eight-State Review of the Ability of

Noncustodial Parents to Contribute Toward the Medical Costs of Title IV-D Children That Were Paid Under the Medicaid Program,

Evaluation of Strategies to Improve Medical Support Enforcement in Washington State

suprasupra

Page 115: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

Federal Requirements

Providing for the Child’s Health-Care Needs

Address how the parents will provide for the child(ren)’s health care needs through health insurance coverage and/or through cash medical support in accordance with § 303.31 of this chapter.

(45 C.F.R. § 302.56(3).)

Page 116: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

In any case in which an amount is set for current support, the court shall require that health insurance coverage for a supported child shall be maintained by either or both parents if that insurance is available at no cost or at reasonable cost to the parent.

(Fam. Code, § 3751(a)(2).)

The court shall order the following as additional child support: . . . (2) The reasonable uninsured health care costs for the children as provided in Section 4063.

(Id., § 4062(a)(2).)

The child support order shall address how the parents will provide for the child(ren)’s health care needs through health insurance as well as the nonreimbursed reasonable and necessary child(ren)’s health care costs that are not included in [the child support schedule].

(Neb. Rev. Court Rules, ch. 4, art. 2, § 4-215.)

Ordering Either or Both Parents to Provide Medical Support

Page 117: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

Package of Material for Medical Support and Health Reform First Colloquiumsupra supra

Increasing Healthcare Coverage for Children: A New Coordinated Approach

supra Focus on Health Reform

Page 118: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

Consideration of Insurance Premiums in Guidelines

Final ReportId.

Report of the 2006 Nebraska Child Support Advisory Commission: Recommendations

Page 119: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE
Page 120: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

Reasonable Cost of Insurance

Exhibit 5-1. Monthly Support Award: Obligor Carries Health insurance for Child, Both Parents Earn $3,000/mo, 1 child, 20% timesharing

$379$355$353

$303

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

$400

$100/mo premium $200/mo premium

Mon

thly

Ord

er

Existing Approach (subtract premium from income)Alternative Approach (each parent responsible for prorated share of premium)

Exhibit 5-2. Monthly Support Award: Obligee Carries Health insurance for Child, Both Parents Earn $3,000/mo, 1 child, 20% timesharing

$409 $415$453

$503

$0

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

$600

$100/mo premium $200/mo premium

Mon

thly

Ord

er

Existing Approach (subtract premium from income)Alternative Approach (each parent responsible for prorated share of premium)

Page 121: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

Cash medical support or the cost of private health insurance is considered reasonable in cost if the cost to the parent responsible for providing medical support does not exceed five percent of his or her gross income or, at State option, a reasonable alternative income-based numeric standard defined in State law, regulations or court rule having the force of law or State child support guidelines…. In applying the five percent or alternative State standard for the cost of private health insurance, the cost is the cost of adding the child(ren) to the existing coverage or the difference between self-only and family coverage.

(45 C.F.R. § 303.31(a)(3).)

21 Million Children’s Health: Our Shared Responsibility, the Medical Child Support Working Group’s Report

Oregon Child Support Guidelines Changes: Detailed Summary

Page 122: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

supra Medical Insurance Collaboration

Final Report California Health

Interview Survey Newsroom www.chis.ucla.edu/release.asp?id=50.

www.healthpolicy.ucla.edu/pubs/files/SHIC_RT_82009.pdfwww.statehealthfacts.org.

supra

Page 123: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

Accessible Insurance

San Francisco Chronicle http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-02-26/news/17957301_1_rate-hikes-health-rates-rate-increases

Ibid

Los Angeles Times http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/10/business/la-fi-anthem10-2010feb10

www.statehealthfacts.org.

http://factfinder.census.gov. supra .

Page 124: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

When ruling on a motion made pursuant to this section, in order to ensure that the health care needs of the child under this section are met, the court shall consider all relevant facts, including, but not limited to, the following: (1) The geographic access and reasonable availability of necessary health care for the child which complies with the terms of the health care insurance coverage paid for by either parent pursuant to a court order. (2) The necessity of emergency medical treatment that may have precluded the use of the health care insurance, or the preferred health care provider required under the insurance, provided by either parent pursuant to a court order. (3) The special medical needs of the child. (4) The reasonable inability of a parent to pay the full amount of reimbursement within a 30-day period and the resulting necessity for a court-ordered payment schedule.

(Fam. Code, § 4063(g).)

Page 125: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

Cash Medical Support

[A]n amount ordered to be paid toward the cost of health insurance provided by a public entity or by another parent through employment or otherwise, or for other medical costs not covered by insurance.

(45 C.F.R. § 303.31(a)(1).)

.Medi-Cal Reimbursement: Its Significance for California Children

www.healthychild.ucla.edu/.../MediCal%20reimbursementbrief0500.pdf

Page 126: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

supra.California Health Care Almanac Children’s Health Coverage Facts and Figures

Page 127: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

K

Chapter Summary

supra .supra

Page 128: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

K

Page 129: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE
Page 130: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

CHAPTER 6Input From Stakeholders

Identifying and Recruiting Stakeholders

Identifying Stakeholders

(1) Custodial and noncustodial parents; (2) Representatives of established women’s rights and fathers’ rights groups; (3) Representatives of established organizations that advocate for the economic well- being

of children;(4) Members of the judiciary, district attorney’s offices, the Attorney General’s office, and the

Department of Child Support Services; (5) Certified family law specialists;

Page 131: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

(6) Academicians specializing in family law; (7) Persons representing low-income parents; and (8) Persons representing recipient of assistance under the CalWORKs program seeking

child support services.

(Fam. Code, § 4054(d).)

(DCSS referral)

(DCSS referral)

(DCSS referral)

(DCSS referral) (DCSS referral)

(DCSS referral)

Page 132: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

(DCSS referral)

(DCSSreferral)

(DCSS referral)

(DCSS referral)

(DCSS referral)

(DCSS referral)

Recruiting Stakeholders

Page 133: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE
Page 134: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

via teleconference

via teleconference

Conducting the Focus Groups

Participant Survey

Page 135: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE
Page 136: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE
Page 137: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

Major Themes

Comprehension

They see a judge typing numbers into it. They have no idea how it’s played out.

Page 138: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

I think people get confused when they go into child support offices, local CSAs, and one worker will give them one estimated figure; three weeks later, they go in and give a court date and they have another estimated figure.

Nobody seems to know the full scope of what’s taken into consideration.

Usually low-income people that I talk with have a very almost nonexistent understanding of not just the formula but the entire system. They’re scared to death.

{It] is far too complicated, far, far too complicated.

[People] don’t have buy-in to those numbers.

If you could get some transparency, then families can begin to heal.

I hear everybody say it’s complicated, but I think it’s very simple.

They need to be educated . . . . They feel they are getting ripped off, but when we educate them and teach them on the child support, how it’s calculated, then they have a better feeling.

Page 139: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

I think how you make them take a parenting class, they should take a child support class too.

Interrelationship

Until custodial ratios are balance[d] out and equal parenting time is address[ed] . . . a lot of this is going to be moot. . . .

[O]nce we move toward more equitable distribution and custody a lot of these issues will just go away and the guideline will work. . . .

[B]ut if the guidelines don’t encourage a ruling that allows the child to have the most time with both caring and loving responsible parents, it fails, period.

Custody is number one. The way it impacts these guidelines can make the guidelines moot to a certain degree because . . . [t]hey find that . . . the mom is the primary parent and the dad’s the primary breadwinner.

Page 140: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

Since ‘timeshare’ is factored directly into the Guideline formula, any parent wishing to modify child support up or down merely litigates timeshare instead of litigating child support. . . . Accordingly, the Guideline’s timeshare component, as implemented, shifts child support conflicts into timeshare conflicts, increasing the stakes and conflict between the parents. This shifting of the conflict leads to a longer, more expensive, and less efficient settlement of the underlying issue.

[I]f you have two parents with equal timeshare and there is no disparity of income, in other words, their income is exactly the same but they are sharing [ ] custody, then neither owes each other support.

Fairness

No, it’s not fair because . . . they don’t look at parents as equal people. So you’re starting off on a bad foot in the first place.

noncustodial

I think there should be an absolute floor. If you’re below a certain income you don’t pay child support period, poverty level or whatever.

It’s a thousand now to get the deduction and I think it should be higher.

Page 141: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

The way the guideline is working out for low-income [people] is too high. It is patently hurting low-income [people].

The cost of raising children is not independent of family income.

Page 142: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

[Y]ou can wind up in a situation where you do breed . . . laziness in a parent which is receiving support.

Application

You talk to one [case] worker and you’ll get one answer. Then you talk to somebody else, you will get another answer.

There needs to be better training with department workers so that people . . . get the same answer from two or three people . . . and that accurate information is given to people.

Page 143: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

Perjury is the number one issue that needs to be dealt with in this whole system.

Perjury must be addressed or this whole guideline is a joke . . . . I know the D.A.s in California are very reluctant to prosecute perjury for some reason. I don’t understand that because that’s the foundation of the whole legal system.

[G]uys . . . are paying for children that DNA has proven they did not father.

Chapter Summary

Page 144: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

CHAPTER 7

Conclusions and Recommendations

Basis of Child Support Guidelines andStudies of Child-Rearing Expenditures

Conclusion 1: The California guideline and 36 other state guidelines are based on a “continuity-of-expenditures model”—that is, the child support award should allow the children to benefit from the same level of expenditures that would have been provided had the children and both parents lived together.

Page 145: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

Conclusion 2: The California guideline formula is generally within the range of measurements of child-rearing expenditures—but at the high end of the range of measurements of child-rearing expenditures.

K

K

K

Conclusion 3: Many other assumptions and factors besides measurements of child-rearing expenditures form a guideline formula.

Page 146: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

Findings From a Review of Case Files

Conclusion 4: The percentage of orders that deviated from the guideline has increased.

Page 147: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

Conclusion 5: Commissioners and advocates agreed that the current low-income adjustment is inadequate.

Conclusion 6: Many of the guideline factors designed to yield more responsive orders are being applied very infrequently.

Page 148: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

Conclusion 7: The percentage of orders entered through default, 46 percent, is back up. This is after a concerted effort several years ago to lower the number of orders entered by default in California.

Conclusion 8: The percentage of orders involving presumed income has increased since the last guideline review. The percentage of orders with income imputation, however, has not increased.

Conclusion 9: Health insurance is frequently ordered, and medical support is ordered in most IV-D cases.

In re Marriage of Regnery

Page 149: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

Conclusion 10: Information is frequently missing from case files.

Low-Income Parents and Child Support Guidelines

Conclusion 11: Historically, many IV-D families and obligors have poverty or low incomes. The current high unemployment and underemployment rates likely contribute to even higher incidences of poverty and low income than were previously documented.

Conclusion 12: When child support obligations are set too high for low-income obligors, they are unable to meet their own subsistence needs

Page 150: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

Conclusion 13: The California guideline amounts for low-income obligors are high relative to other states. The low-income adjustment under the California guideline is inadequate.

Conclusion 14: California’s income presumption policy exacerbates the guideline problems for low-income parents; the obligor’s income is often presumed to be more than it actually is or job opportunities available for obligors are presumed to pay more than they actually do.

Page 151: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

Medical Support Provisions

Conclusion 15: Although the 2008 federal medical support rules impose many new requirements on states—including state provisions for the establishment and modification of medical support—2010 health reform will likely change future federal medical support requirements.

Conclusion 16: California statute already requires that either or both parents can be ordered to provide insurance coverage for the children and that orders allocate the child’s uninsured health-care expenses between the parents.

Page 152: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

Conclusion 17: California statute currently does not provide an income-based definition of “reasonable cost” but does address what is “accessible” health care. Although not called “cash medical support” (and states are not required to use the federal term), California’s provision of reasonable uninsured health-care expenses is a form of cash medical support.

Conclusion 18: The California guideline adjusts for the child’s health insurance differently than do most state guidelines. While most states prorate the child’s share of the insurance premium between the parents, California subtracts the insurance premium from the parent’s income.

Page 153: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

Input From Stakeholders

Conclusion 19: Focus group discussions among advocates reveal that parents frequently fail to comprehend what goes into the guideline calculation and need more education to improve their understanding.

Conclusion 20: Advocates who attended the focus groups consistently believed that the guideline is unfair to low-income parents.

Conclusion 21: Many of the advocates’ issues concerned systematic issues involving the guideline or were beyond the scope of the guideline

Page 154: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

Recommendations

Recommendation 1: Update and/or modify the low-income adjustment in the guideline.

Page 155: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

Recommendation 2: Evaluate the current income attribution policies as to both parents

In re Marriage of Regnery

Recommendation 3: Educate stakeholders and equip them with information so they can make the current system work better. In addition, develop strategies to engage stakeholders and encourage their active participation in the child support process.

Page 156: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

Recommendation 4: Adopt any necessary conforming changes so that California can meet the 2008 federal medical support rules that are currently in effect but also recognize that 2010 national health reform may produce changes to the federal rules in the future as well as changes in how states approach medical support.

Recommendation 5: Encourage better and more detailed information in the case file.

Page 157: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

134

APPENDIX A

Parental Expenditures for Children: Rothbarth Estimates1

The continuity-of-expenditures model that underlies child support guidelines attempts to provide children with the same amount of expenditures that the children would have received had they lived with their parents in an intact family. Knowledge of patterns of spending on children in an intact family is required to implement this guideline model. This report will provide estimates of this essential information from the most recent consumption data available from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Determining how parents devote the family’s spending to their children would seem to be a rather simple and straightforward task: just ask parents to keep track of these expenditures; then ask the parents to determine which expenditures were made on behalf of their children. In application, however, this is difficult. Some consumption goods could be allocated with confidence if they were purchased for a specific individual. For example, the purchase of a pair of shoes could be allocated to the person for whom the shoes were purchased. In other, more complicated cases, spending could be allocated on the basis of a reasonable assumption or based on information gathered in other surveys. For example, consider a family’s expenditures for food. While groceries are purchased for the entire family, it is possible to observe individual family members’ actual consumption of the meal and then allocate the cost of that meal to each individual family member based on his or her consumption. Alternatively, a food bill could be allocated in proportion to the nutritional requirements of the individual family members. That is, if one member requires twice the nutritional content as another member, a calculation could assume that the first individual consumed twice as much food as the other member. Allocations are more complicated, however, when the expenditures are not readily divisible by individual family member consumption. For example, it is more difficult to determine a reasonable allocation of expenditures on mortgage, utilities, and other home expenses. One approach to determining an allocation in this scenario would be to average the spending on home expenses and other “publicly consumed” goods across all family members. While this approach has a commonsense appeal, it is based upon a per capita calculation (i.e., dollars spent on a good divided by the number of family members), a method that has been undermined by significant empirical evidence. Allocating jointly consumed goods on a per capita basis has limitations. For purposes of developing child support guidelines, the “average cost” arguably overstates the “true” cost of the child to the parents. Alternatively, most child support guidelines are developed from estimates of

1 Prepared by David M. Betson, Associate Professor, Univ. of Notre Dame.

Page 158: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

135

child-rearing expenditures derived from a “marginal cost” approach. The marginal cost approach is based on the concept that the amount of housing or any other jointly consumed good should be the additional amount of housing (or other jointly consumed good) that the parents purchase because of the presence of the children. According to fundamental economic theory on average and marginal cost, if there are economies of scale in housing consumption, then the “average cost” of housing should diminish with increasing family size. Further, if the average cost of housing is falling, then the marginal cost associated with each additional family member should be less than the average cost. In other words, under the marginal cost approach, the cost of the second family member is less than the cost of the first family member, and the cost of the third family member is less than the cost of the second family member, and so forth. How can the “marginal housing costs” of children be estimated? One commonsense approach would be to calculate the difference in housing expenditures between parents with children and childless couples with the same amount of total spending. While the simplicity of this approach is appealing, economists warn that it will not capture the true marginal cost of housing attributable to children. If children represent an economic cost to their parents, then the childless couple, even though they have the same total spending, will be “wealthier” than the parents with the children. Ignoring the effect of the increased standard of living of the childless couple on their housing expenditures would understate the true marginal housing costs attributable to the children. One way to calculate housing costs attributable to children is to use the cost of an additional bedroom. For example, consider a married couple with one child who rents a two-bedroom apartment. The difference in rent between the two-bedroom apartment and a one-bedroom apartment within the same apartment complex would be deemed as the housing cost of the child. While a similar calculation would have to be created for those families who own their homes, this approach does have appeal for being direct and easy to understand. However, this approach will only understate the “true” marginal housing costs of children because it does not take into account that a childless couple’s choice in home size is not just the difference between one and two bedrooms. For example, they may have chosen a home with less play room either inside or outside because they do not have a child. In this example, to assume that the presence of the child created a need for only an additional bedroom will understate the housing consumption of the child and consequently understate the cost of a child.2 Most economic studies of child-rearing costs approach the problem of allocating consumption to individual family members in a different manner. Instead of trying to allocate the spending on each consumption item separately, the marginal cost approach asks how much total spending a

2 The USDA (Lino & Carlson, supra note 20), in its annual reports on expenditures on children, uses the approach that attempts to allocate individual consumption purchases to children. In the past, the majority of the family’s consumption was allocated on a per capita basis. While food, transportation, health care, and clothing were not allocated on a per capita basis, the USDA historically had allocated all other purchases, including housing, on a per capita basis. Only recently has the USDA changed its allocation of shelter and utility spending to reflect a more “marginal cost” allocation.

Page 159: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

136

childless couple would require to be equally well off as two parents and a child with a given amount of total spending. If the childless couple had the same level of total spending as the parents with one child, then they would clearly be materially better off because they did not spend any money on the child. Hence, we would reduce the level of total spending by the childless couple such that they would be as equally well off as the family with a child. The difference in total spending by the two households is interpreted as the cost of the child or the level of spending on the child. The challenge to the marginal cost approach, however, is how to determine when families of differing composition are equally well off. The two leading contenders are the Engel and Rothbarth approaches. These approaches differ from the previously described approach. Instead of allocating individual purchases to the children, these approaches allocate the entirety of the total spending of the family. In other words, the Engel and Rothbarth estimators are much more of a “top-down” approach than the “bottom-up” approach that common sense may lead one to pursue. This report is organized as follows. In the next section, the data will be described, as well as the definitions of expenditure categories used in this study. The third section describes the assumptions and methods used by each of the three alternative approaches to estimating parental spending. The fourth section describes how I implemented the Rothbarth model. The empirical estimates derived from the Rothbarth approach will be presented and compared to previous estimates by the author and other researchers in the fifth section. The following section presents a sensitivity test of the major assumptions that I have made to estimate the Rothbarth model. The final section offers some concluding remarks.

Data and Expenditure Categories Employed in Study

The data used in this study are drawn from the Consumer Expenditure Survey (CE) conducted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). The survey is based on quarterly interviews of roughly 7,000 consumer units (families). The data are used for the periodic revisions of the Consumer Price Index as well as other economic research and analysis of the spending patterns of American families. The CE is the only nationally representative sample of American families that collects detailed information on the spending habits of families. As such, it is the only available national survey suited for estimating parental spending patterns. CE Sample Selection Criteria The data used in this study are from the interview component of the CE beginning in the first quarter of 2004 through the first quarter of 2009. Consumer units are interviewed for five quarters; however, only data from the second through fifth quarterly interviews are reported in the public use files. While the BLS treats each quarterly response as an independent observation, the file used for this analysis is constructed from the BLS quarterly files to reflect a family’s

Page 160: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

137

annual expenditures.3 While any unit can have up to four quarterly interviews, some households cannot be located or refuse to be interviewed and hence will have had fewer than four interviews. This study was intended to focus on the spending patterns on children in families where both parents were present; consequently, the following sample restrictions were made:

The consumer unit contained a married couple between the ages of 18 and 60 years old; The consumer unit contained six or fewer children; The consumer unit did not have any other adults (individuals 18 years old or older) present in the unit even if these adults were the children of the couple; The consumer unit did not have a change in family size or composition over the period in which the unit was interviewed; and Only consumer units with at least three completed interviews were included in the final analysis sample.4

These restrictions yielded a sample of 7,846 consumer units where 2,937 observations were childless married couples and 4,909 were married couples with children. Exhibit A-1 presents the distribution of units by the number of children (less than 18 years old).

Exhibit A-1. Sample Observations by Number of Children

Number of children 0 1 2 3 4 5 or 6

Number of observations 2,937 1,511 2,235 869 214 80

Source: Calculations by author. Given the rather small sample sizes for four and more children, most of the following tables will group families with three and more children into a single category for presentation purposes. While families with four and more children will be included in the analysis, estimates for the cost of children will be presented for one through three children only.

Distribution of Total Outlays5

The major focus of this study is an examination of how families allocate their total spending to their children; consequently the first step is to define total spending. The BLS produces two measures of total spending in the consumer unit. The first is their expenditure concept (TOTEXPPQ and TOTEXPCQ), while the other is denoted as the consumer unit’s outlays (ETOTALP and ETOTALC). The principle difference between these two concepts is that the 3 See Appendix A-1 for a detailed discussion of the use of annualized quarterly data in lieu of annual data on consumer units, as well as a rationale for basing the analysis on a single annual observation for every consumer unit instead of up to four annualized observations for every consumer unit. 4 See Appendix A-2 for the details of how these sample selection criteria, as well as additional sample criteria used in later analysis, affected the size of the analysis sample. 5 Appendix A-3 contains a more detailed description of the construction of variables used in this report.

Page 161: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

138

outlay concept includes principle payments for any loans while the expenditure concept does not. Both of the above BLS summary measures include two forms of what most researchers would call savings: payment of social security payroll taxes and payments to retirement plans. For the purpose of this study, these forms of saving were subtracted from both specifications of the family’s total spending. In the past, some estimates have relied on the family’s total expenditures as a measure of total spending, but as noted earlier, this concept does not reflect the family’s principal payments on their debt, in particular, the principal payments on their home mortgage. The difference between the two measurements (i.e., “outlays,” which does include principal payments, and “spending,” which does not) is negligible for families with little or no debt or debt that has recently been financed (especially home purchases). However, if the family lives in the same home for a several years, the difference between the two concepts will grow as the mortgage payment reflects more principal payments than interest payments. Since most child support guidelines are intended to provide for children from ages 0 through at least 18 years old, the use of family outlays makes more sense than family expenditures. Nonetheless, the impact of using outlays rather than expenditures on the estimates is examined in more detail later. Exhibit A-2 displays the distribution of total family outlays by the composition of the family. While the estimates are from interviews conducted from January 2004 through March 2009, all spending and income amounts have been expressed in constant 2006 dollars. Without controlling for available income, families with one and two children on average spend more than childless couples, who on average spend slightly more than families with three or more children. As a percentage of their available income, families with children have more current outlays than do childless couples. For all family types, the average total spending of the family exceeds the median, indicating that the distribution of spending is not symmetrical around the average but “right skewed.” That is, higher-income families spend more than lower-income families. The skewed distribution of both income and spending has implications for the construction of the estimation model. A proportional model based on the log of spending amounts is more consistent with the data than a model based upon levels.

Page 162: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

139

Exhibit A-2. Distribution of Total Outlays by Family Composition

Childless One Two Three or More Couple Child Children Children

Average net income6 $64,745 $65,666 $68,135 $60,169 Average total outlays $51,428 $55,968 $59,096 $49,491 Average propensity to spend7 79.4% 85.2% 86.8% 82.3%

Total expenditures at:

5th percentile $17,928 $19,190 $22,712 $21,259 25th percentile 31,265 34,482 37,774 34,516 50th percentile (median) 43,855 48,094 52,369 50,370 75th percentile 63,316 67,266 70,771 70,387 95th percentile 168,029 202,781 173,603 205,456

Source: Calculations by author (all dollar amounts are in 2006 dollars).

Spending by Expenditure Categories Exhibit A-3 presents the sample mean of total family outlays by the number of children, as well as the budget share devoted to some of the BLS major consumption categories. As shown in Exhibit A-3, both the presence and number of children increase the proportion of the family’s budget devoted to housing, food, and apparel purchases. For all other consumption categories, the addition of children has no effect on the budget share or lowers the proportion of outlays devoted to that category. The effect of children on housing is probably most surprising. Exhibit A-3 shows an increase in budget share for housing between a childless couple and a couple with one child (i.e., an increase from 37.9 to 41.2 percent; then it stays at about 41 percent for couples with two and three children). This observed relationship, however, could be an artifact of the way the BLS defines housing purchases to include household operations that reflect the cost of babysitting and child-care services. Exhibit A-4 presents a further breakdown of the housing component into its four components of housing: cost of shelter (e.g., rent or mortgage, home insurance, property taxes, and home maintenance); utilities; the cost of household operations (e.g., maids, gardeners, childcare); and household equipment (e.g., furniture, decorations, and cooking equipment). As anticipated, the largest difference between families with and without children is in the household

6 Top-coded values of net incomes were excluded from the calculations. Income is sometimes top-coded for extraordinary high incomes to preserve anonymity of high-income households. “Top-coded income” refers to the replacement of data in cases where the original value exceeds a critical income amount. 7 The average propensity to consume was computed as the ratio of average outlays to net income, not the average of the ratio of outlays to net income. If the average of the ratio of outlays to net income is computed, the respective estimates would be roughly five percentage points higher owing to the fact that low-income families typically spend more than their income, resulting in a ratio exceeding 1.

Page 163: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

140

operation segment of housing. Otherwise, the spending on housing for families with and without children is similar.

Exhibit A-3. Average Spending by Family Composition

Childless One Two Three or More Couple Child Children Children

Total outlays $51,428 $55,968 $59,096 $49,491

Budget share (% of total outlays)

Housing 37.9% 41.2% 41.4% 40.9% Transportation 20.3 19.9 19.0 18.4 Food 15.7 16.0 16.8 18.3 Entertainment 7.2 6.4 6.8 6.3 Health care 6.1 5.3 5.3 4.6 Apparel 2.6 3.1 3.2 3.6 Tobacco and alcohol 2.0 1.4 1.2 1.1 Education and reading 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.7 Personal care 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5 All other 5.6 4.3 4.0 4.6

Source: Calculations by author.

Exhibit A-4. Allocation of Housing Purchases

Childless One Two Three or More Couple Child Children Children

Budget share (% of total outlays)

Housing 37.9% 41.2% 41.4% 40.9%

Shelter 25.2 27.2 27.1 26.7 Utilities 8.5 8.4 8.3 8.9 Household operations 1.1 2.8 3.3 2.6 Household equipment 3.0 2.7 2.7 2.7

Percentage of housing outlays

Shelter 66.5 66.1 65.5 65.3 Utilities 22.5 20.4 20.0 21.7 Household operations 3.0 6.8 8.0 6.4 Household equipment 7.9 6.6 6.5 6.6

Source: Calculations by author (percentages may not total 100% due to rounding). The exhibits illustrate the difficulty encountered when one attempts to measure child-rearing expenditures by directly allocating consumption spending to adults and children, such as the

Page 164: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

141

USDA does.8 As evident in Exhibit A-3, consumption items where it is fairly obvious for whom the purchase was made account for a rather small proportion of all outlays. While adult clothing, alcohol, and tobacco purchases can safely be identified as adult purchases and child clothing, child care, toys, and education might be classified as child purchases, Exhibit A-3 shows that these items would constitute roughly 15 percent of total outlays. The remaining 85 percent of the family’s budget would have to be allocated using additional information or assumptions. For food, the USDA approach assumes that food purchases are allocated in proportion to the nutritional requirements of individual family members by age and gender. Using data from the Department of Transportation, the USDA approach first deducts an amount to reflect work-related expenses and then allocates the remainder to the children on a per capita basis. Using data from the Department of Health and Human Services, the USDA approach allocates health-care expenditures in proportion to the expected outlays for children relative to the expected outlays for the family. Until its 2008 estimates, the USDA approach allocated the remaining consumption items including housing (excluding child care) on a per capita basis. This meant that roughly one-half of the family’s outlays were assumed to be allocated to children on a per capita basis. For example, if there are two children in a four-person family, then 50 percent of outlays would be allocated to the children’s consumption. This assumption resulted in estimates of the cost of children that were only slightly lower than those calculated on a per capita basis. In its most recent report, the USDA changed its methodology with respect to shelter, utility, and household equipment (furniture) outlays by adopting a “marginal cost” approach. Expressed simply, their current approach is to determine how these housing expenses vary by the number of bedrooms; then it assigns the impact of an additional bedroom to the cost of a child. The new USDA approach also includes an amount toward mortgage principal, whereas its previous methodology did not. While this is a significant departure from their previous methodology, the USDA admits that this approach is a “conservative” one that may actually understate the housing costs that parents may incur when they have children. In the 2009 report, the USDA reports that as a percentage of total spending, parents allocate 27 percent of the family’s spending to one child, 40 percent for two children, and 47 percent for three children. This differs little from the amounts in the 2003 USDA report that relied on a per capita allocation of housing. In the 2003 USDA report, the percentage of family expenditures devoted to child rearing were 26 percent, 42 percent, and 48 percent for one, two, and three children, respectively.

Alternative Methodologies for Allocating Family Expenditures to Children

Many of the alternative methodologies for allocating family expenditures to children rely on assumptions that can be even more daunting than the ones employed by the USDA. In this

8 Lino & Carlson, supra note 20.

Page 165: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

142

section, two competing methodologies used to allocate total family spending to the children are described. The discussion in the body of the report is intended to be nontechnical. The equations presented in the body of the report can be skipped without a loss of general understanding of each approach. Appendixes A-4 and A-5 contain a more technical discussion of these methods. Indirect Estimates—Engel Method While the approach taken by the USDA is straightforward and relatively easy to understand, its main weakness is the rather arbitrary manner in which it allocates the family’s spending. The use of assumptions that rely on per capita allocations of goods may overstate how much parents truly spend on their children; however, without any other additional information that informs us about how individual members consume or utilize the specific consumption items, what alternative assumptions can be made? An alternative approach to the allocation problem would be to focus on how parents reallocate consumption within the household in order to make room for their children’s consumption. By comparing the consumption decisions of parents with children and married couples without children, the economic costs of the children can be indirectly observed from the differences in consumption patterns. When undertaking this comparison between families with and without children, one should hold everything else constant in the comparison to ensure that any remaining differences can reasonably be attributed to the presence of the children. Some of the factors that should be held constant include the characteristics of the adults, the market prices that families face, and the standard of living or the economic well-being that the two families experience. The difficulty with this approach is finding a suitable measure of family economic well-being that is constant between the two sets of family. The search for an economic proxy for the family’s standard of living has been difficult and not wholly successful. The use of income or even total expenditures in the family are unacceptable measures of a family’s well-being. Consider two families that have the same total expenditures or income, but one family has children while the other does not. These families could not possibly be equally well off since, at a minimum, the family with children would have more mouths to feed and more bodies to clothe and shelter. In searching for a proxy for the family’s standard of living, one expectation is that the concept could, in principle, be measured for all families. This restricts the search to goods that are necessities and hence are needed and purchased by all families. One core necessity is food. It was this consumption item that Engel focused on over 100 years ago as an appropriate proxy for a family’s standard of living.9

9 Ernst Engel, “Die Lebenskosten Belgischer Arbeiter-Familien Früher and Jetzt.” (1895) 9(1) Internat. Statistical Bull., 1–124.

Page 166: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

143

Being purchased by all families, however, is not a sufficient qualification for a good proxy for the family’s standard of living. At a minimum, the proxy should move in the same direction as “known” changes in the family’s standard of living. Engel observed that food consumption did indeed meet this additional consideration. A reasonable assumption is that, holding the number of family members constant, increases in the family’s total expenditures should make the family better off. What Engel observed was that when total spending increased, the family spent more on food, but the share of food in the family’s budget fell. Comparing families with different numbers of members but the same level of total spending should also create differences in well-being across the families. The expectation is that as the number of family members increased, the family would be worse off. Thus, if food shares are truly an inverse proxy for the family’s standard of living, then the budget share should rise with the number of children while holding the level of total spending constant. While the total level of spending was not exactly held constant, Exhibit A-3 shows that as the number of children increased, so too did the share of total spending that the family budget devoted to food. These observations led Engel and many other researchers such as Espenshade10 to adopt food shares as a (inverse) proxy for the family’s standard of living. When the food share is used as the proxy, this approach is denoted as the Engel methodology. Food, however, is just one component of goods that could be deemed necessities. Housing, clothing, and medical care would fit the economic definition of a necessity. The share of the budget devoted to each of these expenditure categories falls with increased total spending of the family. Because of this, Watts(1977)11 proposed proxies based on this wider set of consumption items other than food. This approach is denoted as the ISO-PROP method. To illustrate how the Engel model would be implemented, economic data from the CE is first used to estimate a relationship between the food share as a function of total outlays and the number of children (or family size). Exhibit A-5 depicts the estimated relationship between the food share and total outlays for a childless couple (Kid = 0) and a family with one child (Kid = 1). The graph in Exhibit A-5 corresponds to the Engel assumptions. As total outlays increase, the food share declines. When total outlays are held constant, families with one child will devote a higher percentage of their outlays to food. This latter relationship is depicted by having the relationship for one child to be “above” the relationship for the childless couple at all levels of total spending. To further illustrate the basis of the Engel method, assume that a family with one child has TS3 in total outlays and spends FS3 percentage of TS3 on food. If the equal food shares are a measure of well-being across family types, then a childless couple with TS2 amount of total spending

10 Thomas J. Espenshade, Investing in Children: New Estimates of Parental Expenditures (Urban Inst. Press, 1984). 11 Harold Watts, “The Iso-Prop Index: An Approach to the Determination of Differential Poverty Income Thresholds,” in Improving Economic Measures of Well-Being, ed. Moon & Smolensky (Academic Press, 1977).

Page 167: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

144

would be as well off as the family with one child and TS3 of total spending. The difference in total spending, TS3 minus TS2, represents the cost of the child to the parents. If the child was not present, then the one-child family could reduce their spending by the difference and still be as materially well off as they were without one child. Consequently, if the cost of the child corresponds to the amount of total spending the family devotes to the child, then the percentage of total spending devoted to the child would equal

.

Exhibit A-5. The Engel Method

Indirect Estimates—Rothbarth Method A second indirect methodology is the Rothbarth method.12 Rothbarth suggested that by examining how adult goods varied by family type and total spending, one could infer how much total spending would be required to make families with and without children equally well off.13 This approach is based on the observation that without any additional resources to the family, parents must make “room” for the consumption of their children by reducing purchases that they make for themselves. For the purposes of this study, expenditures on adult clothing are 12 See Appendix A-4 for a more theoretical justification of the Rothbarth approach and a critique. 13 Erwin Rothbarth, “Note on a Method of Determining Equivalent Income for Families of Different Composition,” in War-Time Pattern of Saving and Spending, ed. Madge, Occasional Paper No. 4 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1943).

TS 3 TS 2TS 3

Page 168: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

145

considered as a proxy for adult spending. If Rothbarth is correct, then spending on adult clothing would fall as the number of children increases. This pattern exists in the CE data used for this analysis; specifically, couples without children spend on average $2,251 on adult clothing, while parents with one, two, and three or more children spend $1,787, $1,541, and $1,352 respectively. To implement the Rothbarth approach, data from the CE are used to determine the relationship between spending on adult goods (adult clothing) as a function of total outlays and the number of children in the family. Exhibit A-6 depicts the relationship between spending on adult goods and total spending for childless couples and families with one child. If adult goods are normal goods for families, then as total spending increases, so too will spending on adult goods (i.e., both relationships are upward sloping). If, as Rothbarth suggested, parents reduce their spending on adult goods to make room for spending on children, then, with total spending held constant, the relationship for childless couples should lie above that of the relationship for families with one child, indicating that the presence of children should reduce spending on adult goods. Again, consider a family with one child who has TS3 dollars in total spending. It would be predicted to spend AG3 dollars on adult goods. Note that the level of spending on adult goods is determined by starting on the horizontal axis at TS3 and then “going up” to the estimated relationship for families with one child (Kid = 1) and across to AG3. The Rothbarth approach would determine the level of total spending that the equally well-off childless couple would require by asking what the level of total spending is for a childless couple such that they would spend AG3 on adult goods. Just as in the Engel method, the difference between TS3 and TS2 would be identified as the cost of the child and used identically to determine the percentage of the family’s spending, TS3, that was allocated to the child.

Page 169: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

146

Exhibit A-6. The Rothbarth Method

Critique of Engel and Rothbarth Methodologies Although most state guidelines were originally based on the 1984 Engel estimates produced by Espenshade,14 subsequent research questioned the Engel approach.15 While Appendix A-5 elaborates on the problems in the Engel method, it suffices to note here that there is growing dissatisfaction with it. While the assumptions of the Engel methodology are consistent with the empirical data, Deaton and Paxson have proposed additional tests of whether food shares are truly a proxy for the family’s standard of living. In this study, the data on food shares fail to pass these tests. A second concern pertains to the stability of the Engel estimates over time. After Espenshade’s first set of Engel estimates, subsequent Engel estimates first increased and have since declined. The most recent estimates are at a level that is even below that of the original Espenshade estimates. This pattern of estimates over time stands in stark contrast to the relative stability of other estimators of child-rearing expenditures. In previous studies, I have estimated both the Engel and Rothbarth estimates; however, for the purposes of the present study, I will focus on the approach that has a solid theoretical basis and has shown stability over time—that is, the Rothbarth estimator.

14 Espenshade, supra note 14. 15 Angus Deaton & John Muellbauer, “On Measuring Child Costs” (1986) 94(2) J. Political Economy 720–744; Angus Deaton & Christina Paxson, “Economies of Scale, Household Size, and the Demand for Food” (1998) 106 (5) J. Political Economy 897–930.

Page 170: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

147

Empirical Implementation of the Rothbarth Model

The following functional form is used to describe the spending patterns of families on adult clothing.16

In the equation, A denotes the dollar purchases of adult clothing; TS is the total outlays in the family; and µ(X) is a set of characteristics of the adults in the family and other control variables. For adult goods to be a proxy for the family’s well-being, increases in total spending should increase spending on adult goods ( > 0). As additional children join the family, with total spending held constant, adult spending (well-being) should decline. This latter condition requires that

. Ignoring the impact that the relative age composition has on adult clothing purchases, this restriction will be met if is less than . This condition does not require to be negative. The first step in the Rothbarth method is to calculate the level of total spending that a childless couple would require so that the couple would spend the same amount on clothing as do the parents with K children and TSK amount of total spending. For the above functional form, this level of total spending would be equal to

.

Attributing the difference in total spending as the amount of spending that the parents devote to their children, then the share of total spending that was devoted to the children would be equal to

. (2)

If (with total outlays held constant and assuming that additional children lower spending on adult goods), then the estimated percentage of total spending devoted to the children will be less than their per capita share (33 percent, 50 percent, and 60 percent for one, two, and three children respectively). 16 Appendix A-6 contains a discussion of alternative functional form assumptions that could be made and reasons this functional form was chosen.

ln A K,TS,X X ln( 2 K ) ln TS2 K

0)2ln( ork

TSo TSK2

2 K

1

TSK TS0TSK

1 22 K

1

Page 171: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

148

While the Rothbarth method is consistent with consumer demand theory, economists also know that the cost estimate of children it calculates will always underestimate the “true” cost of the children.17 For the Rothbarth estimates to accurately reflect the cost of children, the family’s decision about spending on adult goods must not be influenced by changes in relative prices of goods. If the family is unresponsive to changes in relative prices when deciding how much to spend on adult goods, the reduction in spending on adult goods when the number of children increases reflects purely a “real income” effect. To empirically implement the Rothbarth approach, the following variables were used in the estimation of equation 1: µ(X) variables:

black = 1 if the race of the reference person is black, 0 otherwise hnohs = 1 if the husband doesn’t have a high school degree, 0 otherwise hcollege = 1 if the husband has a four-year college degree, 0 otherwise wnohs = 1 if the wife does not have a high school degree, 0 otherwise wcollege = 1 if the wife has a four-year college degree, 0 otherwise ww_wife = the number of weeks worked in the past year by the wife (range 0 to 52) wfulltime = 1 if the wife worked more than 30 hours per week, 0 otherwise bothwork = 1 if both the husband and wife worked in the previous year, 0 otherwise ne = 1 if the consumer unit lived in the Northeast census region, 0 otherwise south = 1 if the consumer unit lived in the Southern census region, 0 otherwise west = 1 if the consumer unit lived in the Western census region, 0 otherwise lnfsize = log of family size (2 + K) lnpctout = the log of total expenditures divided by family size (in $1,000) lnpctout2 = the square of lnpctout

The inclusion of the square of per capita total family expenditures allows the share of total spending devoted to the children to vary with the level of total spending. In the previous discussion, this variable was omitted in order to derive explicit equations for the share of total spending devoted to the children. Including this squared term requires other numerical techniques to determine the amount of compensation needed to equate the well-being of families with and without children. While all of the spending variables were indexed, a series of dummy variables based on the year in which the last interview for the consumer unit was conducted are included. They are:

y2004 = 1 if the last interview was conducted in 2004, 0 otherwise y2005 = 1 if the last interview was conducted in 2005, 0 otherwise y2007 = 1 if the last interview was conducted in 2007, 0 otherwise

17 For the “true” cost to be estimated, the family’s underlying preferences (utility function) must be known, which, of course, will never be known.

Page 172: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

149

y2008 = 1 if the last interview was conducted in 2008 or 2009, 0 otherwise where the omitted group was those units whose last interview was conducted in 2006. To control for the number of interviews that were completed by the consumer unit, three dummy variables in the analysis were included based on the following form:

complete3 = 1 if the unit completed only three interviews, 0 otherwise where the omitted group was those units that had completed all four interviews. The dependent variable in the Rothbarth approach is the log of the adult clothing purchases in constant 2006 dollars.18 Families with no reported purchases of adult clothing had to be excluded from the analysis sample (267 observations were dropped). The weighted Ordinary Least Squares estimates of the adult clothing relationship (equation 1) appear in Exhibit A-7. Exhibit A-7. Rothbarth Model Results

Source | SS df MS Number of obs = 7579 -------------+------------------------------ F( 19, 7559) = 232.43 Model | 4084.65629 19 214.98191 Prob > F = 0.0000 Residual | 6991.54169 7559 .924929447 R-squared = 0.3688 -------------+------------------------------ Adj R-squared = 0.3672 Total | 11076.198 7578 1.46162549 Root MSE = .96173 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ lnagood | Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval] -------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- lnfsize | .4293322 .0369313 11.63 0.000 .3569366 .5017278 lnpctout1 | .9962632 .1207601 8.25 0.000 .7595397 1.232987 lnpctout12 | .0449366 .020645 2.18 0.030 .0044667 .0854064 black | .1295601 .0453639 2.86 0.004 .0406343 .218486 hnohs | .1269009 .0442544 2.87 0.004 .04015 .2136517 hcollege | .1237327 .0279765 4.42 0.000 .068891 .1785744 wnohs | .0452611 .0487977 0.93 0.354 -.0503959 .1409182 wcollege | .0915449 .0273338 3.35 0.001 .0379631 .1451267 ww_wife | -.0102423 .0461714 -0.22 0.824 -.100751 .0802664 wfulltime | -.0096063 .031322 -0.31 0.759 -.0710062 .0517936 bothwork | .1093594 .0398644 2.74 0.006 .0312141 .1875048 ne | .0427151 .0350891 1.22 0.224 -.0260693 .1114994 south | -.0391932 .0292822 -1.34 0.181 -.0965944 .0182081 west | .0224001 .0323085 0.69 0.488 -.0409335 .0857337 y2004 | .0832341 .0436156 1.91 0.056 -.0022647 .1687328 y2005 | .0207813 .0362874 0.57 0.567 -.0503521 .0919146 y2007 | -.0256344 .0339436 -0.76 0.450 -.0921732 .0409045 y2008 | -.1509726 .0312618 -4.83 0.000 -.2122544 -.0896907 complete3 | -.0447752 .0249432 -1.80 0.073 -.0936707 .0041204 _cons | -4.228847 .1919546 -22.03 0.000 -4.605131 -3.852562 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Rothbarth approach is based on the assumption that when family size is held constant, spending on adult goods will increase as total spending increases. The Rothbarth method also requires that as the family size increases (i.e., the number of children rises) the adults will reduce their spending on adult clothing. Exhibit A-8 displays the expected amount of spending on adult

18 See Appendix A-3 for a description of the adjustment made to reported adult clothing to account for the fact that the BLS includes clothing purchases for 16- and 17-year-olds as adult purchases.

Page 173: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

150

clothing for childless couples and families with children.19 As required by the Rothbarth approach, spending does fall as the number of children increases. Exhibit A-8. Predicted Expenditures on Adult Clothing as a Function of Total Outlays (in $1,000) for Childless Couples and Families With Children

Rothbarth Estimates of Parental Spending on Children

Using the regression estimates of the adult clothing equation (Exhibit A-7), estimates of the share of family spending devoted to the children can be computed for different numbers of children as well as for specific levels of total spending. The Rothbarth method utilizing data from 2004 to 2009 yielded 23.5 percent, 36.5 percent, and 44.9 percent as point estimates of the average share of spending devoted to one, two, and three children, respectively, when total spending in the family is $55,000 (roughly average spending in the analysis sample). This section will first compare these estimates to previous estimates and then will examine how the estimates of the cost of children vary by level of total spending.

Comparing the Current Estimates to Previous Estimates One of the earliest estimates of the cost of children was based on the 1972–1973 CE data. Espenshade’s estimates of the cost of children using the Engel method published in 1986 were

19 The figure has been constructed to reflect a couple living in the Midwest where both adults have a high school education and only the husband works.

Page 174: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

151

used by many states to construct their initial child support guidelines in response to the federal requirements set out in the 1988 Family Support Act.20 For families with average levels of total spending, his estimates were that 24 percent, 41 percent, and 51 percent of the family’s total spending was devoted to one, two, and three children, respectively. Employing the same CE data but with the Rothbarth approach, an earlier study (Lazear and Michael 1988) produced estimates of the share of total spending of 19 percent, 31 percent, and 39 percent of total spending.21 These estimates were considerably lower than the Espenshade estimates and implied more economies of scale in consumption. The 1988 Family Support Act not only required states to adopt child support guidelines but also directed the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to conduct research on economic estimates of the cost of raising children. My 1990 study on the cost of raising children represented the department’s response to this directive.22 In this study, I estimated the Engel and Rothbarth models (as well as numerous other approaches) using the CE data from 1980 to 1986. This analysis showed that the Engel approach (33 percent, 49 percent, and 59 percent) was almost identical to a per capita allocation. On the other hand, the Rothbarth approach produced significantly lower estimates (24 percent, 34 percent, and 39 percent) than the Engel but higher than the Lazear and Michael estimates. Compared to Espenshade’s estimates, while the estimates for one child were identical, my Rothbarth estimates for two and three children were considerably lower and much closer to the Lazear and Michael’s Rothbarth estimates. The largest difference between the Rothbarth estimates was for the first child. In 2000, I replicated my 1990 study using data drawn from the 1996–1998 CE data (first-quarter 1996 through first-quarter 1998). Compared to the 1990 estimates, the Engel estimates (30 percent, 44 percent, and 52 percent for one, two, and three children respectively) showed economies of scale that were absent in the 1990 estimates but were still close to a per capita allocation. While the Engel estimates declined slightly, the 2000 Rothbarth estimates showed a slight increase (26 percent, 36 percent, and 42 percent) over the 1990 estimates. In 2006, I produced a new set of Rothbarth estimates using data from 1998–2003 CE. The estimated Rothbarth percentages were 26 percent, 37 percent, and 44 percent for one, two, and three children, respectively. While the estimates for one child remained constant, there was a slight increase in the spending shares for two and three children. For this study, I did not produce estimates based on the Engel approach. However, a group of researchers at Florida State University produced a set of Engel estimates using data from the 1998–2001 CE.23 Their estimates of the share of total spending devoted to children were 22 percent, 38 percent, and 53 percent for one, two, and three children respectively. While the Florida State team employed

20 (Espenshade, supra note 14 21 Edward Lazear & Robert T. Michael, Allocation of Income within the Family (Univ. of Chicago Press, 1988). 22 David M. Betson, Alternative Estimates of the Cost of Children from the 1980–86 Consumer Expenditure Survey (U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Services, 1990),Univ. of Wisconsin, Inst. for Research on Poverty. 23 McCaleb et al., supra note 19 Thomas S. McCaleb, David A. Macpherson & Stefan C. Norrbin¸ Review and Update of Florida’s Child Support Guidelines (Florida Leg., Nov. 2008).

Page 175: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

152

different estimation strategies than I did in my studies, the Engel estimates that they produced were significantly lower than my 2000 Engel estimates for one and two children while estimating roughly the same cost for three children. The release of the Florida State study represents the first instance when an Engel estimate (for one child) was less than the corresponding Rothbarth estimate (i.e., my 2006 Rothbarth estimates). A limitation to this comparison, however, is a slight variation in the time period considered in the studies. My Rothbarth estimates encompassed the same time period as the Florida State study as well as a few years of data beyond what the Florida State study included. Given the standard errors of the estimates of the cost of children (roughly 2 to 3 percentage points based on earlier studies), the difference between the Engel and Rothbarth estimates for one child is not statistically significant. The only statistically significant difference is that for three children (53 percent versus 44 percent). However, the empirical outcome where the Engel estimate is less than the Rothbarth estimate is troubling. It conflicts with a long-standing belief that the Engel approach will always lead to an overstatement of the true costs of children, while the Rothbarth will lead to understatement. For those using the estimates to gauge the adequacy of child support guidelines, this dominate belief has justified the use of the Engel and Rothbarth estimates to bracket the true cost of children. Historically, this belief has never been problematic because the empirical evidence was never to the contrary (i.e., earlier Engel estimates were less than earlier Rothbarth estimates); however, now that the most recent estimates indicate that the upper bound (Engel) is below the lower bound (Rothbarth), it is problematic. The origin of the “bracketing” thesis was from the paper by Deaton and Muellbauer (1986).24 Assuming the family made a choice between only two goods (i.e., food and all other goods), Deaton and Muellbauer argued that because economists are never able to directly measure a family’s well-being, both approaches would be approximations of the true cost of children. Given the assumption of two goods, where Engel would be based upon food consumption and the Rothbarth would be based on all other goods, they showed that the Engel method would overstate the Rothbarth would understate the true cost of children. By implication, the Engel could never be less than the Rothbarth. While the authors noted that the limitation of their analysis was that it was based on the two-commodity good assumption, many researchers, based upon the empirical estimates, began to generalize the Deaton and Muellbauer result to all situations regardless of the number of goods available for household consumption. Appendix A-5 offers a more detailed critique of the Engel approach and offers an example that demonstrates that when there are three goods, it is quite possible for the Engel not only to be less than the true cost of the children but also less than the Rothbarth estimates. The constructed example is also consistent with the general historical trend in child cost estimates. While the Rothbarth estimates are slightly increasing, the Engel estimates are drastically falling. The conclusion reached in Appendix A-5 is that the Engel model has no theoretical basis and is an ad hoc procedure. As such, there is no reason for it to be well behaved nor trusted to provide evidence of the cost of

24 Deaton & Muellbauer, supra note 230.

Page 176: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

153

children. It was for these reasons that I decided not to continue to produce Engel estimates in 2006. But, when pressed to offer Engel estimates, I am sure to warn economists and policymakers of its lack of theoretical foundation and its potential problems. In 2008, the Florida State team released a second set of Engel estimates using the 2004–2006 CE.25 While the Florida State team does not report the estimated share of total spending devoted to children, I have taken Florida State’s regression model estimates and computed the implicit percentages.26 Based on Florida State’s regression estimates, their Engel estimates were 17 percent, 29 percent, and 35 percent for one, two, and three children, respectively. Compared to my 2006 Rothbarth estimates, the Florida State Engel estimates are lower for each number of children. The last set of estimates considered in the comparison is the estimates I produced for this study. Earlier, I reported that the Rothbarth estimates using the 2004–2009 CE data were, respectively, 24 percent, 37 percent, and 45 percent for one, two, and three children. While not significantly different from previous Rothbarth estimates using data from 1980 to the present, they are significantly larger than the 2008 Florida State Engel estimates. To investigate whether differences in data sets were responsible for this reversal in estimates, I estimated an Engel model using the data for this study. Without going into the details of the estimation, I will note that the only real difference between the Engel and Rothbarth models is the dependent variable in the multivariate regression model. Instead of using the spending on adult goods (which is the basis of the Rothbarth model), the dependent variable in the Engel model is the logistic transformation of the share of total outlays spent on food at home. The Engel estimates that I produced are 21 percent, 33 percent, and 41 percent for one, two, and three children, respectively. These estimates suggest that it is not the choice of the sample but the method that is producing the results. The next three exhibits (Exhibit A-9, A-10, and A-11) were constructed to facilitate a comparison of the USDA, Engel, and Rothbarth estimates over time. Exhibit A-9 depicts the historical record of estimates for one child, Exhibit A-10 depicts the historical record of estimates for two children, and Exhibit A-11 depicts the historical record for three children. Since all of the estimates consider multiple data years, each estimate is plotted at the midpoint of the data years. For example, the estimates from the current study used data from 2004 to 2009, so they were plotted for 2006. For comparative purposes, the graphs also include the per capita allocation for each number of children (33 percent, 50 percent, and 60 percent). The trends in the three exhibits illustrate that the Rothbarth estimates are relatively stable over time while the Engel estimates are relatively unstable over time. Specifically, since the Rothbarth trend line is fairly straight, it is more stable. In contrast, because the Engel trend line fluctuates 25 McCaleb et al., supra note 19. 26 The most recent USDA study reports percentages that purport to be from the 2008 study but in reality are the estimation results produced by a graduate student performing a sensitivity test using data from the 1998–2001 CE (the data used in the 2004 study).

Page 177: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

154

up and down, it indicates instability. While my 1990 Engel estimates appear to be high relative to Espenshade’s estimates and my 2000 Engel estimates, the differences in estimation procedures between Espenshade and my studies make it difficult to compare his estimates to my 1990 estimates.27 The methods that I employed and those of the Florida State researchers are much more similar, and consequently the trend line could arguably start with my 1990 estimates. Starting at this point, the historical trends clearly indicate that the Engel estimates have been falling over time, while the Rothbarth estimates have been relatively stable, if not slightly increasing, for two and three children. The ultimate question, however, is which trend line is the most reflective of actual child-rearing expenditures over time. Again, I argue in favor of the Rothbarth estimator over the Engel estimator. As noted earlier, Appendix A-4 constructs a theoretical justification for the Rothbarth methodology and demonstrates that the Rothbarth estimates will likely understate the true cost of children but will never overstate them; and Appendix A-5 demonstrates that because the Engel method does not have a theoretical basis, its properties are unusable. The Engel estimator could overstate or understate the true costs of the children. Its estimates could be greater, or less, than the Rothbarth estimates. In all, the relationship, if any, between the Engel estimator and the true costs of child rearing or the Rothbarth estimator cannot be determined other than to say the Engel estimator is unlikely to reflect the true costs of child rearing. For these reasons and others detailed in Appendix A-5, I cannot recommend using the Engel estimates as the basis of child support guidelines or for assessing the adequacy of child support guidelines. While I cannot purport that the Rothbarth is closer to actual child-rearing expenditures than other estimators, I have confidence in the Rothbarth approach because it does have a theoretical basis and is relatively stable over time. In addition to tracking the Engel and Rothbarth estimates over time, the exhibits consider the USDA estimates over time. While the USDA annually publishes its estimates, in reality the estimates it releases are not produced anew each year but are updated by inflation adjustment. Consequently, the USDA percentage of total spending devoted to children will not change over time. These percentages will change only when the USDA re-estimates its model by referencing new CE data or changes its methodology as it did when it altered the treatment of housing in its 2008 estimates. With this caveat spelled out, however, the trend lines in the exhibits show that the USDA has always exceeded the Rothbarth estimates and was below the Engel estimates until recently.

27 Espenshade utilized a model that was linear in the food share and total spending, while I used a proportional effect model expressed in the log of food share and total spending. Appendix A-6 describes the differences this alternative functional form assumption implies for the estimation of the cost of children.

Page 178: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

155

Exhibit A-9. Estimates of the Proportion of Spending: One Child

Page 179: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

156

Exhibit A-10. Estimates of the Proportion of Spending: Two Children

Page 180: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

157

Exhibit A-11. Estimates of the Proportion of Spending: Three Children

Marginal Cost of the Second and Third Child Another consideration for the estimates of the cost of children is how families alter their allocation to the children if additional children are added to the family. For example, consider the situation where the family employs a per capita allocation. With one child, then, the family would allocate 33 percent of the family’s spending to the child. If a second child were added, then a per capita allocation would imply that 50 percent of the family’s spending would be devoted to the children. This infers that a family would spend 50 percent more on their children because of the presence of the second child (50 percent = 100 X (50 – 33.3)/33.3). If a third child is added, then 60 percent of the family’s spending would be allocated to all three children and the marginal impact of the third child would be an additional 20 percent in spending. Exhibit A-12 presents the marginal costs of the second and third child for the various estimates.

Page 181: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

158

Exhibit A-12. Additional Costs of the Second and Third Children

Increase in Child Spending Due to: Second Child Third Child

Per Capita 50% 20%

USDA 2009 Report 48 18 1995 Report 62 14

2004–2009 CE (Betson 2010) Engel 58 25 Rothbarth 55 23

2004–2006 CE (McCaleb et al. 2008) Engel 71 21

1998–2003 CE (Betson 2006) Rothbarth 46 19

1998–2001 CE (McCaleb et al. 2004) Engel 73 39

1996–1998 CE (Betson 2000) Engel 46 18 Rothbarth 40 16

1980–1986 CE (Betson 1990) Engel 48 20 Rothbarth 41 13

1972–1973 CE Engel (Espenshade 1986) 71 24 Rothbarth (Lazear & Michael 1988) 63 26

The Rothbarth and Engel estimates from the current study represent the first time that I have found the marginal cost of the second and third child to exceed marginal costs reflected in a per capita allocation. In all previous studies, the marginal cost of the second and third child were less than those implied by a per capita allocation. A relatively high marginal cost for the second child may reflect “high” estimates for two children or “low” estimates for the first child. When my

Page 182: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

159

2006 Rothbarth estimates are compared with the Rothbarth estimates from the current study the difference between the cost of one child between the two studies (i.e., 25.2 percent in my 2006 study compared to 23.5 percent in this current study) is responsible for the increase in the marginal cost of the second child. In contrast, the differences in the levels for two and three children are roughly equal between the two studies (i.e., 36.8 and 36.5 percent for two children, respectively, in my 2006 and current studies; and, 43.8 and 44.9 percent for three children, respectively, in my 2006 and current studies). Estimates by other researchers produce even higher marginal costs for the second and third child (especially for the second child) than my estimates. The sole exception to this observation is the current USDA estimates, which are more similar to my earlier estimates. Those earlier estimates implied marginal costs for a second and third child that are smaller than what is implied by a per capita approach.

Effect of Total Spending The previous comparisons have focused on the “average family.” The experience of any family will most likely depart from this hypothetical family for factors that are unobservable to the courts and other factors that are, indeed, observable. Other than the number of children, one factor that can easily be discerned is the income of the family. While income may be what the courts will examine, a more appropriate economic comparison is whether child-rearing expenditures vary with total family expenditures. That is, do families that spend more in general also spend proportionally more on their children? The focus on total expenditures rather than income obviates the need to address how tax consequences and household savings decisions affect total family expenditures. This section of the report will examine how parental spending on children differs by the family’s level of total spending. Exhibit A-13 presents the current Rothbarth estimate of percentage of total spending devoted to the children as a function of total outlays for one, two, and three children. This marks the first of my estimates in which the percentage of total outlays devoted to child rearing increases with total outlays. In all previous studies, I have found that the percentage of expenditures devoted to children declines with total spending. For example, Exhibit A-14 represents the Rothbarth estimates from my 2006 study as a function of the total outlays of the family.

Page 183: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

160

Exhibit A-13. Current Rothbarth Estimates of Parental Sharing by Total Outlays (in $1,000) for One, Two, and Three Children

Exhibit A-14. 2006 Rothbarth Estimates of Parental Sharing by Total Outlays (in $1,000) for One, Two, and Three Children

Page 184: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

161

In my 2006 study, I reported that over time the relationship between the cost of children and total spending had become “flatter,” implying that all families, regardless of total spending, devoted roughly the same percentage of their spending to their children. While the upward trend has continued, I am not certain how much faith to place in the result, even though the increases are statistically significant. My caution is due to the fact that I cannot determine a reason for this result to occur. In my 2006 study, I put forth a possible explanation that was based on problems in estimating a nonlinear relationship between child spending and total outlays when the sample is limited in the range of total outlays. While it is possible that my previously provided explanation is true, I do not find it completely satisfying. Another possible explanation may lie in the fact that the definition of total spending used in this study and the 2006 study differs from the previous definition used in other studies. In previous studies and the Florida State studies, the measure of total spending reflected the BLS definition of total expenditures, as opposed to outlays, used in this study. The primary difference between outlays (used in the current and 2006 studies) and expenditures is that outlays will reflect the family’s principal payments toward all debt, while expenditures will not. Consequently, for families with debt that are paying off the principal, their level of total spending will be higher than it would have been had expenditures been used as the measure of total spending. When the Rothbarth model is reestimated using expenditures as a measure of the family’s total spending, the result is that as family spending increases, the percentage of spending devoted to the children falls. The decline is statistically significant, although modest in comparison to the declines that I estimated in my 1990 study. The general conclusion that can be reached from these comparisons is that estimates of spending on children in wealthier families (as indicated by families with high levels of total spending) has been rising relative to what estimates of previous studies would predict. While this could reflect a true increase in spending, the possibility that it is a statistical artifact reflecting sampling variability, extrapolating to levels of spending considerably away from the mean, or the nonlinearity of the relationship between spending on adult clothing and total spending cannot be ruled out. Although there is some evidence that high-income families are spending more on their children today than in the past, the evidence is not conclusive. The analysis prepared for this report indicates that families with high levels of spending are spending a higher percentage of their family’s total spending on their children, but other analyses find that families with high levels of income are spending less of their disposable income today than in the past. Consequently, it is not completely clear whether high-income families are spending more or less today. For example, consider a high-income family who spent 55 percent of their disposable income and allocated 32 percent of their total spending on their two children. If the same family today were to spend 36 percent of their total spending on their two children, the family would have to spend 48.9 percent of their disposable income in order to spend the same dollar amount on their children.

Page 185: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

162

Impact of Alternative Assumptions

So far the discussion has focused on the various methodologies used to measure child-rearing expenditures and the impact of one particular methodology over another on the estimated values. Other assumptions necessary for producing estimates could also affect the levels of the estimates. These other assumptions concern variable definition, functional form choices, and criteria used for inclusion of households in the analysis sample. This section examines the effect of six alternative assumptions on the estimates of the cost of children developed for this study. To implement the Rothbarth model, I relied on family spending on adult clothing as a proxy for expenditures for adult goods. The CE definition of adult clothing could be problematic, however, because it includes purchases made for older children. The BLS aggregates all apparel expenditures for individuals 16 years and older as adult clothing. To adjust the data for this potential problem, I assigned a proportion of the reported adult clothing purchases to the parents where the proportion is equal to the number of parents (two) relative to the number of family members who were 16 years and older. For example, if the family had one child who was between 16 and 18 years old living in the family, then I would attribute two-thirds of the reported adult clothing to the parents and the remaining one-third to the older child. An alternative choice would be to use the reported purchases of adult clothing. Another variable definition issue exists in the definition of total spending. As I have noted, I chose to utilize the BLS definition of total outlays minus social security taxes and payments to pension plans. One alternative is to use total expenditures minus social security taxes and payments to pension plans. The difference would be principal payments on debt. In short, the estimates developed for this study include principal payments in the definition of total spending, while the alternative is not to include them in the definition of total spending. The next two alternative assumptions pertain to functional form. The model developed for this study estimates the effect of the log of family size and the log of per capita total outlays in order to estimate using the Rothbarth model. One alternative would be to estimate separate effects for each number of children by using dummy variables in lieu of using the log of family size. A second alternative would be to control for the log of total outlays instead of the log of per capita total spending. The rationale for examining these two alternatives is that the Florida State researchers employed both of these functional form choices rather than the assumption used for this study. The final two alternatives relate to the construction of the sample. The Florida State researchers excluded families with top-coded reported incomes. (Top-coding is discussed in greater detail in Appendix A-2.) In this study, a similar exclusion was deemed unnecessary. Typically, observations with top-coded income are excluded when income is a key variable in the estimation; however, this study considered total outlays, not income. Further, top-coded income

Page 186: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

163

does not necessarily imply top-coded outlays. A final point is that excluding families with top-coded reported incomes would significantly reduce the number of cases for analysis. A second sample restriction that I have consistently employed in this study as well as previous studies is that families must have completed at least three surveys to be included in the study sample. The rationale is that measurement errors in the adult clothing and total spending variables are fewer if there are more data from the consumer. One alternative would be to consider families with four completed surveys; another alternative is to consider all families even if they participated in only one quarterly interview. The latter was explored in this analysis. In all, 64 (= 26) variations of the Rothbarth models (as appeared in Exhibit A-7) were estimated by using different combinations of the six alternative assumptions described above. Exhibit A-7 contains the results from one of the 64 sets of estimates. For each set of estimates, I computed the percentage of total outlays devoted to one, two, and three children in a family with $55,000 of total outlays. To analyze the average effect of each of these six choices, I regressed the estimate of the cost of children on six dummy variables reflecting the choice being utilized to produce that estimate. The six dummy variables were:

ragood = 1 if reported adult clothing purchases is used, 0 if the adjusted purchases is used

expend = 1 if total expenditures is used for total spending, 0 if total outlays is used

kid = 1 if “kid” dummies are used to capture the effect of family size, 0 if log of family

size is used

level = 1 if log of total spending is used, 0 if log of per capita total spending is used

topcode = 1 if consumer units with top-coded incomes are excluded, 0 if consumer units with top-coded incomes are included

useall = 1 if all consumer units are included, 0 if only consumer units with at least three

completed surveys are included

Exhibit A-15 presents the results of this analysis for one, two, and three children separately.

Page 187: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

164

Exhibit A-15. Impact on Alternative Assumptions on Estimates of the Costs of Children

One Child Source | SS df MS Number of obs = 64 -------------+------------------------------ F( 6, 57) = 97.49 Model | 251.23105 6 41.8718416 Prob > F = 0.0000 Residual | 24.48183 57 .429505789 R-squared = 0.9112 -------------+------------------------------ Adj R-squared = 0.9019 Total | 275.71288 63 4.37639492 Root MSE = .65537 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ cost | Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval] -------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- ragood | -3.521732 .1638417 -21.49 0.000 -3.84982 -3.193645 expend | 1.31123 .1638417 8.00 0.000 .9831423 1.639317 kid | -.2792038 .1638417 -1.70 0.094 -.6072912 .0488836 level | .2356505 .1638417 1.44 0.156 -.0924369 .5637379 topcode | .1339871 .1638417 0.82 0.417 -.1941003 .4620745 useall | 1.195233 .1638417 7.30 0.000 .8671452 1.52332 _cons | 23.30416 .2167422 107.52 0.000 22.87014 23.73817 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Two Children

Source | SS df MS Number of obs = 64 -------------+------------------------------ F( 6, 57) = 570.48 Model | 497.218703 6 82.8697839 Prob > F = 0.0000 Residual | 8.27998023 57 .145262811 R-squared = 0.9836 -------------+------------------------------ Adj R-squared = 0.9819 Total | 505.498683 63 8.02378863 Root MSE = .38113 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ cost | Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval] -------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- ragood | -4.247313 .0952834 -44.58 0.000 -4.438115 -4.056511 expend | 1.162604 .0952834 12.20 0.000 .9718021 1.353406 kid | .3404263 .0952834 3.57 0.001 .1496246 .531228 level | .099334 .0952834 1.04 0.302 -.0914677 .2901357 topcode | -.2217393 .0952834 -2.33 0.024 -.412541 -.0309376 useall | 3.392628 .0952834 35.61 0.000 3.201827 3.58343 _cons | 35.80947 .1260481 284.09 0.000 35.55706 36.06188 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Three Children Source | SS df MS Number of obs = 64 -------------+------------------------------ F( 6, 57) = 528.67 Model | 595.767984 6 99.2946641 Prob > F = 0.0000 Residual | 10.7057354 57 .187819919 R-squared = 0.9823 -------------+------------------------------ Adj R-squared = 0.9805 Total | 606.47372 63 9.62656698 Root MSE = .43338 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ cost | Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval] -------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- ragood | -4.930283 .1083455 -45.51 0.000 -5.147242 -4.713325 expend | 1.426803 .1083455 13.17 0.000 1.209845 1.643761 kid | -.2070438 .1083455 -1.91 0.061 -.4240019 .0099143 level | -.0236923 .1083455 -0.22 0.828 -.2406503 .1932658 topcode | -.2796465 .1083455 -2.58 0.012 -.4966046 -.0626884 useall | 3.28183 .1083455 30.29 0.000 3.064872 3.498788 _cons | 44.62514 .1433276 311.35 0.000 44.33814 44.91215 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Source: Calculations by author.

Page 188: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

165

The two alternative variable definitions (i.e., the definition of adult clothing and the definition of total expenditures) do have a substantive and significant impact on the estimates of the cost of children. The use of reported adult clothing purchases instead of some adjustment to reflect the presence of older children will attribute spending on older children to the adults. Consequentially, the alternative assumption (which does not adjust for some adult clothing being consumed by older children) reduces the estimates of spending on children. The estimates indicate that the effect is substantial and increases with the number of children. The latter makes sense because as the number of children increases, the probability of having older children should increase and so too the problem of using reported purchases. The use of expenditures in lieu of outlays has a significant impact on the estimates. It increases the estimated cost but seems to be independent of the number of children. One possible explanation is that ignoring principal payments affects the estimates of child-rearing expenditures more so than total spending by the family. The alternative functional form assumption to control for family size (i.e., dummy variables to represent the number of children instead of log of family size) does not have a substantive impact on the estimates, on average. The use of “kid” dummies, however, is significantly different, but the direction of the difference varies with respect to the number of children. For one and three children, the use of dummies, on average, lowers the cost estimates, while for two children it increases the cost estimates. Excluding consumer units with top-coded incomes does not have a substantive impact on the estimates, but they are statistically significant for two and three children. The more interesting result concerns the impact of excluding consumer units if they have less than three completed interviews (i.e., the useall variable). As discussed earlier, the alternative assumption explored for this analysis was to include consumer units with at least one interview. For two and three children, the alternative assumption raises the cost estimates by roughly 3.3 percentage points. For one child, the effect is smaller (1.2 percentage points) but also significantly different from no effect. With the exception of the use of adjusted adult clothing purchases, this analysis suggests that the assumptions used to derive the estimates in Exhibit A-7 effectively lower the estimates of parental spending on children.

Conclusions

In this report, I have examined alternative methods of determining the amount of parental spending on children. Each method has its strengths and its weaknesses. The USDA approach is direct and hence more transparent than either the Rothbarth or Engel method. However, with simplicity comes a reliance on assumptions that are certain to be wrong. The Rothbarth method requires other assumptions to identify how much more or less spending families of different

Page 189: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

166

compositions need to maintain a given standard of living. The validity of the Rothbarth assumptions should also be questioned. Nevertheless, given the replication of these and their relative stability over time, both of these methods deserve attention. Where does that leave policymakers who want to use estimates of child-rearing costs? I would argue that of the approaches that have been examined in this research, it is the Rothbarth method that is the least objectionable. While the assumptions needed to identify this approach are strong, there is no empirical evidence that the assumptions are wrong. Some might object to whether adult clothing, which constitutes less than 5 percent of a family’s total spending, provides a reliable basis for estimating the cost of raising children, but given the precision to which the family’s decision of how much clothing to purchase is affected by family size, composition, and total spending, the cost of children can also be estimated with a degree of precision comparable to other methods. The only significant problem with this approach lies not with method but with the data. The findings presented in this report suggest that parental spending on children in families with average levels of spending has not significantly risen or declined since the 1980s. The only exceptions to this conclusion are the Rothbarth estimates for two and three children that have shown a steady increase over time. Given that the estimates for one child have not significantly been changing, these results suggest a loss in the economies of scale in consumption for the second and third children in the family. A natural question to ask at this time is whether to continue to use the estimates from earlier studies or to move toward the estimates from the current research. This study has been able to construct a sample of sufficient size to increase the confidence in the results, but most importantly, this study has used the most recent data available. Consequently, I can recommend the use of these new estimates for construction of child support obligation tables, with the understanding that they are used in conjunction with recent data on the relationship between family disposable income and family total spending.

Page 190: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

167

References

Betson, David. 1990. Alternative Estimates of the Cost of Children from the 1980-86 Consumer Expenditure Survey. Institute for Research on Poverty Special Report Series, Madison, Wisc.

_____. 2000. “Parental Spending on Children: A Preliminary Report.” Memo, University of Notre Dame.

_____. 2006. “Parental Spending on Children: Rothbarth Estimates.” Report to the State of Oregon. Memo, University of Notre Dame.

Conniffe, Denis. 1992. “The Non-Constancy of Equivalence Scales.” Review of Income and Wealth. Series 38, No. 4: 429–443.

Deaton, Angus, and John Muellbauer. 1980. Economics and Consumer Behavior. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

_____. 1986. “On Measuring Child Costs.” Journal of Political Economy 94(2): 720–744.

Deaton, Angus, and Christina Paxson. 1998. “Economies of Scale, Household Size, and the Demand for Food.” Journal of Political Economy 106(5): 897–930.

Engel, Ernst. 1895. “Die Lebenskosten Belgischer Arbeiter-Familien Früher and Jetzt.” International Statistical Bulletin 9(1): 1–124.

Espenshade, Thomas. 1984. Investing in Children: New Estimates of Parental Expenditures. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute Press.

Gorman, William. 1976. “Tricks with Utility Functions.” In Essays in Economic Analysis, edited by M. Artis and R. Nobay. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lazear, Edward, and Robert T. Michael. 1988. Allocation of Income Within the Family. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lino, Mark. 1996. Expenditures on Children by Families, 1995 Annual Report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion.

_____. 2000. Expenditures on Children by Families, 2008 Annual Report. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion.

McCaleb, Thomas S., et al. 2004. Review and Update of Florida’s Child Support Guidelines, Report to the Florida Legislature. Memo, Florida State University.

Page 191: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

168

McCaleb, Thomas S., David A. Macpherson, and Stefan C. Norrbin. 2008. Review and Update of Florida’s Child Support Guidelines, Report to the Florida Legislature. Memo, Florida State University.

Rothbarth, Erwin. 1943. “Note on a Method of Determining Equivalent Income for Families of Different Composition.” In War-Time Pattern of Saving and Spending, edited by C.Madge. Occasional Paper No. 4. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2004. Consumer Expenditure Survey: Interview Sample.

_____. 2005. Consumer Expenditure Survey: Interview Sample.

_____. 2006. Consumer Expenditure Survey: Interview Sample.

_____. 2007. Consumer Expenditure Survey: Interview Sample.

_____. 2008. Consumer Expenditure Survey: Interview Sample.

Watts, Harold. 1977. “The Iso-Prop Index: An Approach to the Determination of Differential Poverty Income Thresholds.” In Improving Economic Measures of Well-Being, edited by M. Moon and E. Smolensky. New York: Academic Press.

Working, Hollbrook. 1943. “Statistical Laws of Family Expenditure.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 38: 43–56.

Page 192: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

169

APPENDIX A-1

Annual Versus Quarterly Data

The data for this study was drawn from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Survey of Consumer Expenditures (CE). This continuing national representative survey samples consumer units and interviews them on a quarterly basis up to five times. The data used for this analysis construct annual family data from families that had at least three interviews regardless of whether the interviews occurred within the same year or different, but consecutive, years. Only the last four interviews appear in the public use file. A consumer unit may refuse to answer the survey or the BLS is unable to contact the consumer, and consequently fewer than four completed interviews for a consumer unit may be available in the public use file. Additionally, given the sample design, if a fixed calendar period of time is used (e.g., all interviews conducted from January 1 through December 31 of a given year), it is impossible to capture many families who have completed four interviews. Specifically, limiting the sample to a calendar year is likely to result in one out of seven consumer units having completed four interviews, three out of seven consumer units having interviews from the previous year, and three out of seven consumer units having interviews that will be conducted in the next year. This appendix examines whether it makes a difference if the analysis considers expenditure data on a quarterly or annual basis. Specifically, one alternative time unit of observation is the quarter in which each quarter’s data is treated as a separate observation. The BLS recommends that the quarterly interviews be treated as independent samples for analysis. The USDA follows this recommendation when constructing its estimates of the cost of children. In contrast, most economists producing estimates of the cost of children using indirect methods, such as the Engel or Rothbarth, rely on an annual time period and aggregate the quarterly data into a single observation for each consumer unit. To illustrate the difference between the two approaches, consider an expenditure concept such as spending on adult goods, food consumed in the home, or even total expenditures. Denote this expenditure concept by X and let

Xqi = the observation of X for the ith consumer unit from the qth quarterly interview and

Qi = the total number of quarterly interviews from the ith consumer unit (the maximum number of interviews would be 4).

Assume that the ith consumer unit has only three quarterly interviews (Qi =3) in the sample; hence the ith consumer would appear three times in a quarter-based sample and each quarterly value of X would be “annualized” (4X1i, 4X2i, 4X3i). When the quarterly data are annualized for each consumer unit, the consumer unit would appear only once, with a single value for XAi as

Page 193: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

170

.

Annualizing the expenditures by consumer unit eliminates the quarterly variation in expenditures while recognizing that the data are coming from a single consumer unit. If there is only a small amount of variation across a consumer unit’s quarterly observations, the issue of the use of a quarterly versus annual time unit would seem inconsequential. In contrast, if there is significant variation across time for a given consumer unit, the choice of time unit may affect the analysis. This could hold especially true where variation is due to zero expenditures for a particular good in one quarter, while expenditures for the same good are made in other quarters. The variation is likely to depend on the type of the good. For example, although expenditures on food and total expenditures display some variation across time for a consumer unit, they vary little from quarter to quarter relative to expenditures on adult clothing; hence, quarterly differences in food and total expenditures make little difference in the analysis. In a quarterly sample of consumer units consisting of two married adult units with and without children, the coefficient of variation is .17 for total expenditures and .22 for food at home, but 1.01 for adult clothing, roughly five times more than the other two categories. This suggests that an Engel methodology would be relatively unaffected by the choice of time frame, while the Rothbarth could be. While the remainder of the appendix examines the effect of the choice of time unit for the analysis, it is helpful to recall that indirect measures of the cost of children (i.e., Engel and Rothbarth) reflect the estimation of two separate effects. One effect is the impact of children on the expected value of the consumption of a good (i.e., as measured by the difference in the expected consumption of a good by a unit with a child and one without a child, holding total spending constant). The second effect is the corresponding “income” effect (i.e., how spending on the good changes as total spending increases). Most of this appendix considers the impact of the time period of analysis on the first effect. With regard to the income effect, the use of an annual time period will likely produce less biased estimates compared to the use of the quarterly time unit. To illustrate this, assume that any quarter’s value of total spending reflects three components: a permanent component, a transitory component reflecting macroeconomic conditions, and measurement errors. By using an annual time frame, the third component (i.e., the measurement error) should be reduced, and, consequently, so should deviations of the observed value of total spending from its permanent component. If individuals make their spending decisions based on the permanent component of total spending, the use of quarterly data in lieu of annual data should “bias” the estimate of the “income” effect downward. With all other estimates held constant, this should increase the estimated cost of children. It should be noted that, given that there is little variation in total spending for any consumer unit, the expected effect is unlikely to be large. Finally, the question of measurement error in spending on either adult goods or food should not affect the estimates of the cost of children. It will only serve to raise the estimates of the mean squared error in the models.

X Ai4Qi

X qiq 1

Qi 43

X qiq 1

3

Page 194: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

171

In my opinion, the case for the use of annual period is unquestionably the right choice. In the remainder of the appendix, I will formally examine how the “sample selection” on the part of the individual consumer units may affect the estimates based on the use of quarterly, as opposed to annual, time period.

Sample Selection and Time Unit

If we compute the mean of annual amounts based upon treating each quarter independently versus using the available data for each consumer to construct its “annual” value of X, the respective means would equal

.

If every consumer were represented in the sample four times (the maximum number of possible interviews), then it is clear that both approaches would yield identical values. However, when some consumers have fewer than four interviews, differences between the two methods will arise and will depend on how completion of the four interviews is related to value of X,

(A.1)

where

Q 1N

Qii 1

N

equals the average number of completed interviews, Nc represents the number of consumer units who have completed c interviews (c = 1 to 4),

X c 1N c

1c

X qiq 1

c

i 1

N c

equals the average quarterly value of X for those have completed c interviews, and qc (= Nc/N) is the proportion of consumer units that completed c interviews. If is independent of the number of completed interviews (in other words, the average X is the same for all four groups), then it can be shown that

X Quarter1

Qii 1

N 4 Xqiq 1

Qi

i 1

N X Annual

1N

4Qi

Xqiq 1

Qi

i 1

N

X Annual X Quarter

4QN

Q QiQii 1

NX qi

q 1

Qi 4Q c Q c X c

c 1

4

Xc

Page 195: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

172

c Q cc 1

4Q c

c 1

4cc

c 1

40

and, consequently, both methods of computing the average should yield the same value. However, if there is a systematic relationship between a given number of interviews and the average value of X, then how the average value is computed will influence the value of the mean. If completion of interviews is associated with higher values of X (i.e., as the number of completed interviews increases, also increases), then the average value computed from the quarterly observations would exceed the mean computed from the annualized values of X for each consumer unit. However, if there is a negative correlation between completing interviews and the average quarterly value, then the average computed from the “annualized” values would exceed the average, assuming the quarterly observations are independent of each other. Variability of X and Choice of Time Frame Assuming that there is no correlation of X with the individual’s decision to complete the interview, is it possible that the quarterly variations of X could create a systematic relationship between the mean of X and the number of interviews completed? This would occur if only nonzero values of X are employed in the analysis, as in the situation when analyzing the ln(X). To illustrate this potential source of correlation, assume that X takes on only two values, 0 and X*. where the value of X* occurs with probability equal to p. Now, consider that X is positive for purposes of attempting to estimate the annual value of X. For those units who completed only one interview, p percent would have X*, and the rest would be zero. Consequently the “annual” mean of those units who completed only one interview and had a nonzero value of X would be 4X*. Now, for those who have completed two interviews, p2 would have X* in both quarters or 4X* on an annual basis. Another portion of the population (–2(1–p)p) would have X* in one period and zero in the other. On an annual basis, this is equal to 2X*. The remaining (1–p)2 would have zero X in both periods. The average annual value of X when X was nonzero on observational basis would be

X 2p2 4 X * 2 p( 1 p ) 2X *

p2 2 p( 1 p )

p2 p( 1 p )p2 2 p( 1 p )

4 X * 4 X* X 1 .

In general, for c >1 we can determine the relationship between the mean of X of those with c completed interviews and the mean of X with those who have completed c –1 interviews as

X c1

1 1 p cc!

j! c j !p j 1 p c j 4 j X *

cj 1

c p 4 X *

1 1 p cX c 1.

Xc

Page 196: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

173

Consequently, variability in X can create a difference in the estimates of the mean of X based on annual and quarterly time units that is similar in nature to the differences created by sample selection. While differences between annual and quarter time periods will exist in the presence of variability of X or sample selection processes, these differences will have an impact on the estimates of the cost of children only to the extent there is a differential effect by demographic factors (e.g., the effect of time unit choice is different for childless couples than for units with children).

Page 197: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

174

Exhibit A-1-1. Percentage Difference From Overall Mean of Group

Food at Home

Number of Number of Children Completed Interviews 0 1 2 3 or more

1 –2.6% –1.7% –1.9% –3.8% 2 –2.4 –3.2 –2.2 3.1 3 0.3 –1.7 –0.1 –2.6 4 3.0 4.0 2.3 2.6

Overall Mean $4,440 $5,267 $6,172 $6,841

Adult Goods

Number of Number of Children Completed Interviews 0 1 2 3 or more

1 10.1 20.4 15.0 13.9% 2 –3.2 –7.9 –6.5 7.1 3 –6.5 –12.9 –1.5 –11.8 4 –1.8 –3.4 –4.2 –5.0

Overall Mean $2,409 $1,967 $1,623 $1,486

Total Spending

Number of Number of Children Completed Interviews 0 1 2 3 or more

1 –6.1% –2.3% –3.0% –8.6% 2 –1.4 –10.1 –3.7 8.8 3 –3.3 –3.2 –3.3 –6.4 4 6.8 9.0 7.4 5.0

Overall Mean $49,588 $53,202 $57,636 $58,913

Page 198: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

175

Percentage Difference From Overall Mean of Group

Ln(food share/nonfood share)

Number of Number of Children Completed Interviews 0 1 2 3 or more

1 2.2% 0.7% 1.6% 3.3% 2 –0.0 2.9 1.9 0.6 3 0.7 2.2 1.3 1.0 4 –2.0 –3.2 –2.5 –3.4

Ln(Adult Goods in $1,000)

Number of Number of Children Completed Interviews 0 1 2 3 or more

1 50.4% 32.9% 17.7% 18.3% 2 –31.1 –23.8 –25.6 –2.0 3 –41.1 –41.3 –12.0 –21.4 4 2.1 9.3 7.7 2.4

Ln(Total Spending in $1,000)

Number of Number of Children Completed Interviews 0 1 2 3 or more

1 –2.5% –1.3% –1.5% –2.5% 2 –0.6 –2.2 –1.3 0.8 3 –0.1 –1.1 –0.5 –0.9 4 2.2 2.8 1.8 2.0

Page 199: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

176

APPENDIX A-2

Construction of Analysis Sample

The data for this study was drawn from the Consumer Expenditure Survey (CE) by selecting all of the quarterly interviews conducted from January 2004 through March 2009. This represented 152,289 quarterly interviews. Since the same consumer unit could be interviewed up to four times, the number of unique consumer units is considerably smaller. The initial BLS sample for this time period represented 57,741 separate consumer units. Since the intent of the analysis was to construct for each observation an annual picture of the family’s spending decisions, each family (consumer unit) was characterized based on its characteristics reported in the last quarterly interview that it provided. In turn, the quarterly interviews from previous interviews were respectively used to construct the spending data for each family. Since the purpose of this study is to examine how married parents living in the same household allocate their total spending to their children, the analysis sample should reflect only husband-wife families. The CE includes a summary variable in the public use file that was used to select only consumer units headed by a married couple. This variable was FAM_TYPE, and only those records that had a value of less than 6 were chosen. This selection eliminated single-parent families with children, individual adults living alone, and groups of unrelated adults. This selection criterion eliminated more than half of the original sample (29,413 consumer units), leaving 28,328 consumer units. The remaining consumer units included a varied group of types of families ranging from families composed of husbands and wives living alone; families living solely with their own children under 18 years old; families living with children other than their own children; families living with children both under and over 18 years old; families living with their own children who were all over 18 years; and families living with relatives such grandparents, aunts, or uncles. Instead of trying to model these complex living arrangements, the analysis sample was limited to two groups of husband-wife families: husbands and wives living by themselves, and husband-and-wife families who were living solely with their own children under 18 years old. This selection was achieved by limiting the total number of adults and nonrelated children to two. This criterion reduced the sample by 6,381 consumer units, leaving 21,947 units in the sample. The inclusion of childless couples serves as a reference group for the estimation of the cost of children. Consequently, the ages of the husband and wife in these childless couple units should reflect the ages of the parents with children. The age threshold of 60 years old was used to eliminate childless couples who were of the likely age of their counterparts who have children under 18 years old living with them. Eliminating families where either adult was more than 60

Page 200: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

177

years old dropped 5,926 childless couples from the sample and 108 families with children. This left 15,895 families in the sample. The next sample selection criterion was performed to not allow “outliers” to overly influence our estimates. We dropped from the sample any family with more than six children. This resulted in the loss of 18 families, leaving 15,895 observations in the sample. The previous selections were made using the information provided from the unit’s last interview. Since the spending information was to be constructed from the previous interviews, any consumer unit whose size or family status changed from the previous interviews was eliminated. For example, a child could have been born, the couple could have become married, or someone could have been living in the unit and left during the prior nine months. The criterion that the size and composition of the unit had to be stable across all of the interviews eliminated another 1,281 families, leaving a total of 14,614 husband-wife families with and without children in the analysis sample. In this sample, there were 5,543 husband-wife families without children and 9,071 husband-wife families with children. The sample at this point represents the “core sample” for the analysis. In past analysis, two additional sample restrictions were considered. In the CE, the BLS must top-code both income and spending data to protect the confidentiality of respondents. While the identification of the units whose income has been top-coded is straightforward, the top-coding of the spending is extremely difficult to accomplish. In general, the top-coding of the income data represents high-income units, and if they were eliminated from the sample, it would limit the ability to generalize the results from the analysis. However, eliminating these units from the sample may also capture some of those consumer units whose spending data is also top-coded. Eliminating the units whose income has been top-coded reduces the sample by 1,790 families, leaving a total sample of 12,824. This sample is used when considering the impact of alternative assumption. The sample that does not include observations where the family income was top-coded is noted as the “alternative sample.” In the past, I have produced estimates of the spending decisions of families based on observations of consumer units that included at least three quarterly interviews. As discussed earlier, this criterion was chosen so that the quality of the spending data could be improved if the annual estimate were based on at least three interviews, as opposed to as little as one interview. This assumption was tested by limiting both the core and alternative samples to only those families with three or four completed interviews. This restriction on the sample eliminated 46 percent and 47 percent of the two samples, respectively. The following table presents the final sample sizes and distribution of observation for the four samples that will be used in the analysis. Note that the analysis reported in the body of the report will primarily reflect the core sample limited by the restriction that the consumer unit must have had at least three interviews.

Page 201: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

178

Exhibit A-2-1. Sample Sizes of the Four Alternative Samples—Husband–and-Wife Families

Without With Children Children Total

Meeting criteria

Core sample 5,543 9,071 14,614

Alternative sample 4,902 7,922 12,824

Limited to 3 or 4 completed interviews

Core sample 2,937 4,909 7,846

Alternative sample 2,566 4,217 6,783

Page 202: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

179

APPENDIX A-3

Description and Construction of Variables

This appendix describes the construction of the variables used in this analysis. All variables were constructed using the Consumer Expenditure Survey (CE) conducted in the period starting with first-quarter 2004 and ending with first-quarter 2009.

Adult Goods

For this study I used three variables describing spending on food at home, adult goods, and total spending. The discussion begins with a description of these variables and ends with a description of how annual values of the variables were constructed. Spending on adult goods is the adults’ (parents’) purchases of clothing. The BLS provides two sets of variables that capture spending on clothing for adults (MENSIXPQ, MENSIXCQ, WOMSIXPQ, and WOMSIXCQ); however, these variables capture spending on clothing made for all members of the consumer unit who are age 16 and older. In the analysis sample, 22 percent of units with children have at least one child who is either 16 or 17 years old; consequently, if there were purchases for clothing for these children, it would appear as an adult expenditure. In the study, I employed two different constructions of adult clothing. The first uses just the reported value of the sum of the above four variables. The second attempts to adjust the reported amounts to better reflect the spending by the parents and not the older children. The adjustment was a per capita adjustment—the amount used in this second version was the reported amount times the ratio of two (the two parents) to the number of unit members 16 years old and older (the two parents and the number of children 16 and 17 years old).

Total Spending

The BLS offers two measures of total spending in the consumer unit. The first is their expenditure concept (TOTEXPPQ and TOTEXPCQ), while the other is denoted as the unit’s expenditures outlays (ETOTALP and ETOTALC). The difference between these two concepts is that the outlay concept includes principal payments for any loans, while the expenditure concept does not. Both of the above BLS summary measures include two forms of what most researchers would call savings—payment of social security payroll taxes and payments to retirement plans. In our definition of current spending, both of these amounts were subtracted from the above two summary measures to construct our measure of quarterly spending. After the subtraction of payments to pension plans and social security taxes, the following spending categories are included in the expenditure concept:

Food: Food prepared and consumed at home, food purchased and consumed away from home

Page 203: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

180

Housing: Mortgage interest paid, property taxes, maintenance and repair, rent paid, home insurance, utilities, personal services including child care, housekeeping supplies, household furnishings and equipment Apparel: Clothing, footwear, cleaning services and supplies Transportation: Net outlays for the purchases of vehicles, vehicle finance charges, leases, gas and oil, maintenance and repair, insurance, licenses and other charges, and public transportation Entertainment: Fees and admission, entertainment equipment, toys, and pets Health care: Health insurance, nonreimbursed expenses for medical services, drugs and supplies Tobacco and alcohol Personal care, reading, and education Cash contributions to individuals outside the consumer unit Personal insurance: Life and other personal insurance premiums Miscellaneous: Funeral expenses and plots, checking charges, legal and accounting fees, interest paid on lines of credit, home equity loans, and credit cards

Each consumer could be interviewed up to four times. To construct annual spending amounts, first the quarterly (three-month) amounts of spending were constructed from each of the unit’s available quarterly interviews. These amounts were then indexed to reflect spending at the midpoint of the time period of the analysis sample. For this purpose, this was assumed to be 2006, and consequently the average CPI for 2006 (201.6) was used as the reference period. Hence, if a unit was interviewed in month t, then each spending amount was indexed to reflect an amount in 2006 by multiplying the spending amount by the following factor:

.

Once the available quarterly spending amounts were price adjusted, they were “annualized” by first computing an average quarterly amount based on the available quarterly interviews and then multiplying by four.

Adjustment t201.6

CPI t 1 CPI t 2 CPI t 3 3

Page 204: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

181

Demographic Variables

To be in the sample, the consumer unit could include only two adults who were married. For this analysis, a child was defined to be a member of a consumer unit who was less than 18 years old and was an only child of the married adults. Finally, the sample was limited to husband-wife families with six or fewer children. Consequently, the number of family members in the sample ranges from two to eight. The number of family members was characterized in two alternative ways. The first was to include a variable that was the log of the number of family members (lnfsize) that reflects the way that in the past captured the size of the consumer unit. An alternative approach is to provide a series of dummy variables that characterize the number of children in the unit, with the omitted group being childless couples. For this study, the approach was to include the following five dummy variables:

kid1 = 1 if there is one child in the unit, 0 otherwise kid2 = 1 if there are two children in the unit, 0 otherwise kid3 = 1 if there are three children in the unit, 0 otherwise kid4 = 1 if there are four children in the unit, 0 otherwise kid5 = 1 if there are more than four children in the unit, 0 otherwise

To control for other characteristics of the unit, I have included variables describing the parents with regard to their race, education, and work status. Also, I have included variables indicating the region of the country where they were located. In all cases, the data from the unit’s last available interview was used to construct these variables. The variables included in the analysis were:

black = 1 if the race of the reference person is black, 0 otherwise hnohs = 1 if the husband does not have a high school degree, 0 otherwise hcollege = 1 if the husband has a four-year college degree, 0 otherwise wnohs = 1 if the wife does not have a high school degree, 0 otherwise wcollege = 1 if the wife has a four-year college degree, 0 otherwise ww_wife = the number of weeks (0 to 52) worked in the past year by the wife wfulltime = 1 if the wife worked more than 30 hours per week, 0 otherwise bothwork = 1 if both the husband and wife worked in the previous year, 0 otherwise ne = 1 if the consumer unit lived in the Northeast census region, 0 otherwise south = 1 if the consumer unit lived in the Southern census region, 0 otherwise west = 1 if the consumer unit lived in the Western census region, 0 otherwise

Page 205: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

182

Other Control Variables

While all spending variables were indexed, I included a series of dummy variables based on the year that the last interview of the consumer unit was conducted. The included variables were:

y2004 = 1 if the last interview was conducted in 2004, 0 otherwise y2005 = 1 if the last interview was conducted in 2005, 0 otherwise y2007 = 1 if the last interview was conducted in 2007, 0 otherwise y2008 = 1 if the last interview was conducted in 2008 or 2009, 0 otherwise

where the omitted group was those units whose last interview was conducted in 2006. To control for the number of interviews that were completed by the consumer unit, I included the following three dummy variables in the analysis:

complete1 = 1 if the unit completed only one interview, 0 otherwise complete2 = 1 if the unit completed only two interviews, 0 otherwise complete3 = 1 if the unit completed only three interviews, 0 otherwise

where the omitted group was those units that had completed all four interviews.

Page 206: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

183

APPENDIX A-4

Theoretical Justificationof Rothbarth Approach

The Rothbarth approach to the measurement of the cost of children assumes that parents have well-defined preferences for goods that only they consume and goods consumed by both themselves and their children. To simplify the theory behind the Rothbarth approach, it is assumed that there only two types of goods: adult goods (AG, consumed only by the parents and never consumed by children) and all other goods (O). When the parents (two adults) are childless, the decision of how to allocate their spending between two goods can be characterized as reflecting their desire to maximize their well-being (characterized by a utility function) subject to their ability to meet their wants (the budget constraint). Mathematically, this choice can be characterized as

Maximize U = U(AG,O)

Subject to: pA AG + pO O = TS

where pA and pO reflect the market prices of a unit of AG and O, respectively, and TS is equal to the total spending of the couple. All goods other than adult goods, O, represents a composite good that is composed of goods that could be consumed by either adults or children. The presence of children in the family represents the addition of wants and needs to the family without a corresponding increase in the family’s ability to meet those additional wants and needs. If the TS amount of total spending of two adults without children were compared to a two-parent family with a child with the same amount of total spending, it would appear that the childless couple would be materially better off than the couple with a child. (This is without considering the well-being and satisfaction that parents receive from having the child and only considering the well-being derived from the goods that the family can acquire given how much they spend, TS). Specifically, let us assume that the childless couple decides to purchase pA AG0 dollars of adult goods and pO Oo dollars of other goods, given they have the ability to spend TS dollars. If the family with the child spent the same amount on the two goods, it makes good sense that they would be worse off because the same consumption is being directed toward more individuals. Only if the composite good were a pure public good would the family with a child be able to avoid a decline in their material standard of living compared to the childless couple. Barten (1964) provided a framework to formalize the family’s additional need for consumption of all other goods (his method allowed the relative needs of different families to vary for all consumption goods), by letting f equal 1 if the couple is childless and a value of exceeding 1 if a child is present in the family. To model this, need adjusted consumption of the family is assumed to equal O* = O/ for all other goods. Since the need for adult goods will, by assumption, not change for adult goods, the need adjusted consumption for adult goods will

Page 207: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

184

equal AG*=AG. For the purposes of the model, it is also assumed that the family’s well-being or standard of living depends upon their consumption of the goods adjusted by the relative needs of the family,

U=U(AG*,O*).

Consequently. if a family without children purchases the same amount of both goods as a family with a child, then it will better off:

U(AG,O) > U(AG,O/ ) .

The Barten transformation of quantities of goods suggests that the parents’ decision of how to allocate their consumption given their family structure (with or without children) and the level of family’s total spending can be characterized as the following:

Maximize U = U(AG*, O*)

Subject to: (pA) AG + (pO ) O = pA* AG* + pO* O* = TS

where

pA* = pA pO* = pO AG*=AG O* = O/ .

The insight of the Barten reformulation of the consumer model is that additional needs of family that are due to the presence of the child not only directly affects well-being by reducing the adjusted amount of all other goods (O/ < O) but also results in increasing the relative price of goods consumed by child and adults (O) relative to goods consumed only by adults (AG). The desired level of expenditures for AG and O can be written as

pAAG pAAG( pA, pO ,TS )

poO poO pO , pA ,TS .

The presence of a child will have the following effect on consumption decisions in the family (as goes from 1 to ):

.

Hence, if the demand for other goods is price inelastic ( | oo| < 1), spending on all other goods will rise and spending on adult goods will decline with presence of a child. It should be noted that if the demand for other goods were elastic ( | oo| > 1), spending on adult goods could rise because of a reduction in spending on all other goods.

ln pA AGln AO

ln AGln po

ln poOln

1 oo 1ln O

ln pO

Page 208: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

185

Using the Slutsky decomposition of the cross-price effect ( AO), the decrease in spending on adult goods with the addition of a child is the result of income and substitution effect. When the child is introduced into the family, the child’s needs reduce the standard of living of the family and the income effect represents how the family will respond to the decrease in their well-being. The expected result is that both goods are normal, and consequently the family will respond by decreasing their purchases of both goods. The second effect is the substitution effect that reflects the effect of changing relative prices on the family’s consumption decision. The consumer model assumes that individuals will always substitute toward goods that get relatively cheaper that in this situation are adult goods. Hence, the substitution effect will counteract the income effect, but for the family’s spending on adult goods to decline with the presence of the child, the income effect must dominate the cross-price substitution effect. Exhibit A-4-1 depicts the theoretical underpinnings of the Rothbarth approach (1941). The horizontal axis in the figure represents the need-adjusted quantities of all other goods (O*), and the vertical axis represents the needs-adjusted quantities of adult goods (AG*). Assume that the parents have one child and TS3 is the amount of total spending. Given the market prices for adult goods and all other goods and the total amount of spending, a family of three faces the budget constraint depicted by the line EF. Note that the vertical intercept represents the maximum amount of adult goods that the family can purchase and is equal to TS3/pA

*, which also is al to TS3/pA (the children do not increase the needs of adult goods). The horizontal intercept represents the maximum amount the family of three can purchase of needs-adjusted quantities of all other goods required by the needs of the child (–TS3/( pO), which is less than what could be purchased by a childless couple. Note that the budget constraint that the adults would face if they did not have the child would be EG. A comparison of budget constraints EF and EG depict what has been previously noted—the presence of a child makes the family worse off in a material sense and the price of all other goods relative to the price of adult goods rises. The family with the child will allocate their consumption so as to maximize their well-being. In Exhibit A-4-1, this occurs at point B, which corresponds to the family spending pA AG3 on adult goods and the remainder of their budget on all other consumption. When the family has maximized their well-being at point B, the rate that the family is willing to trade the two goods (the marginal rate of commodity substitution) will equal the “effective” price of all other goods relative to the price of adult goods. This is depicted in the figure by the indifference curve through point B that is tangent to the budget constraint at this allocation of consumption. Had the parents been childless and spent the same amount on adult goods and all other goods, they would have been better off because the consumption of all other goods would not be “shared” with the child. This consumption bundle is depicted by point C in the figure. However, this consumption allocation will not maximize the well-being of the two adults; they will want to substitute toward more spending on adult goods and less on all other goods. Assuming that they will choose to allocate their spending consistent with point D by spending pA AG2 on adult goods and the remainder on all other goods, the two adults are materially better off than a couple with a

Page 209: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

186

child. Using this assumption, Rothbarth asked, How much spending can I take away from the couple to make them equally well off as the couple with the child?

Exhibit A-4-1. Illustration of Rothbarth Methodology

Rothbarth’s approach was based on knowing the relationship between spending on adult goods, the number of children, and total spending. The following equation assumes that the relationship is

AG=AG(K, TS)

All Other Goods

E

Adult Goods

AG

AG

R

F

D

GJ T

H

S

C

Page 210: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

187

where K is the number of children in the two-parent family. When the family has one child and TS3 amount of spending, it will purchase AG3 units of adult goods (point B when facing the budget constraint EF):

AG3=AG(K=1, TS3).

If the parents were without the child, they would purchase AG2 units of adult goods (point D when facing the budget constraint EG):

AG2=AG(K=0, TS3).

When the total spending for the childless couple is reduced, the budget constraint parallel shifts inward to the origin (relative prices of goods remain unchanged because the family composition is being held constant) until

AG3=AG(K=0, TS2).

In Exhibit 4-1-1, reducing income or total spending of the childless couple is equivalent to a parallel shift inward of the budget constraint EG to reflect holding the effective prices of adult goods and all other goods constant for the couple. The question is whether the reductions in total spending to reduce the couple’s spending on adult goods will leave the couple at point B in Exhibit 4-1-1, corresponding to the budget constraint HJ. If the couple is left at point B, then the reduction in total spending has left the couple with the same needs-adjusted consumption of both goods as the couple with a child and consequently equally well off. However, this will occur only if there is no substitution effect (i.e., the couple does not react to changes in relative prices). If there is a substitution effect, then the couple, when facing the budget constraint HJ, will adjust their consumption by buying fewer adult goods and more of all other goods than the couple has at point B. Consequently, to limit their consumption to AG3, a smaller reduction in total spending would have to be made. The budget constraint ST reflects the budget constraint where the couple reacts to changes in relative prices (there is a substitution effect) and after the reduction in total spending purchases, AG3 units of adult goods. However, as is shown in the diagram, the couple, after this amount of reduction in total spending, would be better off than the couple with the child. This demonstrates the assertion that the Rothbarth method will understate the true costs of a child—the childless couple could experience larger declines in total spending than indicated by the Rothbarth approach and still be better off.

Page 211: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

188

APPENDIX A-5

The Engel Method and Its Critique

The Engel method is based on the assumption that the share of total spending devoted to food consumption is an inverse reflection of the well-being of the family—if a family is better off because of any event, then the food share should decline. When families of identical size and composition are compared, families with more income or total spending do spend a smaller proportion of their total budget on food. When families with children are compared to families without children but have the same amount of total spending, families with children do spend a larger proportion of their budget on food. Armed with these two confirmations of the relationship between the share of spending devoted to food and perceptions of the material standard of living of households, the Engel method suggests that the budget share devoted to food can be used to identify equally well off childless couples and couples with a child. Specifically, the Engel method infers that a childless couple and a couple with a child are equally well-off when each family devotes the same budget share to food even though total spending would be more for the couple with a child. The difference in total expenditures between the families would be attributable to child-rearing expenditures To illustrate the Engel methodology, let F denote the share of total spending devoted to food and assume that it is a function of number of family members (2 + K where K is the number of children) and the total spending of the family is TS:

where

.

If a couple has K children and TSK amount of total spending, then, by the Engel methodology, a childless couple with TSO amount of spending would be equally well off where TSO is determined by equating the food shares across the two family types:

.

To provide an explicit example, let the food-share relationship be represented by the following linear equation:

.

Hence the equivalent level of total spending for a childless couple would equal

F 2 K,TS

K0 and

TS0

2,TSO 2 K ,TSK

2 K ,TS ( 2 K ) TS

Page 212: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

189

( 2 ) TSO ( 2 K ) TSK

or

TSO TSK K .

f it is inferred that the difference in total spending in a family with K children and the equivalent spending for a childless couple is the “cost” of the children to the parents and consequently the share of the family’s spending devoted to the children is equal to

Share of total spending devoted to the children = .

For the specific example used for illustration, the share of total spending devoted to the children is equal to

.

The Engel approach has been utilized by numerous researchers, most notably Espenshade (1984),28 whose estimates were used by many states to develop their initial child support guidelines. While the underlying assumptions of the approach seem to be verified by data on family spending, scholars questioned whether there was a theoretical basis for the Engel methodology. Employing the Barten approach to incorporating family characteristics into a consumer demand model through the assumption of commodity-specific economies of scale, Gorman (1976) demonstrated that the Engel methodology would produce accurate estimates of the changes in total spending so as to leave families equally well off as the characteristics of families changed.29 Specifically, as the number of children increased, the family would require an equally proportional increase in each commodity for them to be equally well off. For example, if, after a couple has one child, they would require 30 percent more food to be equally well off, they would also require 30 percent more housing, 30 percent more transportation, and 30 percent more of every commodity. Given the presence of adult goods whose need should not increase with children, it is doubtful that spending data would validate the Gorman condition. Examining the situation where there were only two goods (i.e., food and all other goods), Deaton and Muellbauer (1986) showed that the Engel methodology would lead to an overestimation of the true costs of the children to the parents.30 Paired with observation that the Rothbarth methodology would always lead to an underestimation of the true costs of the children, the Deaton and Muellbauer paper suggested to many researchers that the Engel and Rothbarth approaches would serve to “bracket” the true cost of children and that the Engel estimates would always exceed the estimates provided by the Rothbarth approach.– 28 Espenshade, supra note 14 29 William Gorman, “Tricks with Utility Functions,” in Essays in Economic Analysis, ed. M. Artis & R. Nobay (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1975). 30 Deaton & Muellbauer, supra note 230.

TS K TS OTS K

KTS K

Page 213: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

190

In their 1998 article, Deaton and Paxson leveled a fundamental critique of the Engel methodology.31 Central to the Engel approach is that food consumption is an indicator of the well-being of the family. While I have used the effect of increases in family size and total spending on the food share as tests of Engel methodology, Deaton and Paxson propose a new test. Their reasoning is both unique and complex and revolves around a hypothetical increase in family size that is offset with an increase in total spending that leaves the per capita total spending in the family unchanged. For example, consider that a couple with $40,000 who is initially childless and then has a child. For the family’s per capita total spending to remain constant, their total spending needs to increase by $20,000 to $60,000. Assuming any economies of scale in consumption, a couple who has a child but whose per capita income remains constant should be better off—their consumption needs rise by less than their total spending. Using the Barten model of consumer behavior, Deaton and Paxson demonstrate that if this occurs, then per capita spending on food (F/ (2 + K) where F is food consumption) should increase. But if per capita total spending is constant, then the food share should increase: .This observation presents the Engel methodology with two problems. The first is an empirical problem. While the theory suggests that per capita food consumption should increase when family size increases, when per capita total spending is held constant, the empirical data indicates the opposite—that is, it declines. The second problem is even more problematic because it strikes at the heart of Engel methodology—that is, the food share should be inversely related to the well-being of the family. In this situation, when there is an increase in family size, with per capita total spending held constant, the family would be better off, but the food share should rise, not fall, as assumed in the Engel methodology. The Deaton and Paxson critique of the Engel methodology, in my opinion, undermines any trust that should be placed in estimates based on this approach. Deaton and Paxson best sum up the paradox when they observe, “Although Engel’s method is internally consistent, it directly contradicts the model of scale economies and public goods presented. In consequence, the estimates of the economies of scale that are derived by Engel’s method have no theoretical underpinnings and are identified by an assertion that makes no sense.” 32 To illustrate the potential problems of the Engel approach, a particular index of well-being denoted as the Linear Expenditure System (LES) is assumed that also assumes families will need a level of consumption of goods that varies by commodity. For this illustrative example, three goods are assumed: adult goods (xA); food (xF); and all other goods (xO). The index of well-being for this formulation of the family’s preferences is equal to

31 Deaton & Paxson, supra note 230. 32 Id. at p. 903.

Page 214: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

191

.

The parameter will denote the level of need by a childless couple for each of three goods, and we will assume the following values:

A = 500 = needed amount of adult goods

F = 4,000 = needed amount of food

O = 12,000 = needed amount of all other goods The parameter µ denotes for each commodity the relative needs of a family with a child relative to a childless couple. Given that children are assumed not to consume adult goods, then µA would equal 1.00; however, for food and all other goods we expect a family with a child would require more food and all other goods. It is assumed that a family with a child needs 35 percent more food (µF = 1.35), implying some economies of scale in consumption, compared to the situation where no economies of scale exist and food consumption needs would rise by 50 percent (µF = 1.50). The relative needs for all other goods, µO, will be allowed to vary in the calculations from a value of 1.25 to 1.45. By definition, the value for all the µ’s for a childless couples are equal to 1.00. The parameters ’s reflect the relative weights to consumption of adult goods, food, and all other goods are assumed to be equal to .10, .20, and .70, respectively. The family is assumed to maximize their preferences subject to the budget constraint where TS is assumed to be given

pAxA pF xF pOxO TS

and pi reflects the price of the ith good. For these calculations, we will assume that all prices are equal to $1. Since the representation of the family’s preferences is known, the relationship for the true cost of achieving a given level of standard of living can be derived. It is equal to

MS U where

MS = minimum level of spending = pi i i

= = one over the marginal utility of income, and

U = = utility or standard of living.

For childless couples, the minimum level of spending equals $16,500, given our assumptions. For a family with one child where µF equals 1.35 and µO equals 1.30, the minimum level of spending equals $21,500, or $5,000 more than the childless couple.

U A ln x A

AA F ln xF

FF O ln xO

OO

p i i

i

i

TS MS

Page 215: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

192

The equivalent level of spending for a childless couple compared to a family with one child and TS3 is equal to

.

The corresponding equation for the food share is

FpF xFTS F

pF F F F pi i iTS .

And, consequently, the Engel method would lead to the following equation determining the equivalent total spending for childless couples, TS2:

TS2 pi i TS3 pi i i1i

i.

The Rothbarth method requires that the level of spending on adult goods is equated across the families. Given the LES preferences, the spending on adult goods is equal to

FpF xFTS F

pF F F F pi i iTS

.

Hence, the Rothbarth estimate of TS2 would equal (µA = 1.0 for both childless couples and families with one child):

.

To summarize, the assumed LES preferences for the family whose parameters are equal to

A = .10 F = .20 O = .70

A = 500 F = 4,000 O = 12,000.

The price of each good is assumed to be $1. To account for differences in family sizes, a Barten scale of the consumption of each good is assumed where the following scaling factors were employed for childless couples and families with one child:

Childless couples µA = 1.00 µF = 1.00 µO = 1.00

Families with one child µA = 1.00 µF = 1.35

The relative need for all other goods (µO) will be allowed to vary from 1.25 to 1.45. Finally, it is assumed that the family with one child has $50,000 of total spending. Exhibit A-5-1 utilizes the above equations for determining the equivalent total spending for a childless couple—that is, the “true” cost using the LES utility function, the Rothbarth approach, and finally the Engel

TS2 pi i TS3 pi i i1i

i

TS 2 TS3 pi i i pi ip A A A 1

ATS3 pi i i 1

i A

Page 216: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

193

methodology. When examining the calculations, I offer one word of caution. While the “true” cost estimates look similar to estimates seen in the empirical literature, the computed levels are not of interest and should not be interpreted as point estimates. What is of interest among these calculations is the ordinal ranking of the estimates—in particular, whether the Engel and Rothbarth estimates bracket the “true” costs of the child.

Exhibit A-5-1. Alternative Estimates of the Cost of a Child Assuming the LES Preferences

Alternative Values of µO::

1.30 1.35 1.40 1.45

“True” cost 22.3% 24.4% 26.4% 28.2%

Rothbarth method 10.0% 11.2% 12.4% 13.6%

Engel method 36.4% 28.6% 18.6% 5.4%

As the relative needs for all other goods increases for families with a child, with the other factors held constant, not unsurprisingly the cost of the child rises. While, as expected, the Rothbarth estimates of the share devoted to the child is less than the “true” costs, they too rise as these needs increase. It is the Engel method that yields the most troubling pattern—while the other two methodologies produce increases in the estimate of the child’s share of total spending, the Engel method reveals a decline in the child’s share as the need for all other goods increases. While the needs for all other goods is less than or equal to additional needs for food (µO µF), the Engel estimate exceeds the “true” cost of the child, and the Deaton-Muellbauer bracketing of the “true” cost by the Engel and Rothbarth methodologies is realized. However, if the relative needs for all other goods exceeds that for food (µO > µF), the child’s share of total spending predicted by the Engel method becomes less than the “true” cost of the child and the bracketing is not realized. As the additional needs for other goods rise even more, however, the child’s share determined by the Engel method declines so much that it is less than the Rothbarth estimate. Appendix A-4-1 describes the rationale underlying the Rothbarth methodology using the Barten model of family scaling of consumption. This model captures the impact of family size and composition on the family’s consumption decisions as price effects—that is, as the family size increases the need for some goods rises faster than others and, consequently, become more expensive relative to other goods. The price effects of family size have two effects. The first effect is that as goods become more expensive there is an income effect reflecting that the family is worse off because of their increased consumption needs. The second effect is a substitution effect as the family substitutes away from goods that have become relatively more expensive. In the calculations prepared for this report, it has been reasonably assumed that families with children do not need more adult goods than childless couples but do need more food and all other goods. Consequently, in the comparison between families with one child and childless couples,

Page 217: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

194

the “price” of adult goods does not change and is the “cheapest” good in all of these calculations. The relative price of food to all other goods is changing in these calculations. When µO is less than or equal to µF, food is relatively the most expensive commodity for the family with a child, but as µO increases all other goods become the most expensive commodity. This suggests that as long as adult clothing and food represent the cheapest good and most expensive good for families with a child, the Rothbarth and Engel methodologies will bracket the “true” cost of a child. When food is no longer the most expensive good, the Engel method will no longer overstate the “true” cost of a child and, as seen, can be less than the result of the Rothbarth method. What is most troubling with these comparisons is the counterintuitive result found in the Engel comparisons. If the child’s consumption needs were increasing, the costs of a child should rise. While both the “true” cost and Rothbarth measures reflect this, the Engel estimates go in the opposite direction, indicating lower costs as needs increase. This makes no sense at all. While the Engel methodology has a long history, I do not believe that any trust can be placed in the estimates derived by this approach or any other iso-proportional approach using composite commodities based on necessities such as food, clothing, and shelter. These considerations have only strengthened my conviction that the Rothbarth approach is the superior alternative methodology to pursue.

Page 218: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

195

APPENDIX A-6

Functional Form Assumptions

The Rothbarth approach assumes that the number of children and the family’s total spending affect the level of spending on “adult” goods and that by examining these relationships it is possible to estimate family spending on children. To estimate how the number of children and total spending affects spending on adult goods, it is necessary to make assumptions about the nature of the relationship between these two variables and other variables that would be thought to affect the level of spending on adult goods. For example, whether the parents work or not might affect the level of spending on adult goods, which would include the parents’ clothing purchases. The region of the country might also affect spending on adult goods. This discussion examines the impact of alternative functional form assumptions on estimates of the share of total spending devoted to children based on the Rothbarth methodology. However, many of the conclusions drawn in this discussion apply equally to the Engel or any other iso-prop methodology with the sole difference being that the relationship between family size, total spending, and the iso-prop measure of well-being (the food share in the case of the Engel method) will differ. For example, while the Rothbarth assumes that family size will be negatively correlated with spending on adult goods, it will be assumed to be positively correlated with food share. In this appendix, I will be focusing on husband-wife families with and without children. Consequently, variation in family size is in reality a reflection in the number of children present in the family. However, a generalized relationship between spending on adult goods (AG), family size (FS = 2 + K, where K is the number of children), total spending (TS), observed other factors (Z), and unobserved factors determining spending on adult goods ( ) can be generalized as

where the Rothbarth methodology assumes that

.

If a family with K children has TSK total spending, then a childless couple with all the other characteristics (Z and ) identical to the family with children would be equally well off if they had a level of total spending TSo where

and, consequently, the share of the family’s total spending, TSK, devoted to the children would be equal to

.

AG F FS 2 K ,TS ,Z ,

FK

0 and FTS

0

TSo such that F 2,TSo ,Z , F 2 K ,TSK ,Z ,

CS TS K TS oTS K

Page 219: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

196

Without further specification of the function, F, what determines the share of total spending going to the children is unknown. A typical assumption that is made is that the number of children and total spending are additively separable from other factors determining adult spending. Specifically, this implies

.

Assuming this form of separability, it can be seen that the equivalent level of total spending, TSo, will depend on the number of children and the total spending of the family with children and not on other factors:

.

Hence, the proportion of spending devoted to the children will not be affected by the factor Z or . I am not aware of any study that has not made the above assumption. For the purpose of

establishing child support guidelines this assumption is not problematic because if it were not made, the choice of other factors (Z) would need to be made and would theoretically affect the guideline amounts. I now turn to how the specific choice of functional form for G will affect the share of total spending devoted to the children (CS). The question is whether the effect of the number of children or total spending on the purchases has either a constant absolute effect or constant proportional effect. For this investigation, the first assumption is a constant absolute effect that would be the case if it were also assumed that household preferences were consistent with the linear expenditure system. While Espenshade employs an Engel approach to the estimation of spending on children, he also assumes that the effect of children and total spending (income in his case) has a constant absolute effect on spending. This assumption is referred to as the linear specification. Specifically, it is assumed that G is equal to

(linear specification):

which implies that

and

.

The share of spending on children will increase with the number of children but decline with increases in total spending of the family with children. The marginal effect of an additional child on the children’s share (for example, the marginal effect of an additional child would reflect the

AG F FS,TS,Z, G F,TS H Z,

TSo such that G 2,TSo G 2 K ,TSK

G FS ,TS FS TS where < 0, > 0

TS o TSKK

CS KTSK

Page 220: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

197

change from one child to two children) is smaller for families with higher levels of total spending but is independent of the number of children.

.

The marginal effect of a change in total spending in the family with children is negative but becomes less negative with increases in total spending:

.

Now assuming that the impact of family size and total spending has a proportional effect on spending on adult goods, the two simple functional forms consistent with this assumption are to assume that G is equal to

(log-linear specification):

or

(log-log specification): .

Each of these two specifications can be written alternatively by taking the log of AG and assuming that the effect of other factors (Z and ) also have a proportional effect on total spending:

.

These assumptions imply that the log of adult spending will equal

(log-linear specification):

(log-log specification): .

Since equating the levels of spending on adult goods is equivalent to equating the log of spending levels, the formula for the proportion of spending on children is equivalent to the computed proportional spending on children using the constant absolute effect model

(log-linear specification): .

The reader should not conclude that this would result in the same estimated coefficients from regressing the level of adult spending on family size and total spending as from the regression of the log of adult spending on the same two variables, holding constant the same other factors. However, the ratio should be roughly the same unless the functional form choice does truly affect the estimate of the ratio. This might occur because, when using the linear specification, the

CSK

1TSK

> 0 2CS

TS K1

TSK2

CSTSK

0 2CSK 2

0

CSTS

KTSK

2CS

TSK0

2CSTS2

2 KTSK

32 CS

TSK2

0

G FS ,TS e FS TS

G FS ,TS e FS TS

F FS ,TS ,Z , G FS ,TS H Z ,

ln AG FS TS ln H Z , where 0, 0

ln AG ln FS ln TS ln H Z, where 0, 0

CS KTSK

Page 221: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

198

estimates, and , reflect the average effect of family size and total spending at the mean of the sample, while in the log-linear model, they would reflect the marginal effects at the median observation. The choice of the log-log specification provides an alternative of the proportion of total spending on children. In the log-log formulation the share of total spending devoted to the children equals

.

The difference between the alternative specifications should now be evident. While in both the linear and log-linear specifications increases in total spending in the family will decrease the share of total spending on children, changes in total spending do not affect the children’s share in the log-log specification. I want to emphasize that these relationships reflect functional form assumptions and not any empirical facts. The share of spending devoted to the children will depend solely on the number of children and is not a function of the total spending of the family. As the number of children increases, then the effect on the children’s share of total spending will be equal to

CSK

12 K

1 CS 0 if <0 and >0.

The marginal effect of an additional child on the children’s share of total spending will diminish as more children are added to the family:

2CSK 2

1 CS

2 K 21

2 KCSK

0 .

Interpretation

Now I consider the case where the size of the family does not affect adult spending (i.e., , , and are all zero). If the data supported this finding, then the proportion spent on the children would be estimated to be zero. Under the Rothbarth logic, if the adults are not found to reduce their spending as the number of children increases, then they are not spending on their children. However, it could be the case that the parents are reducing their consumption of nonadult goods or goods that are jointly consumed with the children to make room for the purchase of goods that will be solely consumed by the children. It is this observation that leads many to conclude that the Rothbarth methodology will tend to underestimate the true costs of children. As , and become negative or more negative, the children’s share of spending rises. If it is believed that a per capita sharing of resources represents an upper limit (in reality, however, it is not because parents could choose to spend more on their children than they do on themselves),

CS 1 22 K

Page 222: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

199

then there should be a relationship between the effect of additional children ( ) and the effect of additional total spending ( ). For the linear specification, the marginal reduction in spending on adult goods owing to additional children (– ) should be less than the per capita total spending in the family with children times the effect of total spending on adult goods ( ):

.

For the log-linear specification, the logical restriction on the effect of additional children is identical to the linear specification but uses the corresponding parameters ( ):

.

Testing of these restrictions is difficult because they depend not solely on parameter values but also on the level of per capita total spending in the family. The log-log formulation of the adult-good-spending relationship has a clear advantage because the restriction on parameters can be made solely on the basis of parameter values. Specifically, the restriction that the estimate of the amount of sharing is less than or equal to per capita sharing can be stated as

.

In my past empirical work, I have employed the following functional form for the log of adult spending:

which can be rewritten as

.

The second formulation shows the equivalency between the two log-log specifications ( ), and consequently, if is to be negative and less in absolute value than then

.

The reason for preferring this specification (holding per capita total spending constant) versus the specification holding total spending constant is the direct interpretation one can give to . The children’s share of total spending is equal to

.

The term represents the economies of scale in consumption that will range from 0 to 1. When is zero, then the children’s share will be their per capita share, but as increases, their share will decline until it equals 1, where, in fact, there are “-infinite“ economies of scale in consumption —the children are “free.”

TSK2 K

TS K2 K

ln AG ln FS ln TSFS

ln AG ln FS ln TS

CS 1 22 K

1

Page 223: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

200

Mixtures of Functional Forms

Finally, there is a mixture of the log-linear and log-log specifications that have been employed or suggested to be used. Specifically, the Florida State researchers, in their estimation of the Engel model, have employed a model where the log of adult-good spending is linear in the number of children and linear in the log of either total spending or per capita total spending. The formulation that is linear in family size (children) and linear in the log of total spending can be characterized as

where the associated children’s of total spending would equal

.

This functional form shares the same characteristic with the log-log specification, that the children’s share of total spending is independent of the level of total spending. The effect of an additional child on the children’s share is

which also implies, like the log-log specification, that the marginal effect of an additional child on the children’s share will be negative:

.

A closely related functional form would also assume that the effect of family size is linear, but instead of holding total spending constant, it holds per capita spending constant:

.

The children’s share of total spending that corresponds to this functional form is

which is an interesting mixture of the previous functional form and the log-log specification. Given an expectation that there will be economies of scale for children’s consumption, it can be anticipated that there is to be a positive income effect ( > 0), and consequently the effect of the number of children should be non-negative ( 0). If n is zero, then the children’s share is the

ln( AG ) K ln TS + ln H Z, where 0, 0

CS 1 eK

CSK

eK

( 1 CS ) 0

2CS

K 2

2( 1 CS ) 0

ln AG K ln TS

FS+ ln H Z, 0

CS 1 2

2 K e

K

Page 224: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

201

per capita share, but as n becomes positive, then the children’s share of total spending declines, holding the number of children constant:

.

As the number of children increases, the children’s share of total spending will increase:

if .

However, it is possible for the children’s share to fall as the number of children rises. The marginal effect of an additional child depends on the number of children, but if the marginal effect is positive, then as the number of children increases, the marginal effect should decline:

.

Deciding Between Functional Forms

While this discussion has highlighted the impact of alternative functional form assumptions, the data also need to be examined to determine which specification is more consistent with the empirical evidence. From the analysis sample that I constructed for this report, I have plotted the amount of spending on adult goods versus the amount of total spending in husband-wife families with two children. To be included in any of the plots, the family must have had at least one dollar of spending on adult goods. The following three graphs show the relationship between these two variables for the linear model (Exhibit A-6-1), log-linear model (Exhibit A-6-2), and the log-log specification (Exhibit A-6-3).

CS K 22 k

eK

0

CSK

1 CS 12 K

02 K

2CSK2

1 CS

2 K 2CSK

12 K

0

Page 225: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

202

Exhibit A-6-1. Scatterplot of Linear Model

Exhibit A-6-2. Scatterplot of Log-Linear Model

Page 226: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

203

Exhibit A-6-2. Scatterplot of Log-Log Model

While this is not a formal test, the scatterplots can be used to identify which model best corresponds to the assumptions of classical regression analysis. Specifically, some of the scatterplots may reflect more or less variation around a line. In Exhibit A-6-1 (linear specification), it can be seen that estimates of the effect of total spending on adult goods will be difficult to estimate. Given that spending on adult goods is, in practice, limited to total spending, as total spending rises, not only does spending on adult goods rise but also the variance of spending on adult goods. Recall that the data will be used to estimate the effect of total spending on adult goods, and the more variation in its estimate will correspond to greater variation in the estimates of the children’s share of total spending regardless of the precision in the estimates of the effect of children on spending. Exhibit A-6-2 (log-linear specification) clearly displays a nonlinear relationship between the log of adult spending and the level of total spending in the family. Estimating a linear total spending effect would overestimate spending on adult goods at low and high levels of total spending. While quadratic terms of total spending could be included to account for the nonlinearity in the effect of total spending, perhaps a simple transformation of total spending would be preferable. The log-log specification (Exhibit A-6-3) does just that and is the closest to depicting the relationship between the two goods that would have created by the assumptions of the classical linear regression model. While an eyeball inspection of this transformed data indicates there still may be a slight nonlinear effect of total spending on adult goods, the clustering of the scatterplot

Page 227: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

204

suggests that this functional form specification is more consistent with the data than the other two specifications. I would suggest that this provides sufficient evidence (and there is also evidence from similar scatterplots for other family types, such as childless couples and husband-wife families with different numbers of children, that produced the same results) to adopt the log-log specification. However, this evidence does not suggest which formulation of the basic log-log or mixture formulation is the most appropriate. To let the data tell this would require a complicated non-nested hypothesis test. I am not proposing to do such a test but reserve it for future research. Until that test is performed, I will examine the effect of alternative functional forms in the estimates.

Modifications to Basic Log-Log Specification

As it is probably evident from this discussion, I do have a clear favorite. It is the log-log specification, where total spending is represented by the log of per capita total spending and the number of children is reflected in the log of family size:

ln AG ln( FS ) ln TSFS

ln H Z, .

The children’s share of total spending implicit from this functional form is

.

While this is a fairly simple model, one might question two features. One potential concern is that the level of total spending does not affect the children’s share. The easiest fix is to include the square of the log of per capita total spending in the model:

.

If 2 is found to be significantly different from zero, then the children’s share will become a function of the level of total spending. Unfortunately, with the nonlinearity of the log of per capita spending, it is not possible to derive an explicit function for the children’s share of total spending. However, it can be shown that the children’s share will be negatively related to total spending (holding the number of children constant) if 2 is negative (assuming that 1 is positive, which means that families with higher levels of total spending will have smaller effects of increases in per capita total spending).

CS 1 22 K

1

ln AG ln( FS ) 1 ln TSFS 2 ln TS

FS

2ln H Z,

Page 228: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

205

APPENDIX A-7

Estimate of Engel Model

The dependent variable lnfshare is the log of the budget share of food at home relative to the budget share of all other goods.

Source | SS df MS Number of obs = 7846 -------------+------------------------------ F( 20, 7825) = 465.65 Model | 1395.63468 20 69.781734 Prob > F = 0.0000 Residual | 1172.64315 7825 .14985855 R-squared = 0.5434 -------------+------------------------------ Adj R-squared = 0.5422 Total | 2568.27784 7845 .327377672 Root MSE = .38712 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ lnfshare | Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval] -------------+---------------------------------------------------------------- lnfsize | -.320982 .014496 -22.14 0.000 -.349398 -.292566 lnpctout1 | -.7523944 .0468379 -16.06 0.000 -.8442092 -.6605795 lnpctout12 | .0009566 .0080661 0.12 0.906 -.0148551 .0167684 black | -.0974046 .0176588 -5.52 0.000 -.1320205 -.0627887 hnohs | .0251504 .0171929 1.46 0.144 -.0085522 .0588531 hcollege | .0216351 .0111192 1.95 0.052 -.0001614 .0434317 wnohs | .0322901 .0188929 1.71 0.087 -.0047449 .0693252 wcollege | -.0202321 .0108728 -1.86 0.063 -.0415457 .0010815 ww_wife | .0231672 .0182457 1.27 0.204 -.0125993 .0589336 wfulltime | -.0171445 .0124728 -1.37 0.169 -.0415946 .0073056 bothwork | -.0650448 .0157649 -4.13 0.000 -.0959481 -.0341414 ne | .1403571 .0139411 10.07 0.000 .1130288 .1676853 south | .0813394 .0115763 7.03 0.000 .0586468 .104032 west | .0634614 .0128419 4.94 0.000 .0382878 .088635 year | .0084295 .0175166 0.48 0.630 -.0259076 .0427666 y2004 | .0212164 .0397248 0.53 0.593 -.0566548 .0990876 y2005 | .0629275 .0230096 2.73 0.006 .0178225 .1080325 y2007 | .0079238 .0221623 0.36 0.721 -.0355203 .0513679 y2008 | .0183518 .0421866 0.44 0.664 -.0643452 .1010487 complete3 | -.0018853 .0100589 -0.19 0.851 -.0216035 .0178329 _cons | -16.65141 35.13692 -0.47 0.636 -85.52916 52.22634 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Page 229: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

206

APPENDIX B

Sampling and Data Collection

Sampling Time Frame

The sampling time frame for the study included cases with filings and orders during the time period January 1, 2008, through December 31, 2008. This calendar year allowed for a sufficient amount of time to pass prior to data collection to ensure that action would be taken on the cases.

Sampled Counties

Collecting data required a review of case files. As a result, it was not feasible to include all 58 California counties. The 11 counties that were selected are the same counties that participated in the 2005 study. Exhibit B-1. County Population and Orders Established Relative to State Totals

Population(2008

Estimate)1

Percentage of State

Population

Number of Orders

Established in 20082

Percentage of

Orders Large counties

Alameda 1,537,719 4.1% 2,106 2.1%Fresno 928,066 2.4 5,246 5.3

Los Angeles 10,301,658 27.2 20,823 20.9Santa Clara 1,829,480 4.8 3,234 3.2

San Diego 3,131,552 8.3 3,918 3.9Medium-sized counties

San Luis Obispo 268,290 0.7 959 1.0Solano 424,397 1.1 1,319 1.3Tulare 433,764 1.1 2,211 2.2

Small counties

Amador 38,035 0.1 149 0.1Siskiyou 45,725 0.1 235 0.2Tehama 62,179 0.2 495 0.5

Sum of sampled counties 19,000,865 50.1% 40,695 40.7%Rest of state 18,883,127 49.9% 59,078 59.3%

1 Cal. Dept. of Finance, “E-1 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State with Annual Percent Change—January 1, 2008–2009” (May 2009). 2 Cal. Dept. of Child Support Services, “Comparative Data for Managing Program Performance,” Federal Fiscal Year 2008 (Apr. 2009).

Page 230: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

207

The large counties in the study are Alameda, Fresno, Los Angeles, Santa Clara, and San Diego. The medium-sized counties are San Luis Obispo, Solano, and Tulare. The small counties are Amador, Siskiyou, and Tehama. As shown in Exhibit B-1, the five large, three mid-sized, and three small counties participating in the study account for 50 percent of the state’s population an`d 40.7 percent of the child support orders established in 2008. Exhibit B-2 shows selected economic indicators from the sampled counties. Five of the 11 counties have unemployment rates that fall below the state average, and 2 have mean annual wages that are above the state average.

Exhibit B-2. Economic Profile of Selected Counties

Unemploy-ment Rate

(2008 Annual)1

MeanAnnual Wage2

25th Per-centileHourly Wage3

Median Hourly Wage4

Annual Self-

Sufficiency Standard

(One Adult)5

Annual Self-

Sufficiency Standard

(One Adult + Preschooler)6

Large counties Alameda 6.2% $52,438 $12.78 $20.47 $24,630 $43,974

Fresno 10.6 39,088 9.33 14.24 20,002 34,058 Los Angeles 7.5 46,470 10.52 16.83 26,430 44,394 Santa Clara 6.0 63,188 13.77 23.45 28,240 50,976

San Diego 6.0 46,285 10.87 17.07 27,450 45,516 Medium-sized counties

San Luis Obispo 5.7 40,225 10.09 15.10 24,329 42,234 Solano 6.9 40,225 10.09 15.10 24,854 40,185 Tulare 10.8 18,163 31,380

Small counties Amador 7.7 40,091 10.60 15.74 21,956 39,830 Siskiyou 10.2 41,085 11.07 16.19 18,462 34,974 Tehama 9.1 19,292 36,392

State total 7.2% $47,084 $10.85 $17.31 N. A. $44,768

1 State of Cal., Employment Development Dept., Labor Market Info publications, retrieved from www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/?pageid=1026, www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/?pageid=152, and www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/?pageid=1007.2 Ibid.3 Ibid.4 Ibid.5 Self-Sufficiency Standard for California, 2008, retrieved from www.selfsufficiencystandard.org/docs/CA%202008%20All%20Families.xls.6 Ibid.

Page 231: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

208

Sample Sizes

The target sample size was 1,000 cases. This would be adequate to measure the deviation rates, changes in the deviation rates, and changes in the deviation rates by various subgroups. The sample of 1,000 cases was weighted across the counties to create a proportional representation. Los Angeles County was separated from the very large and large counties because of its inordinate share. Los Angeles represents 38.3 percent of all cases in large and very large counties. Rather than use 38 percent in proportional sample, the sample used 20.9 percent because Los Angeles accounts for 20.9 percent of statewide establishments. For other sampled counties, the cases sampled represent the county’s proportion of large, medium, or small counties. For example, 54.5 percent of all establishments occur in very large and large counties. Since Alameda, a large county, has 14.5 percent of establishments among the sampled counties, the weight for Alameda County is 7.9 percent (54.5 percent multiplied by 14.5 percent) of all targeted cases.

Exhibit B-3. Weighted Sampling of Cases by County

OrdersEstablished (FFY 2008)1

Orders by County-Size

Category Statewide

Total

SampledCounties

Total Weighted Sample

Targeted Sample

Total Sample

Very large Los Angeles 20,823 38.3 20.9 51.2 209 250 20.9

Large counties

Alameda 2,106 3.9 2.1 14.5 79 95 7.9

Fresno 5,246 9.7 5.3 36.2 197 236 19.7

Santa Clara 3,234 6.0 3.2 22.3 121 146 12.1

San Diego 3,918 7.2 3.9 27.0 147 177 14.7

Medium-sized counties

San Luis Obispo 959 6.5 1.0 21.4 32 38 3.2

Solano 1,319 8.9 1.3 29.4 44 52 4.4

Tulare 2,211 14.9 2.2 49.3 73 88 7.3

Small counties

Amador 149 1.5 0.1 17.0 17 20 1.7

Siskiyou 235 2.4 0.2 26.7 26 31 2.6

Tehama 495 5.1 0.5 56.3 55 66 5.5

Sum of sampled counties 40,695 1,000 1,199 Rest of state 59,078

State total 99,773

Page 232: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

209

1 (Cal. Dept. of Child Support Services, Comparative Data for Managing Program Performance: Federal Fiscal Year

2008, Data and Performance Analysis Branch, Sacramento, California, Table 3.12. Given the anticipation that some cases would have to be excluded because of missing data, the courts were asked to oversample by 20 percent. The target sample (including this 20 percent oversample) is shown in Exhibit B-4. Exhibit B-4 also shows the final number of cases per county that could be used in the final data analyses. As the table shows, only two counties, Siskiyou and Tehama, fell short of the minimum weighted sample goal.

Exhibit B-4. Minimum Weighted Sample Goals by County

MinimumWeighted

Sample Goal

Targeted Sample

(includes 20% oversample)

Cases Usable in Analysis

Large counties

Los Angeles 209 250 262 Alameda 79 95 97 Fresno 197 236 237 Santa Clara 121 146 164 San Diego 147 177 180

Medium-sized counties San Luis Obispo 32 38 51 Solano 44 52 54 Tulare 73 88 97

Small counties Amador 17 20 20 Siskiyou 26 31 16 Tehama 55 66 48

Sum of sampled counties 1,000 1,199 1,226 Courts were instructed to evenly divide the sample between IV-D and non-IV-D cases. A 50/50 split was used in previous guideline studies. There was no clear evidence to support the substitution of a different split in this study. Exhibit B-5 shows the number of cases in the analysis broken down by IV-D or non-IV-D status. The shaded cells indicate those counties where the sample goal was not met. Both Siskiyou and Tehama fell short of the number of non-IV-D cases that could be included. Although a precise breakdown of each county by IV-D status is not available, available data do indicate that both of these counties had only about 1,000 cases in 2008 that had never received TANF.33 These would be the only potential non-IV-D cases, and, of course, some of these custodial parents might have 33 Cal. Dept. of Child Support Services, supra note 155.

Page 233: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

210

applied for IV-D services. In other words, a very small pool of potential non-IV-D cases was available for inclusion.

Exhibit B-5. Sample of Cases by County and IV-D Status

IV-D MinimumGoal

IV-D Cases Usable

Non-IV-D Minimum

Goal

Non-IV-D Cases Usable

Large counties

Los Angeles 104 129 104 132

Alameda 39 48 39 48

Fresno 98 119 98 117

Santa Clara 60 83 60 81

San Diego 73 92 73 88

Medium-sized counties

San Luis Obispo 16 28 16 23

Solano 22 28 22 26

Tulare 36 47 36 50

Small counties

Amador 8 11 8 9

Siskiyou 13 16 13 0

Tehama 27 33 27 15

Total 496 634 496 589

Exhibit B-6 shows the number of usable cases broken down by IV-D status and by new orders versus modifications. The sample consists almost entirely of new order cases. In this respect it differs from previous guideline studies, which had more comparable numbers of new cases and modifications.

Page 234: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

211

Exhibit B-6. Sample of Cases by County, IV-D Status, and New Order or Modification

New Order Cases Modification Cases

IV-DNon- IV-D Total IV-D

Non- IV-D Total

Very large and large counties Los Angeles 126 132 258 1 2 3

Alameda 45 43 88 4 2 6

Fresno 115 104 219 1 5 6

Santa Clara 71 69 140 11 14 25

San Diego 89 83 172 4 4 8

Medium-sized counties San Luis Obispo 25 20 45 3 3 6

Solano 28 25 53 0 0 0

Tulare 34 46 80 9 4 13

Small and very small counties Amador 4 5 9 7 3 10

Siskiyou 16 0 16 0 0 0

Tehama 28 13 41 5 1 6

Total 581 540 1,121 45 38 83 Exhibit B-7 shows the case file review definitions and instructions used by data collectors in the study counties. Cases were selected randomly. The data collectors used a case file review tool (i.e., Exhibit B-8) to manually record information found in the case files. To protect confidentiality, the data collection instruments did not contain any personal identifying information (e.g., names, social security numbers) from the case files. Completed data collection forms were submitted to the contractor for data entry and analysis.

Page 235: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

212

Exhibit B-7. Review of Statewide Uniform Child Support Guideline 2010 Case File Review Instructions and Definitions

SAMPLING AND VALID CASES This study will consist of a random sample of cases filed between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2008 in which child support was an issue. Cases will be pulled to examine if there is a child support order. A current child support order is defined as an ongoing order for the support of one or more children that was calculated using the California child support guideline. A current child support order is not an arrears-only order or an order for payment of health insurance. These orders were not calculated using the guideline. The study is limited to orders subject to the California child support guideline. Do not abstract Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA) child support cases unless the order is established or modified by a California court. Also excluded are cases in which an order has not yet been established and ordered where the combined family support and child support could not be separated using the information in the case file. If there are several orders within a year, please use the most recent one to complete the case file review form. In most cases, the AOC project manager has provided the court liaison with an electronic spreadsheet of cases to pull. Courts have been asked to separate Title IV-D and non-Title IV-D cases. Courts will be asked to pull fifty percent IV-D and fifty percent non-IV-D cases. Courts have been instructed to pull three times the targeted sample quota to allow for cases that might not be usable because of missing information or if a case is unavailable at the time. For instance, Tulare County has a targeted sample of 88 cases. The reviewer’s goal will be to collect 44 completed forms for IV-D cases and 44 forms for non-IV-D cases. A case will not be considered reviewed unless the reviewer can complete the case file review form. If he/she exhausts the primary list of cases and still has not yet met the quota, he/she will move on to the secondary list of cases and the tertiary one, if necessary. In this example, the court would have pulled a total of 264 cases. If the reviewer still cannot fulfill his/her quota after reviewing cases from these three lists provided by the AOC, the court will then start going through the general list of randomized cases until the targeted sample has been met. REQUIRED AND MISSING INFORMATION The purpose of this study is to determine if the statewide child support guidelines are being followed and if not, why not. The following information MUST be specified, either on the mandatory forms or shown in a court-generated child support calculation printout:

Parents’ income, both gross and net;

Page 236: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

213

Amount of base child support ordered; Whether or not the child support ordered is the guideline amount; and If the child support ordered is above or below the guideline.

Do not guess on any of the above or make your own determination. It must be specified in the court file. If the sampled court event is missing any of the above information, you may go back one court hearing to review documents for the required information pursuant to that establishment or modification of child support. If the case is a new order and there is no additional information, return that case to be refiled. Complete only Section I, Case Information, and Section IV, Missing Information. Again, this will not be counted in your case file quota. For example, if you are required to extract 100 cases, and you have twenty-five where you could only complete Sections I and IV, then you will need to collect data on twenty-five more cases to meet the quota. (Review the section on Sampling and Valid Cases for information on how to pull additional cases.) Make a reasonable effort to find missing information. Keep in mind, though, that we have estimated that it will take approximately fifteen minutes to extract data for each valid case. If you find you are spending significantly more time than that to complete a valid case because you are hunting through the file for missing information, move on. Court liaisons were asked to pull three times the targeted sample. For example, if your quota of completed cases was 100, the court contact was asked to pull 300 cases for review. If you have reviewed all of the files pulled for you by the court liaison and you still have not reached your quota of valid, complete cases, you will need to ask your court contact to pull more files for you, as specified by the AOC protocol. You will need to estimate how many more case files to pull for you to meet your case quota. Remember, you must attempt to complete fifty percent of your total quota as IV-D and fifty percent as non-IV-D cases. AOC project manager will provide instructions on where to send completed case file review forms.

DEFINITIONS SECTION I: CASE INFORMATION

: Specifies the county that entered the child support order. This must be a county in California among the eleven counties selected for this study: Alameda, Amador, Fresno, Los Angeles, San Diego, San Luis Obispo, Santa Clara, Siskiyou, Solano, Tehama, and Tulare. If the order originates from another state, it does not qualify for the case file review.

: This is the date the order was entered. It must be between January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2008, to qualify for the case file review.

Page 237: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

214

: This is the number assigned by the court.

4. Type of Case Title IV-D Case: Case in which IV-D services for current child support were being provided at the time the order was entered, indicated by local child support agency attorney appearance, or that it is an “in-and-out” order (FL-632 Notice Regarding Payment of Support). If an independent action is filed (FL-645 Notice to Local Child Support Agency of Intent to Take Independent Action to Enforce Support Order), it is still considered a IV-D case. A IV-D case includes a family law case or Uniform Parentage Act (UPA) case in which the local child support agency has intervened. Non-Title IV-D Case: Case in which the local child support agency was not providing IV-D services for current child support at the time the order was entered. 5. New Order or Modification

New Order: The initial order or provision in a judgment for child support (since it could be a default judgment and not the result of a motion). A new order would include any order, including orders at further hearings that were the result of the initial request for child support. There is no motion to modify. The motion is to enter an order. Modification: Any order entered subsequent to the entry of the initial child support order (new order – see above). There should be a motion or a stipulation to modify in the case file. 6. Order Type

Default: No responsive papers filed, and no court appearance by respondent/defendant, and no written stipulation or verbal stipulation taken on record. If the order after hearing has the “Uncontested” box checked off, it should also be categorized under “Default.” It is uncontested if the order after hearing has the “Uncontested” box checked off. Contested: Responsive papers filed and/or court appearance and no written stipulation or verbal stipulation taken on record. The different scenarios are as follows: Responsive papers filed AND court appearance AND no written or verbal stipulation taken on record; Responsive papers filed AND no court appearance AND no written or verbal stipulation taken on record; or No responsive papers filed AND court appearance AND no written or verbal stipulation taken on record. Stipulation: There must be a signed stipulation or order indicating that a stipulation was taken on record.

Page 238: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

215

SECTION II: PARENT INFORMATION

: This refers to the percentage of time used to calculate the order amount.

: Income not based on actual earnings but based upon the court’s determination of a party’s ability to earn. Income may be imputed for either parent.

: No information is available regarding a party’s actual income or income history and the court bases its order on the provision of Family Code section 5002.

: Answer yes only if represented by private counsel. Local child support agency is not representing parent.

: Amount of child support ordered exclusive of additional support as defined in Family Code sections 4061-4062. Any order for $0 or a determination of no ability to pay child support should still be considered a child support order. If there is a “no ability” finding, enter $0. Other terms follow what are in Judicial Council Forms.

Page 239: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

216

Exhibit B-8. Review of Statewide Uniform Child Support Guideline 2010 Case File Review Form

______________________________ ____ / ____ / ________(Must Be Between 1/1/2008 to 12/31/2008)

______________________________

(Check one): Title IV-D Case Non-Title IV-D Case

(Check one): New Order Modification

(Check one): Default Contested Stipulation If order type is Default, is it uncontested? (Check one): Yes No

(Circle one): 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10+

(Y = Yes, N = No, DK = Don’t Know) % %

(Circle one per column) Y N DK Y N DK (Circle one per column) Y N DK Y N DK

(If imputed, enter that amount. If unknown or presumed, enter DK. This is a required field.)

$ ___________

$ ___________

(If imputed, enter that amount. If unknown or presumed, enter DK. This is a required field.)

$ ___________

$ ___________

(Circle Yes or No. If Yes, check the reason for the hardship deduction and provide the amount by reason.) a. Other Minor Children b. Extraordinary Medical Expenses c. Catastrophic Losses d. Reason Not Stated

Y N

a. $ _________ b. $ _________ c. $ _________ d. $ _________

Y N

a. $ _________ b. $ _________ c. $ _________ d. $ _________

(Circle one per column. If Yes, enter number of children considered in the child support being subtracted.)

Y N DK If Yes, # of children = ____

Y N DK If Yes, # of children = ____

(Check one)

Page 240: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

217

(Circle one. To qualify, obligor net monthly income must be $1,000 or less.)

Y N DK Y N DK

(Circle Yes or No. Only complete this for the parent that is the obligor.) If Yes, enter the monthly adjustment amount. If No, was a reason given? (Circle Yes or No)

Y N $ ___________

Y N

Y N $ ___________

Y N

(Circle Yes or No) Y N Y N (Circle Yes or No)

Y N Y N

(Check and complete one. Note: A $0 order is still a child support order and a “no ability” finding equals a $0 child support order.)

$ ________ Per Month If not per month, please specify here: $ ________ Per ________ Reserved

(Check one. This is a required field.) Yes No Don’t Know Specify guideline amount: $ ________ Per ________

(Check one. This is a required field.): Above Guideline Below Guideline

(Check all that apply) (1) Sale of Family Residence is Deferred (2) Extraordinary High Income (3) Parent Not Contributing Commensurate to Custodial Time (4I) Different Time-Sharing Arrangements (4II) Equal Custody, Unequal Housing (4III) Child Has Special Needs Stipulation Unjust or Inappropriate Other (Specify): ___________________________________________ Unstated

Mother Monthly Amount or %

(Circle one: $ or %) Father Monthly Amount or %

(Circle one: $ or %) a. Work- or Education-Related Child Care Costs b. Child’s Uninsured Health Care Costs c. Child’s Education Costs or Special Needs d. Travel Expenses for Visitation e. Other (Specify): ______________________

(Check one) Yes No If Yes, who is ordered to provide it? (Check all that apply) Mother Father Both

Page 241: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

218

(Check one) Yes No If Yes, is it (Check one): 50/50 Pro Rata

Check one) Yes No

Check one) Yes No

No documents on result of calendared child support court event initially sampled (e.g., continuance, off calendar)Parents’ income not specifiedAmount of child support not specified Guideline amount not specified Above or below guideline not specified

Additional Comments/Remarks (Attach additional notes, if needed): Form Completed By: _____________________________________

Page 242: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

219

APPENDIX C

Calculation of State Guideline Comparisons

State guideline amounts for four case examples were calculated for this study. In Case A, the obligor’s income is unknown, the obligee’s income is zero, and there is one child. In this case, the income presumption policy of a state’s guideline is the basis of the obligor’s income. If the state’s guideline (or statute in California) does not specify the amount of income to be presumed, the state’s minimum wage is used. If a state’s guideline does not specify the hours worked in the provision, a 40-hour work week is used. Case B is the same as Case A except for one difference. It assumes that the obligor works 40 hours per week at the current federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. In other words, there is no variation in the obligor’s income among states on account of differences in state provisions for income presumption, state minimum wage, or both. Other assumptions of Case A and Case B are identical; that is, the obligee’s income is zero and there is one child. Case C also assumes that the obligor works full-time at federal minimum wage. However, Case C considers the guideline amount for two children rather than one child, as in Case B. Case D also assumes that the obligor works full-time at federal minimum wage. Case D considers the guideline amount for five children.

Page 243: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

220

Exhibit C-1. Assumptions and Sources Used to Calculate State Guideline Amounts

Internet Address of Guideline Calculator or Guideline

Automated or Manual Calculation

Monthly Income Used in Case A

Other Assumptions

AL /www.alacourt.gov/pdfppt/rule32.2009.pdf Manual

$1,256 gross (full-time, federal min. wage)

AK https://webapp.state.ak.us/cssd/guidelinecalc.jsp Automated

$1,342 gross (full-time, state min. wage of $7.75/hr)

No income from the Alaska Permanent Dividend Fund; annualize income

AZ http://supreme.state.az.us/childsup/pdf/arizsup22.pdf Automated

$1,256 gross (full-time, federal min. wage)

Mark mother as custodial parent; 0 children age 12 or over; adjustment percent is 0

AR http://courts.state.ar.us/pdf/child_monthly20070614.pdf Manual

$1,097 net (full-time, federal min. wage after taxes)

CA https://www.cse.ca.gov/ChildSupport/cse/guidelineCalculator

Automated$1,386 net (full-time, state min. wage of $8.00/hr)

0 timesharing

CO www.courts.state.co.us/Forms/Excel/childsupportworksheets1.xls

Automated$1,256 gross (full-time, federal min. wage)

CT www.alllaw.com/calculators/Childsupport/connecticut/ Automated

$1,429 net (full-time, state min. wage of $8.25/hr)

DC http://csgc.oag.dc.gov/application/main/Custody.aspx Automated

$1,429 gross (full-time, state min. wage of $8.25/hr)

Sole custody; mother custodial parent; annualize income

DEhttp://courts.delaware.gov/support%20calculator/page.asp?Submit=Continue

Automated$1,256 gross (full-time, federal min. wage)

Calculator automaticallyconverts to net income

FL www.alllaw.com/calculators/Childsupport/Florida/ Automated

$1,097 net (full-time, federal min. wage after taxes)

GAhttps://cscalc.gaaoc.us/CSCDownloadableFiles/Child_Support_Worksheet_and_Schedules.xls

Automated$1,256 gross (full-time, federal min. wage)

Use CS Worksheet Tab

HI http://hawaii.gov/jud/Oahu/Family/CSG701.xls Automated

$1,256 gross (30-hour work week, federal min. wage)

Mom is custodial parent; child-care costs and health insurance for children set at 0; calculator automaticallyconverts to net income

ID www.isc.idaho.gov/rules/icsg Manual $1,256 gross (full-

Page 244: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

221

08.pdf time, federal min. wage)

IL www.ilchildsupport.com/calculating.html Manual

$1,386 net (full-time, state min. wage of $8.00/hr)

IN https://mycourts.in.gov/csc/parents/Default.aspx Automated

$1,256 gross (full-time, federal min. wage)

Make up any date of birth for children (under age 12); “no” adjustments; father 0–51 overnights, mother 184+[days?];weekly income

IA https://secureapp.dhs.state.ia.us/estimator/estimator.aspx Automated

$1,256 gross (full-time, federal min. wage)

Calculator automaticallyconverts to net income

KSwww.kscourts.org/Rules-procedures-forms/Child-support-guidelines/2010-Guidelines-Final.pdf

Manual $1,256 gross (full-time, federal min. wage)

KY

Worksheet found at: http://chfs.ky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/B369CDE7-C463-425C-B257-BF78E954EBB6/0/CS71REVISED.doc Guidelines table at:http://chfs.ky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/EDFA712A-D535-4368-B61B-D9B9F12F1F5B/0/GuidelinesTable.doc

Manual $1,256 gross (full-time, federal min. wage)

LA

Worksheet found at:www.dss.state.la.us/assets/docs/searchable/OFS/Overview/SES/Ses_OBL_A_330.PDF Schedule found at:www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=107384

Manual $1,256 gross (full-time, federal min. wage)

MEhttps://lawhelpinteractive.org/login_form?template_id=template.2009-01-02.1198670084

Automated$1,299 gross (full-time, federal min. wage)

Make up any date of birth for children (under age 12); “no” adjustments; neither provide health insurance; annualize income

MD

Worksheet found at:www.dhr.state.md.us/csea/download/worksheet_a.pdf Schedule found at:www.dhr.state.md.us/csea/help.htm

Manual $1,256 gross (full-time, federal min. wage)

MA www.dor.state.ma.us/apps/w Automatic $1,387 gross (full- Weekly income

Page 245: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

222

orksheets/cse/guidelines-short.asp

time, federal min. wage)

MI www.courts.mi.gov/scao/services/focb/mcsf.htm Manual

$1,282 net (full-time, state min. wage of $7.40/hr)

Weekly income

MNhttp://childsupportcalculator.dhs.state.mn.us/Calculator.aspx

Automatic

$1,884 gross (full-time, 150% of state min. wage of $7.25/hr)

MS www.mdhs.state.ms.us/csemdhs.html Manual

$1,256 gross (full-time, federal min. wage)

MOwww.co.st-louis.mo.us/circuitcourt/fcforms/form14-2005slco.pdf

Automatic$1,256 gross (full-time, federal min. wage)

Make up any date of birth for children (under age 12)

MT

Worksheet found at: www.dphhs.mt.gov/csed/packet/guidelines.pdf Tables found at: www.dphhs.mt.gov/csed/packet/guidelinestables2009.pdf

Manual $1,097 net (full-time, federal min. wage after taxes)

NE

Worksheet found at:www.supremecourt.ne.gov/forms/worksheet1.pdf Tables found at:www.supremecourt.ne.gov/forms/childsup-table.pdf

Manual $1,097 net (full-time, federal min. wage after taxes)

NV http://leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-125B.html Manual

$1,308 gross (full-time, state min. wage of $7.55/hr)

NH www4.egov.nh.gov/DHHS_calculator/calc_form.asp Automatic

$1,256 gross (full-time, federal min. wage)

NJ

Worksheet found at:www.judiciary.state.nj.us/csguide/ix-c.pdf Schedule found at:www.judiciary.state.nj.us/csguide/app9f.pdf

Manual $1,097 net (full-time, federal min. wage after taxes)

Weekly income

NM www.hsd.state.nm.us/csed/guidelines.html Manual

$1,299 gross (full-time, state min. wage of $7.50/hr)

NYwww.nyc.gov/html/hra/html/directory/child_support_calculator.shtml

Automatic$1,256 gross (full-time, federal min. wage)

Annualize income

NC https://nddhacts01.dhhs.state.nc.us/WorkACalcSoleCustody.jsp

Automatic$1,256 gross (full-time, federal min. wage)

ND www.ndcourts.com/chldspt/CSCalculator.aspx Automatic

$1,256 gross (full-time, federal min. wage)

Standardcalculation; annualize income; “no” imputed income or add-ons, “no” to other

Page 246: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

223

options; calculator automaticallyconverts to net income

OHwww.co.franklin.oh.us/commissioners/csea/pdf/CSX2-10.pdf

Manual $1,264 gross (full-time, state min. wage of $7.30/hr)

Annualize income

OKwww.okdhs.org/programsandservices/ocss/docs/computation.htm

Automatic$1,256 gross (full-time, federal min. wage)

OR https://justice.oregon.gov/guidelines/ Automatic

$1,455 gross (full-time, state min. wage of $8.40/hr)

Father has less parenting time

PA

www.humanservices.state.pa.us/CSWS/CSWS_controller.aspx?SelectionIdBottom=7&PageId=CSWS/support_estimator_entry_form.ascx

Automatic$1,256 gross (full-time, federal min. wage)

Calculator automaticallyconverts to net income

RI www.cse.ri.gov/downloads/admin_order2007_03.pdf Manual

$1,282 gross (full-time, state min. wage of $7.40/hr)

SC www.state.sc.us/dss/csed/calculator.htm Automatic

$1,256 gross (full-time, federal min. wage) Mother has custody

SDwww.state.sd.us/applications/SS17PC02CAL/SupportCalc1.asp

Automatic$1,256 gross (full-time, federal min. wage)

Calculator automaticallyconverts to net income

TN

http://tennessee.gov/humanserv/is/Documents/1240-02-04.pdf Can download calculator at:www.state.tn.us/humanserv/is/isdownloads.html

Manual or automatic

$3,132 gross (median annual earnings of $37,589)

TXwww.co.travis.tx.us/records_communication/law_library/pdfs/calculator.pdf

Automatic$1,097 net (full-time, federal min. wage after taxes)

UT www.utcourts.gov/childsupport/calculator?func=sole_custody&is_modify=no&order_date=1/1/2009

Automatic$1,256 gross (full-time, federal min. wage)

VT

http://dcf.vermont.gov/sites/dcf/files/pdf/ocs/GuidelinesSoleandSplit.pdf Can download calculator at: http://dcf.vermont.gov/ocs/parents/guidelines_calculator

Manual or automatic

$3,138 gross (150% of the state’s average wage as of Feb. 2009)

Calculator automaticallyconverts to net income

VA www.dss.virginia.gov/family/dcse_calc.cgi Automatic

$1,256 gross (full-time, federal min. wage)

WA www.courts.wa.gov/ssgen/ Automatic$1,481 gross (full-time, state min. wage of $8.55/hr)

Proceed to old version; use child’s age under 12; “w/ mother”; calculator

Page 247: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

224

automaticallyconverts to net income

WV www.legis.state.wv.us/WVCODE/code.cfm?chap=48&art=13

Manual $1,256 gross (full-time, federal min. wage)

WI http://dcf.wisconsin.gov/bcs/pdf/basic_guideline_table.pdf Manual

$1,099 gross (35-hour work week, state min. wage of $7.25/hr)

WY http://legisweb.state.wy.us/statutes/titles/Title20/T20CH2AR3.htm

Manual $1,097 net (full-time, federal min. wage after taxes)

Page 248: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

APP

EN

DIX

D

Rev

iew

of S

tate

wid

e U

nifo

rm C

hild

Sup

port

Gui

delin

e A

ll co

mm

ents

are

ver

batim

unl

ess i

ndic

ated

by

an e

llips

is (…

).

22

5

Ref

eren

ces t

o in

divi

dual

s’ n

ames

and

issu

es n

ot re

latin

g to

com

men

tary

on

the

child

supp

ort g

uide

lines

hav

e be

en e

dite

d as

alle

gatio

ns re

gard

ing

indi

vidu

al c

ase

proc

essi

ng a

re

beyo

nd th

e sc

ope

of th

is st

udy.

C

omm

enta

tor

Com

men

ts

1.

Law

Off

ices

of A

aron

O. A

ngui

ano

Aar

on O

. Ang

uian

o A

ttorn

ey

I am

not

cle

ar if

the

calc

ulat

ion

of th

e ha

rdsh

ip e

xem

ptio

n fa

ctor

is 1

whe

n on

e pa

rent

is su

ppor

ting

the

child

alo

ne

or 1

whe

n bo

th p

aren

ts a

re su

ppor

ting

the

child

toge

ther

bec

ause

som

e at

torn

eys a

nd ju

dges

say

that

a p

aren

t is o

nly

entit

led

to o

ne-h

alf o

f the

har

dshi

p ex

empt

ion

if th

e ot

her p

aren

t of t

he c

hild

subj

ect t

o th

e ha

rdsh

ip e

xem

ptio

n is

al

so c

ontri

butin

g to

the

supp

ort o

f sai

d ch

ild. W

e ne

ed to

be

educ

ated

in th

is is

sue.

Tha

nks.

2.

C

alifo

rnia

Alli

ance

for F

amili

es a

nd

Chi

ldre

n Pa

ul S

troub

Ex

ecut

ive

Dire

ctor

Dea

r Sirs

and

Mad

ams:

C

alifo

rnia

Alli

ance

for F

amili

es a

nd C

hild

ren

agre

es th

at it

is v

ital t

hat c

hild

ren

need

to b

e su

ppor

ted

emot

iona

lly

and

finan

cial

ly b

y bo

th p

aren

ts a

fter a

div

orce

or s

epar

atio

n. W

e be

lieve

that

Cal

iforn

ia’s

chi

ld su

ppor

t gui

delin

es

shou

ld b

e re

ason

able

and

fair

to a

ll in

volv

ed p

artie

s. W

e al

so b

elie

ve a

fina

ncia

lly fa

ir gu

idel

ine

is a

n im

porta

nt

aspe

ct to

redu

cing

con

flict

at a

ll st

ages

of t

he c

hild

’s y

outh

unt

il th

e ch

ild re

ache

s an

age

of m

ajor

ity. F

airn

ess

wou

ld h

elp

redu

ce m

otiv

atio

n fo

r a tu

g of

war

bet

wee

n th

e pa

rent

s for

cus

todi

al c

ontro

l. Th

is is

a fa

ctor

that

we

belie

ve is

on

both

side

s of t

he p

aren

tal d

isag

reem

ent.

D

urin

g th

e re

view

of t

he S

tate

wid

e U

nifo

rm C

hild

Sup

port

Gui

delin

e fo

r 201

0, th

ere

was

no

men

tion

of th

e in

equi

ties t

hat a

re p

rodu

ced

by so

me

of th

e m

echa

nica

l app

licat

ions

of t

he g

uide

line

form

ula

due

to m

athe

mat

ical

er

rors

in th

e as

sum

ptio

ns fo

r thi

s mod

el.

Prin

cipa

lly, t

he si

gnifi

cant

err

or th

at is

cre

ated

is th

at a

ll ch

ild c

osts

are

ass

umed

to b

e di

rect

ly re

late

d to

the

time

spen

t with

the

resp

ectiv

e pa

rent

. Thi

s is a

faul

ty a

pplic

atio

n of

the

econ

omic

s of t

he re

spec

tive

hous

ehol

d’s

situ

atio

n an

d is

igno

red

in th

e gu

idel

ine

form

ula

and

law

. The

err

or th

at w

e ar

e ex

pres

sing

is re

late

d to

cos

ts th

at d

o no

t cha

nge

in re

spec

t to

the

time

shar

e. T

hese

cos

ts w

ould

be

cons

ider

ed fi

xed

cost

s to

an a

ccou

ntan

t suc

h as

this

au

thor

. The

gui

delin

e as

sum

es th

at a

ll co

sts w

ill in

crea

se o

n a

rela

tive

basi

s if t

he c

hild

spen

ds m

ore

time

at a

ho

useh

old

and

less

at t

he o

ther

par

ent’s

hou

seho

ld.

This

err

or is

larg

e in

that

a si

gnifi

cant

par

t of t

he u

nder

lyin

g ec

onom

ic c

osts

of r

aisi

ng a

chi

ld w

ill n

ot v

ary

sign

ifica

ntly

if th

ere

is a

ny a

mou

nt o

f sha

red

cust

ody

abov

e a

toke

n le

vel.

The

amou

nt o

f the

err

or is

mat

eria

l for

m

ost p

ract

ical

leve

ls o

f cus

todi

al re

latio

nshi

p w

here

bot

h pa

rent

s are

invo

lved

. The

sour

ces o

f the

err

or a

re fo

und

in

the

com

pone

nts t

hat d

o no

t cha

nge.

The

bel

ow ta

ble

sum

mar

izes

the

maj

or c

ompo

nent

s of a

chi

ld’s

fina

ncia

l nee

d an

d pr

ovid

es a

hyp

othe

tical

col

umn

of e

stim

ated

% fo

r illu

stra

tion

purp

oses

. Fi

nanc

ial E

lem

ent

V

aria

ble

%

Food

ye

s 18

C

loth

ing

yes

14

Oth

er P

erso

nal

yes

20

Page 249: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

APP

EN

DIX

D

Rev

iew

of S

tate

wid

e U

nifo

rm C

hild

Sup

port

Gui

delin

e A

ll co

mm

ents

are

ver

batim

unl

ess i

ndic

ated

by

an e

llips

is (…

).

22

6

Ref

eren

ces t

o in

divi

dual

s’ n

ames

and

issu

es n

ot re

latin

g to

com

men

tary

on

the

child

supp

ort g

uide

lines

hav

e be

en e

dite

d as

alle

gatio

ns re

gard

ing

indi

vidu

al c

ase

proc

essi

ng a

re

beyo

nd th

e sc

ope

of th

is st

udy.

C

omm

enta

tor

Com

men

ts

Tran

spor

tatio

n pa

rtial

17

Sh

elte

r no

31

Th

e er

ror r

elat

es to

the

com

pone

nts s

uch

as sh

elte

r, w

hich

wou

ld n

ot v

ary

very

muc

h w

ith d

iffer

ent l

evel

s of a

cu

stod

y ar

rang

emen

t whe

n bo

th p

aren

ts a

re in

volv

ed. W

hen

ther

e ar

e sh

ared

cus

tody

arr

ange

men

ts in

volv

ing

the

typi

cal l

evel

20%

-30%

, the

err

or ti

ed to

the

mat

hem

atic

al m

isap

plic

atio

n is

mos

t pro

noun

ced.

In th

e ‘n

on-c

usto

dial

’ 20

% ti

mes

hare

situ

atio

n, th

e N

CP

wou

ld b

e re

quire

d to

hav

e a

room

and

ded

icat

ion

hous

e re

sour

ces i

n or

der t

o m

aint

ain

his/

her r

elat

ions

hip.

Mos

t lik

ely,

this

wou

ld n

eces

sita

te th

e ex

pens

e of

pay

ing

for a

room

(hav

e la

rger

ho

me

or a

partm

ent)

for e

ach

of h

is/h

er c

hild

ren

whi

le th

ey a

re w

ith th

e N

CP.

Thi

s exp

ense

doe

s not

go

away

whe

n th

e ch

ild is

with

the

prim

ary

pare

nt. T

he c

osts

for t

hese

fixe

d co

sts a

re th

e sa

me

or si

mila

r for

the

NC

P if

the

child

is

with

him

20%

, 30%

, or e

ven

80%

of t

he ti

me

if th

e si

tuat

ion

was

reve

rsed

. Th

e fo

rmul

a us

ed in

the

guid

elin

e is

flaw

ed in

that

it a

ssig

ns a

tota

l (as

sum

ptiv

e) c

ost o

f hou

sing

for t

he p

aren

ts a

nd

allo

cate

s the

tota

l cos

t for

the

fixed

hou

sing

cos

ts c

ost r

elat

ive

to th

e in

com

e of

the

resp

ectiv

e pa

rent

and

then

al

loca

tes a

tim

e sh

are

allo

catio

n fo

r the

NC

P to

reim

burs

e th

e Pr

imar

y cu

stod

ial p

aren

t (C

P) fo

r the

tota

l cos

t for

th

e fix

ed h

ousi

ng c

osts

. Thi

s fla

wed

allo

catio

n ig

nore

s tha

t the

NC

P is

alre

ady

dire

ctly

pay

ing

“mos

t lik

ely”

an

assu

mpt

ive

50%

of t

he to

tal c

osts

for h

ousi

ng a

nd th

e N

CP

is a

lso

dire

ctly

pay

ing

a si

mila

r ass

umpt

ive

amou

nt 5

0%

of th

e to

tal c

osts

of h

ousi

ng. T

he c

ompo

nent

of t

he c

hild

supp

ort r

elat

ed to

hou

sing

wou

ld a

ttem

pt to

hav

e th

e N

CP

reim

burs

ing

the

CP

for a

pot

ion

of so

met

hing

he

is a

lread

y pa

ying

for h

imse

lf di

rect

ly. T

he a

mou

nt th

e N

CP

wou

ld

ther

efor

e pa

y fo

r hou

sing

for t

he c

hild

in b

oth

hous

ehol

d is

then

out

of p

ropo

rtion

to th

e re

lativ

e in

com

e he

/she

has

in

resp

ect t

o th

e C

P an

d er

ror i

s lea

st p

rono

unce

d at

the

need

s of t

he sp

ectru

m (0

% ti

mes

hare

and

50%

tim

esha

re.).

In

oth

er a

reas

and

hig

hlig

hted

in th

e re

port,

the

K fa

ctor

is h

igh.

We

can

add

that

this

enh

ance

men

t was

wro

ngly

en

hanc

ed w

ith th

e ra

tiona

lizat

ion

it is

nec

essa

ry a

nd a

ccep

tabl

e be

caus

e of

the

“hig

h co

st o

f liv

ing

in C

alifo

rnia

.”

The

fact

or in

corr

ectly

enh

ance

s a p

erce

ntag

e of

inco

me

to a

lloca

te to

chi

ld c

osts

. How

ever

, thi

s is a

mis

nom

er in

th

at th

e K

fact

or is

not

nee

ding

an

adju

stm

ent b

ecau

se th

e av

erag

e in

com

e of

Cal

iforn

ia re

side

nts i

s als

o hi

gher

be

caus

e of

the

sam

e fa

ctor

to h

elp

com

pens

ate

for t

he h

ighe

r cos

t of l

ivin

g an

d th

e hi

gher

nom

inal

dol

lars

nee

ded

for c

hild

cos

ts a

re a

lread

y re

flect

ed in

the

high

er a

vera

ge in

com

e of

Cal

iforn

ia re

side

nts.

W

e ar

e re

spec

tfully

subm

ittin

g th

is fo

r rev

iew

and

are

ava

ilabl

e fo

r det

ail e

xpla

natio

n or

furth

er in

vest

igat

ion

for

the

conc

epts

that

are

bei

ng in

trodu

ced.

3.

C

alifo

rnia

Coa

litio

n fo

r Fam

ilies

and

C

hild

ren/

CC

FC- A

Non

Pro

fit

Org

aniz

atio

n

Atta

ched

is a

cop

y an

d pa

ste

of w

hat w

as p

oste

d on

thec

pulic

ccou

rt.co

m "

com

men

ts"

B

elow

is th

e on

goin

g re

sear

ch fi

ndin

gs b

eing

con

duct

ed w

hile

col

lect

ing

stor

ies f

rom

hun

dred

s of m

any

of S

an

Page 250: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

APP

EN

DIX

D

Rev

iew

of S

tate

wid

e U

nifo

rm C

hild

Sup

port

Gui

delin

e A

ll co

mm

ents

are

ver

batim

unl

ess i

ndic

ated

by

an e

llips

is (…

).

22

7

Ref

eren

ces t

o in

divi

dual

s’ n

ames

and

issu

es n

ot re

latin

g to

com

men

tary

on

the

child

supp

ort g

uide

lines

hav

e be

en e

dite

d as

alle

gatio

ns re

gard

ing

indi

vidu

al c

ase

proc

essi

ng a

re

beyo

nd th

e sc

ope

of th

is st

udy.

C

omm

enta

tor

Com

men

ts

Emad

Tad

ros M

D a

nd C

CFC

Die

go P

aren

ts w

ho a

re v

ictim

ized

by

the

so-c

alle

d “F

amily

Cou

rt D

ism

antle

rs”:

A

s lon

g as

: A

. 50/

50 c

usto

dy “

BY

DEF

AU

LT”

does

NO

T ex

ist a

long

with

chi

ld su

ppor

t, B

. chi

ld su

ppor

t is b

eing

bas

ed u

pon

pare

nts’

inco

me

and

not n

eces

saril

y th

e ch

ild’s

act

ual n

eeds

, the

mon

ey

chur

ning

mac

hine

ripp

ing

off f

amili

es, r

un b

y th

e C

ourt

Fam

ily D

ism

antle

rs, w

ill o

nly

have

an

ince

ntiv

e to

kee

p pu

shin

g pa

rent

s int

o th

e rin

g, fi

erce

ly fi

ghtin

g ea

ch o

ther

long

er a

nd h

arde

r.

HO

W?

Wha

t hap

pens

whe

n it

is N

OT

50/5

0 ph

ysic

al C

usto

dy:

1 - O

ne s

cena

rio, w

here

a lo

wer

per

cent

age

pare

nt (u

sual

ly th

e on

e w

ho is

the

cash

cow

) let

us s

ay 3

0% o

r so,

will

A

LWA

YS

be a

nxio

usly

pro

mpt

ed b

y hi

s/he

r atto

rney

to o

nly

keep

pay

ing

the

Fam

ily D

ism

antle

rs fo

r “H

ire”

to

thei

r CO

UR

T O

RD

ERED

SER

VIC

ES to

see

his/

her k

ids,

hopi

ng fo

r hig

her p

erce

ntag

e ov

er ti

me.

O

nce

5% h

ighe

r Phy

sica

l cus

tody

, i.e

. as l

ittle

as 3

5% is

ach

ieve

d, th

e br

ibin

g pa

rent

(to

the

dism

antle

rs),

obvi

ousl

y w

ill st

art p

ayin

g le

ss c

hild

supp

ort t

o th

e ot

her p

aren

t! A

ny su

ch in

crea

se (f

rom

5-5

0%) i

s hig

hly

depe

nden

t upo

n m

oney

pai

d (b

ribed

by

that

par

ent)

and

mon

ey st

ill v

isib

le to

the

Fam

ily C

ourt

Dis

man

tlers

to g

rab.

The

D

ism

antle

rs’ r

epor

t will

be

fabr

icat

ed a

nd fi

led

with

the

cour

t, ac

cord

ingl

y.

Imag

ine

such

a ri

ch p

aren

t pay

ing

$50,

000.

Wou

ld th

at p

aren

t get

a 5

0% in

crea

se in

Phy

sica

l Cus

tody

? D

oes a

nyon

e kn

ow if

ther

e is

a $

$$ S

ervi

ce M

enu

(fee

s/br

ibes

) to

adju

st th

e ph

ysic

al c

usto

dy?

Wou

ld th

at ta

ke u

s to

squa

re o

ne a

s to

why

ther

e is

nev

er 5

0/50

cus

tody

by

defa

ult,

exce

pt fo

r poo

r par

ents

, whe

re

this

bec

omes

an

alm

ost a

utom

atic

pro

cedu

re?

2- T

he p

aren

t who

has

a h

ighe

r cus

tody

of 7

0% is

war

ned

by h

is/h

er a

ttorn

ey (w

ho h

ave

been

kee

ping

qui

et si

nce

2001

, aid

ing

and

abet

ting

CA

Cou

rt R

ule

Vio

latio

ns a

nd a

llow

ing

the

dism

antle

rs to

com

mit

perju

ry in

day

-ligh

t).

They

subt

ly k

eep

that

par

ent i

n fe

ar th

at h

e/sh

e w

ill h

ave

to p

ay th

em m

ore

fees

to k

eep

the

supp

ort c

omin

g at

70%

an

d no

t any

less

$$$.

Tha

t par

ent a

lso

sens

es th

e su

btle

thre

at c

omin

g fr

om th

e di

sman

tlers

for l

ikel

y le

ss c

usto

dy,

Page 251: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

APP

EN

DIX

D

Rev

iew

of S

tate

wid

e U

nifo

rm C

hild

Sup

port

Gui

delin

e A

ll co

mm

ents

are

ver

batim

unl

ess i

ndic

ated

by

an e

llips

is (…

).

22

8

Ref

eren

ces t

o in

divi

dual

s’ n

ames

and

issu

es n

ot re

latin

g to

com

men

tary

on

the

child

supp

ort g

uide

lines

hav

e be

en e

dite

d as

alle

gatio

ns re

gard

ing

indi

vidu

al c

ase

proc

essi

ng a

re

beyo

nd th

e sc

ope

of th

is st

udy.

C

omm

enta

tor

Com

men

ts

so th

ey o

nly

keep

pay

ing

both

the

atto

rney

and

the

dism

antle

rs to

kee

p cu

stod

y at

70%

(bec

ause

ther

e is

no

such

50

/50

by d

efau

lt). T

his w

ay, t

he k

ids’

col

lege

fund

s onl

y co

ntin

ue to

chu

rn to

the

Dis

man

tlers

and

Atto

rney

s on

both

side

s.

3 - A

s a re

sult

of su

ch a

firm

“ho

llyw

ood-

stan

ce”

orch

estra

ted

by th

e D

ism

antle

rs a

nd a

ttorn

eys i

n ac

tion

on b

oth

side

s, an

d su

cces

sful

ly te

arin

g ap

art b

oth

pare

nts,

the

next

mov

e is

to st

art a

ccus

atio

ns, f

urth

er b

reak

ing

dow

n bo

th

pare

nts!

Su

rely

and

gra

dual

ly, b

oth

pare

nts w

hile

losi

ng th

eir s

hirts

to th

e D

ism

antle

rs a

nd A

ttorn

eys,

will

onl

y fin

d th

emse

lves

figh

ting

each

oth

er fo

r yea

rs, t

o be

abl

e to

see

thei

r kid

s!

Wha

t a R

acke

t?

Who

els

e ge

ts in

dire

ct fi

nanc

ial s

uppo

rt fo

r thi

s beh

avio

r?

Why

do

the

judg

es n

ot le

gally

repo

rt el

ectio

n ca

mpa

ign

fund

s?

The

end

resu

lt is

Mom

and

Dad

are

bot

h fig

htin

g re

al g

ood

utili

zing

bot

h at

torn

eys,

with

the

Atto

rney

s giv

ing

you

the

inte

llige

nt im

pres

sion

that

they

are

on

your

side

and

you

are

a w

inne

r —pa

y th

is to

get

this

muc

h pe

rcen

tage

hi

gher

, pay

that

to g

et th

at, e

tc. W

h en

in fa

ct th

e D

ism

antle

rs in

clud

ing

Atto

rney

s, Ev

alua

tors

, The

rapi

sts,

and

Med

iato

rs a

re O

NLY

cas

hing

out

the

kids

’ col

lege

fund

s with

not

hing

left

for t

he k

ids.

Wak

e up

par

ents

……

…Pa

rent

s, pl

ease

list

en to

oth

er p

aren

ts in

the

know

, and

do

not b

elie

ve o

ne io

ta o

f wha

t you

are

bei

ng to

ld b

y yo

ur

atto

rney

s who

kee

p pr

omot

ing

and

supp

ortin

g th

e D

ism

antle

rs.

4.

Chi

ld S

uppo

rt D

irect

ors A

ssoc

iatio

n (C

SDA

) of C

alifo

rnia

Th

ese

com

men

ts a

re su

bmitt

ed b

y th

e C

alifo

rnia

Chi

ld S

uppo

rt D

irect

ors A

ssoc

iatio

n (C

SDA\

). C

SDA

repr

esen

ts

the

51 st

atut

orily

cre

ated

cou

nty

or re

gion

al lo

cal c

hild

supp

ort a

genc

ies i

n Ca

lifor

nia.

The

se a

genc

ies e

mpl

oy o

ver

8,00

0 ch

ild su

ppor

t pro

fess

iona

ls w

ho m

anag

e ap

prox

imat

ely

1.6

mill

ion

child

supp

ort c

ases

and

serv

e th

e in

tere

sts

of o

ver 1

.8 m

illio

n ch

ildre

n. T

hus,

the

loca

l chi

ld su

ppor

t age

ncie

s are

uni

quel

y qu

alifi

ed to

eva

luat

e an

d co

mm

ent

upon

the

revi

ew o

f the

chi

ld su

ppor

t gui

delin

es.

EXEC

UTI

VE

SUM

MA

RY

Page 252: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

APP

EN

DIX

D

Rev

iew

of S

tate

wid

e U

nifo

rm C

hild

Sup

port

Gui

delin

e A

ll co

mm

ents

are

ver

batim

unl

ess i

ndic

ated

by

an e

llips

is (…

).

22

9

Ref

eren

ces t

o in

divi

dual

s’ n

ames

and

issu

es n

ot re

latin

g to

com

men

tary

on

the

child

supp

ort g

uide

lines

hav

e be

en e

dite

d as

alle

gatio

ns re

gard

ing

indi

vidu

al c

ase

proc

essi

ng a

re

beyo

nd th

e sc

ope

of th

is st

udy.

C

omm

enta

tor

Com

men

ts

In 2

009

the

Lega

l Pra

ctic

es C

omm

ittee

of t

he C

hild

Sup

port

Dire

ctor

s Ass

ocia

tion

revi

ewed

exi

stin

g is

sues

co

ncer

ning

the

Cal

iforn

ia C

hild

Sup

port

Gui

delin

es. B

ased

on

the

findi

ngs o

f tha

t com

mitt

ee, p

ropo

sals

for

mod

ifica

tions

of t

he g

uide

lines

wer

e su

bmitt

ed b

y th

e C

hild

Sup

port

Dire

ctor

s Ass

ocia

tion

to th

e co

nsul

tant

s ch

arge

d w

ith th

e re

view

of C

alifo

rnia

's un

iform

chi

ld su

ppor

t gui

delin

es. S

ee su

mm

ary

of th

is st

udy

belo

w:

Bac

kgro

und:

Chi

ld S

uppo

rt D

irect

ors A

ssoc

iatio

n St

udy

of C

alifo

rnia

Chi

ld S

uppo

rt G

uide

lines

. Upo

n re

ceip

t of

the

Invi

tatio

n to

Com

men

t on

the

2010

Chi

ld S

uppo

rt G

uide

line

Stud

y, C

SDA

ana

lyze

d th

e fin

ding

s and

re

com

men

datio

ns, a

nd m

akes

the

follo

win

g co

mm

ents

ther

eon:

Re

com

men

datio

n I:

Upd

ate

and/

or m

odify

the

low

-inco

me

adju

stm

ent i

n th

e gu

idel

ine.

C

SDA

stro

ngly

supp

orts

this

reco

mm

enda

tion.

CSD

A a

gree

s tha

t the

low

inco

me

thre

shol

d sh

ould

be

adju

sted

to

prov

ide

the

oblig

or w

ith a

subs

iste

nce

allo

wan

ce a

nd to

low

er th

e pe

rcen

tage

of a

n ob

ligor

's in

com

e al

lotte

d to

ch

ild su

ppor

t, an

d th

at th

e co

urt s

houl

d re

tain

the

disc

retio

n to

dev

iate

from

the

guid

elin

e in

an

appr

opria

te e

ase.

Th

e C

alifo

rnia

Aut

omat

ed C

hild

Sup

port

Enfo

rcem

ent S

yste

m (C

SE),

whi

ch is

the

stat

ewid

e da

ta m

anag

emen

t sy

stem

use

d by

the

Cal

iforn

ia C

hild

Sup

port

Prog

ram

, hou

ses d

ata

that

can

show

how

ord

ers o

btai

ned

at a

spec

ific

inco

me

leve

l per

form

s. C

SDA

will

hav

e ac

cess

to th

is d

ata

for a

naly

sis i

n th

e ne

ar fu

ture

. A re

view

of t

his d

ata

w

ill b

e he

lpfu

l in

cons

ider

ing

how

the

guid

elin

e sh

ould

be

adju

sted

for l

ow in

com

e ob

ligor

s. Re

com

men

datio

n 2:

Eva

luat

e th

e cu

rren

t inc

ome

attri

butio

n po

licie

s. C

SDA

stro

ngly

supp

orts

this

reco

mm

enda

tion.

In a

dditi

on, C

SDA

bel

ieve

s tha

t a re

visi

on o

r the

pre

sum

ed in

com

e st

atut

e (F

amily

Cod

e se

ctio

n I 7

400(

d)(2

» is

nee

ded

as p

art o

f the

Gui

delin

e re

view

, and

has

mad

e a

prop

osal

lo r

such

a re

visi

on. S

ee A

ppen

dix

A a

nd a

ttach

men

ts.

Reco

mm

enda

tion

3: E

duca

te st

akeh

olde

rs a

nd e

quip

them

with

info

rmat

ion

so th

ey c

an m

ake

the

curr

ent s

yste

m

wor

k be

tter.

In a

dditi

on, d

evel

op st

rate

gies

to e

ngag

e sta

keho

lder

s and

enc

oura

ge th

eir a

ctiv

e pa

rtic

ipat

ion

in th

e ch

ild su

ppor

t pro

cess

. C

SDA

supp

orts

this

reco

mm

enda

tion

and

prop

oses

that

loca

l chi

ld su

ppor

t age

ncie

s be

incl

uded

in a

ny a

nd a

ll di

scus

sion

s tha

t are

off

ered

to a

ll ot

her s

take

hold

ers f

or p

urpo

ses o

f add

ress

ing

the

revi

ew o

f Sta

tew

ide

Uni

form

C

hild

Sup

port

Gui

delin

es a

nd a

ny re

sulti

ng p

ropo

sed

legi

slat

ion

or o

utco

me.

CSD

A a

lso

prop

oses

that

lang

uage

in

this

reco

mm

enda

tion

iden

tify

the

loca

l chi

ld su

ppor

t age

ncie

s as a

key

stak

ehol

der w

ith a

voi

ce th

roug

h th

e re

mai

nder

of r

evie

w p

roce

ss.

Page 253: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

APP

EN

DIX

D

Rev

iew

of S

tate

wid

e U

nifo

rm C

hild

Sup

port

Gui

delin

e A

ll co

mm

ents

are

ver

batim

unl

ess i

ndic

ated

by

an e

llips

is (…

).

23

0

Ref

eren

ces t

o in

divi

dual

s’ n

ames

and

issu

es n

ot re

latin

g to

com

men

tary

on

the

child

supp

ort g

uide

lines

hav

e be

en e

dite

d as

alle

gatio

ns re

gard

ing

indi

vidu

al c

ase

proc

essi

ng a

re

beyo

nd th

e sc

ope

of th

is st

udy.

C

omm

enta

tor

Com

men

ts

Reco

mm

enda

tion

4: A

dopt

any

nec

essa

ry c

onfo

rmin

g ch

ange

s so

that

Cal

iforn

ia c

an m

eet t

he 2

008

fede

ral m

edic

al

supp

ort r

ules

that

are

cur

rent

ly in

effe

ct, b

ut a

lso

reco

gniz

e th

at 2

010

natio

nal h

ealth

refo

rm m

ay p

rodu

ce c

hang

es

to th

e fe

dera

l rul

es in

the

futu

re a

s wel

l as c

hang

es in

how

stat

es a

ppro

ach

med

ical

supp

ort.

C

SDA

reco

gniz

es th

at m

u ch

is u

nkno

wn

rega

rdin

g th

e ch

ange

s whi

ch th

e he

alth

car

e re

form

brin

gs. H

owev

er, w

ith

the

pass

age

of S

B 5

80 (S

tatu

tes 2

01 0

, cha

pter

103

), th

e is

sues

of "

reas

onab

le c

ost"

and

"rea

sona

ble

acce

ss"

are

adeq

uate

ly h

andl

ed a

t thi

s lim

e. C

SDA

sugg

ests

that

stat

e an

d lo

cal r

esou

rces

requ

ired

to d

evel

op a

nd im

plem

ent

new

or a

men

ded

stat

utes

rega

rdin

g m

edic

al su

ppor

t now

, whe

n ch

ange

s to

the

unde

rlyin

g fe

dera

l rul

es a

ppea

r in

evita

ble,

cou

ld b

e be

tter s

pent

els

ewhe

re a

t thi

s tim

e.

Reco

mm

enda

tion

5: E

ncou

rage

bet

ter a

nd m

ore

deta

iled

info

rmat

ion

in th

e ca

se fi

le.

CSD

A su

ppor

ts th

is re

com

men

datio

n.

See

atta

chm

ent f

or fu

ll te

xt o

f com

men

t. 5.

C

RIS

PE

Mar

cy G

anz

The

child

supp

ort g

uide

line

revi

ew fa

ils to

con

side

r the

man

ipul

atio

n of

par

entin

g tim

e w

ith th

e co

urts

. Th

e co

urts

w

ill a

war

d an

NC

P a

30%

tim

esha

re a

nd th

em in

turn

stat

e fo

r the

chi

ld su

ppor

t gui

delin

e th

at th

e N

CP

spen

ds 0

%

times

hare

whe

n th

is is

not

true

bas

ed o

n fa

lse

clai

ms b

y th

e C

P.

The

guid

elin

e sh

ould

pro

mot

e fa

irnes

s and

bot

h pa

rent

s sho

uld

have

equ

al a

cces

s to

both

kid

s equ

ally

and

this

fin

anci

al a

buse

that

is d

emea

ning

to N

CPs

shou

ld b

e el

imin

ated

sinc

e it

is c

ompa

rabl

e to

raci

st Ji

m C

row

law

s. Th

e cu

rren

t rep

ort i

s bia

sed

and

raci

st a

gain

st N

CPs

. 6.

D

unba

r & D

unba

r D

onal

d E.

Dun

bar J

r.

Atto

rney

I hav

e be

en in

the

Fam

ily L

aw b

usin

ess f

or m

ore

than

25

year

s. T

he ti

me

shar

e pe

rcen

tage

pro

visi

on o

f the

chi

ld

supp

ort o

ften

caus

es m

oney

con

cern

s [on

bot

h si

des]

to b

ecom

e m

ore

impo

rtant

than

the

child

's w

elfa

re a

nd c

onta

ct

with

the

non-

cust

odia

l par

ent.

It se

ems t

o m

e th

at th

ere

shou

ld b

e 15

% b

lock

s onl

y [1

5%, 3

0%, 4

5%] s

o th

at th

e pa

rent

s do

not t

ry to

figh

t ove

r a d

ay o

r eve

ning

just

to d

rive

the

supp

ort u

p or

dow

n. T

his w

ould

eff

ectiv

ely

sepa

rate

the

conc

ept o

f chi

ld su

ppor

t fro

m th

e pa

rent

ing

arra

ngem

ent a

nd le

t fol

ks fo

cus o

n th

e ch

ild's

wel

fare

and

no

t on

mov

ing

a co

uple

of p

erce

nt o

n th

e ch

ild su

ppor

t cal

cula

tion.

Th

e ot

her t

hing

is th

at a

one

-per

cent

cha

nge

in ti

mes

hare

doe

s, no

t, in

real

ity, t

rans

late

to a

shift

in th

e ch

ild's

expe

nses

. I h

ope

this

info

rmat

ion

is u

sefu

l. T

hank

you

for y

our t

ime.

Page 254: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

APP

EN

DIX

D

Rev

iew

of S

tate

wid

e U

nifo

rm C

hild

Sup

port

Gui

delin

e A

ll co

mm

ents

are

ver

batim

unl

ess i

ndic

ated

by

an e

llips

is (…

).

23

1

Ref

eren

ces t

o in

divi

dual

s’ n

ames

and

issu

es n

ot re

latin

g to

com

men

tary

on

the

child

supp

ort g

uide

lines

hav

e be

en e

dite

d as

alle

gatio

ns re

gard

ing

indi

vidu

al c

ase

proc

essi

ng a

re

beyo

nd th

e sc

ope

of th

is st

udy.

C

omm

enta

tor

Com

men

ts

7.

Fath

ers a

nd F

amili

es

Gle

nn S

acks

, MA

, Exe

cutiv

e D

irect

or

Mic

hael

Rob

inso

n, L

egis

lativ

e R

epre

sent

ativ

e

Dea

r Sirs

and

Mad

ams:

Fa

ther

s and

Fam

ilies

bel

ieve

s tha

t chi

ldre

n ne

ed to

be

supp

orte

d em

otio

nally

and

fina

ncia

lly b

y bo

th p

aren

ts a

fter a

di

vorc

e or

sepa

ratio

n. W

e be

lieve

that

Cal

iforn

ia’s

chi

ld su

ppor

t gui

delin

es sh

ould

be

reas

onab

le a

nd fa

ir to

all

invo

lved

par

ties.

The

new

Rev

iew

of S

tate

wid

e U

nifo

rm C

hild

Sup

port

Gui

delin

e 20

10 (D

raft

Rep

ort)

is a

step

fo

rwar

d in

som

e ar

eas,

but a

lso

has p

robl

ems.

Fa

ther

s and

Fam

ilies

has

long

exp

ress

ed it

s con

cern

, bot

h to

the

AO

C a

nd in

the

med

ia, t

hat t

he c

hild

supp

ort

syst

em is

unf

air a

nd a

t tim

es a

busi

ve to

low

inco

me

oblig

ors.

To it

s cre

dit,

the

2010

Rev

iew

doe

s put

an

emph

asis

on

mak

ing

refo

rms t

o as

sist

low

inco

me

oblig

ors.

A

s the

Rev

iew

not

es, c

hild

supp

ort o

blig

atio

ns fo

r low

inco

me

oblig

ors a

re o

ften

set t

oo h

igh,

in p

art b

ecau

se th

e ap

prop

riate

har

dshi

p de

duct

ions

are

not

bei

ng a

pplie

d. A

s a re

sult,

man

y of

thes

e in

divi

dual

s sca

rcel

y ha

ve th

e re

sour

ces l

eft t

o m

aint

ain

thei

r ow

n re

side

nces

, and

thei

r chi

ld S

uppo

rt ob

ligat

ions

can

lead

to h

omel

essn

ess.

This

is

parti

cula

rly tr

ue in

toda

y’s d

epre

ssed

eco

nom

ic c

limat

e.

Ano

ther

pos

itive

is th

at th

e R

evie

w d

oes n

ot c

all f

or a

ny c

hild

Sup

port

incr

ease

s.

On

the

othe

r han

d, th

ere

are

som

e su

bsta

ntia

l pro

blem

s with

the

curr

ent U

nifo

rm C

hild

Sup

port

Gui

delin

e w

hich

th

e R

evie

w fa

ils to

add

ress

. The

se in

clud

e:

1.

C

alifo

rnia

’s K

Fac

tor,

whi

ch re

quire

s a c

hild

supp

ort o

blig

or to

pay

25%

of h

is o

r her

afte

r tax

inco

me

for

one

child

, 40%

for t

wo

and

50%

for t

hree

, is o

ne o

f the

hig

hest

in th

e U

nite

d St

ates

. The

of-

stat

ed

just

ifica

tion

for t

his i

s tha

t Cal

iforn

ia’s

cos

t of l

ivin

g is

hig

h. H

owev

er, s

ince

the

Gui

delin

e is

bas

ed o

n pe

rcen

tage

s of i

ncom

e, th

e co

st o

f liv

ing

is ir

rele

vant

. The

K fa

ctor

shou

ld b

e lo

wer

ed, p

artic

ular

ly in

the

curr

ent e

cono

my.

2.

The

K fa

ctor

onl

y ap

plie

s up

to a

com

bine

d in

com

e of

$6,

600

a m

onth

—ab

ove

that

it g

oes t

o th

e H

Fac

tor,

whi

ch is

10%

hig

her u

ntil

a co

mbi

ned

inco

me

of $

10,0

00, i

n w

hich

cas

e it

is 1

2% h

ighe

r. Th

is is

har

dly

fair

to th

ese

child

supp

ort o

blig

ors,

man

y of

who

m h

ave

wor

ked

long

and

har

d to

bec

ome

good

pro

vide

rs fo

r th

eir f

amili

es, a

nd a

re n

ow d

e fa

cto

puni

shed

for t

heir

effo

rts a

nd th

eir s

ucce

ss.

Page 255: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

APP

EN

DIX

D

Rev

iew

of S

tate

wid

e U

nifo

rm C

hild

Sup

port

Gui

delin

e A

ll co

mm

ents

are

ver

batim

unl

ess i

ndic

ated

by

an e

llips

is (…

).

23

2

Ref

eren

ces t

o in

divi

dual

s’ n

ames

and

issu

es n

ot re

latin

g to

com

men

tary

on

the

child

supp

ort g

uide

lines

hav

e be

en e

dite

d as

alle

gatio

ns re

gard

ing

indi

vidu

al c

ase

proc

essi

ng a

re

beyo

nd th

e sc

ope

of th

is st

udy.

C

omm

enta

tor

Com

men

ts

Yes

, in

a pe

rfec

t wor

ld, c

hild

ren

of d

ivor

ce o

f sep

arat

ion

wou

ld m

aint

ain

the

sam

e st

anda

rd o

f liv

ing

afte

r th

e br

eaku

p as

bef

ore.

In th

e ac

tual

wor

ld, w

hen

the

sam

e in

com

e(s)

whi

ch su

ppor

ted

one

hous

ehol

d m

ust

now

supp

ort t

wo,

livi

ng st

anda

rds a

re in

evita

bly

goin

g to

dec

line.

3.

The

Uni

form

Chi

ld S

uppo

rt G

uide

line

shou

ld b

e ba

sed

on th

e ne

eds o

f the

chi

ldre

n in

volv

ed a

nd sh

ould

be

rela

ted

to th

e ac

tual

cos

t of r

aisi

ng a

chi

ld. T

he R

evie

w g

loss

es o

ver t

his i

mpo

rtant

issu

e.

Fath

ers a

nd F

amili

es is

a n

atio

nal 5

01(c

)3 n

ot-fo

r-pro

fit c

harit

able

org

aniz

atio

n w

ith o

ffic

es in

Sac

ram

ento

, Los

A

ngel

es, a

nd B

osto

n. F

athe

rs a

nd F

amili

es im

prov

es th

e liv

es o

f chi

ldre

n an

d st

reng

then

ed s

soci

ety

by p

rote

ctin

g th

e ch

ild’s

righ

t to

the

love

and

car

e of

bot

h pa

rent

s afte

r sep

arat

ion

or d

ivor

ce. W

e se

ek b

ette

r liv

es fo

r chi

ldre

n th

roug

h fa

mily

cou

rt re

form

that

est

ablis

hes e

qual

righ

ts a

nd re

spon

sibi

litie

s for

fath

ers a

nd m

othe

rs.

Than

k yo

u in

adv

ance

for c

onsi

derin

g ou

r com

men

ts.

8.

Can

dace

Gol

dman

Fa

mily

Law

Fac

ilita

tor

Supe

rior C

ourt

of A

lam

eda

Cou

nty

Ove

rall,

the

dire

ctio

n th

e pr

opos

als s

eem

to b

e he

aded

is g

ood.

I w

ould

esp

ecia

lly e

mph

asiz

e th

e fo

llow

ing:

1.

The

LIA

nee

ds to

be

rais

ed; u

sing

the

eith

er th

e m

inim

um w

age

(sta

te ra

te if

hig

her t

han

fede

ral)

or a

n in

com

e fig

ure

at a

% ra

te o

ver t

he re

gion

's po

verty

leve

l cou

ld w

ork.

Usi

ng a

mor

e fle

xibl

e fo

rmul

a w

ould

allo

w

auto

mat

ical

ly fo

r the

cha

nges

with

out h

avin

g to

pas

s leg

isla

tion

repe

ated

ly.

2.

For

low

and

mod

erat

e in

com

e pa

rent

s, bo

th th

e ba

se %

of i

ncom

e at

tribu

tabl

e fo

r chi

ld su

ppor

ts A

ND

the

leve

ls

of in

com

e at

tach

ed to

that

per

cent

age

need

to b

e m

odifi

ed d

ownw

ard.

Usi

ng 2

5% fo

r the

inco

me

rang

e of

$80

0 -

6K is

too

broa

d. N

eeds

to st

art w

ith a

low

er %

and

wor

k up

war

ds in

smal

ler i

ncom

e in

crem

ents

. It

is im

porta

nt to

re

mem

ber t

he st

udie

s tha

t sho

w c

hild

supp

ort a

rrea

rs fo

r low

er in

com

e pe

ople

bec

ome

sign

ifica

nt w

hen

child

su

ppor

t ord

er a

mou

nts e

xcee

d 20

%.

So w

hy d

o w

e st

art s

uppo

rt ra

tes a

t a h

ighe

r per

cent

age

- thi

s see

ms s

elf-

defe

atin

g.

3. W

e ar

e m

ovin

g to

war

d ha

ving

the

juris

dict

iona

l loc

us b

e w

ith th

e ob

ligor

whe

n th

ere

are

mul

tiple

cas

es

invo

lvin

g on

e in

divi

dual

. Th

is is

a st

ep in

the

right

dire

ctio

n, so

all

of th

e su

ppor

t adj

ustm

ents

can

be

mad

e fo

r tha

t in

divi

dual

in o

ne se

tting

rath

er th

an re

quiri

ng m

ultip

le h

earin

g lo

catio

ns a

nd p

oten

tial c

ontin

uing

con

flict

ing

and

unre

alis

tic -

and

effe

ctiv

ely

unen

forc

eabl

e - o

rder

s. It

wou

ld b

e go

od to

eve

ntua

lly c

oord

inat

e su

ppor

t cas

es

betw

een

mul

tiple

obl

igor

s with

the

sam

e ob

ligee

als

o.

4. I

thin

k th

e ge

nera

l pro

visi

on fo

r a $

50.0

0 m

inim

um su

ppor

t ord

er is

wor

kabl

e in

mos

t cas

es, b

ut o

f cou

rse

the

Page 256: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

APP

EN

DIX

D

Rev

iew

of S

tate

wid

e U

nifo

rm C

hild

Sup

port

Gui

delin

e A

ll co

mm

ents

are

ver

batim

unl

ess i

ndic

ated

by

an e

llips

is (…

).

23

3

Ref

eren

ces t

o in

divi

dual

s’ n

ames

and

issu

es n

ot re

latin

g to

com

men

tary

on

the

child

supp

ort g

uide

lines

hav

e be

en e

dite

d as

alle

gatio

ns re

gard

ing

indi

vidu

al c

ase

proc

essi

ng a

re

beyo

nd th

e sc

ope

of th

is st

udy.

C

omm

enta

tor

Com

men

ts

judi

cial

off

icer

s sho

uld

cont

inue

to h

ave

disc

retio

n to

redu

ce it

for L

IA a

nd o

ther

app

ropr

iate

fact

ors,

or to

rese

rve

supp

ort p

endi

ng fu

rther

dev

elop

men

ts.

5. H

ealth

insu

ranc

e an

d ch

ild c

are

cost

s nee

d to

be

mor

e in

tegr

ated

as p

art o

f sup

port

- the

cur

rent

form

ulas

and

al

loca

tions

ofte

n re

sult

in u

nten

able

ord

ers f

or o

blig

ors,

rend

erin

g th

e ir a

bilit

y to

mai

ntai

n se

lf-su

ppor

t diff

icul

t to

impo

ssib

le.

Thes

e sh

ould

not

be

stra

ight

add

-ons

, and

insu

ranc

e sh

ould

be

pror

ated

, per

the

reco

mm

enda

tions

. 6.

Hea

lth in

sura

nce

- mor

e fle

xibi

lity

for a

dditi

onal

cov

erag

e at

the

low

er in

com

e sp

ectru

m w

ith m

ore

use

of a

M

edic

aid

prem

ium

shar

e an

d es

tabl

ishi

ng a

cas

h m

ed. s

uppo

rt sy

stem

for t

hose

car

riers

that

use

the

fee-

for-s

ervi

ce;

I thi

nk th

is c

ould

be

wor

ked

out w

ithou

t hav

ing

the

"ove

rpay

men

t" p

robl

em.

May

be so

met

hing

sim

ilar t

o a

flex/

med

. spe

ndin

g ac

coun

t tha

t the

obl

igor

mak

es d

epos

its in

to fo

r Med

icai

d to

dra

w fr

om?

7. C

hild

car

e - a

gain

, int

egra

te m

ore

into

the

tota

l cal

cula

tion.

We

can

pror

ate

it no

w, w

hich

hel

ps, b

ut it

still

ofte

n re

sults

in ti

ppin

g th

e ob

ligor

too

far i

nto

the

red,

aga

in c

reat

ing

both

a d

isin

cent

ive

to p

ay a

nd a

dis

ince

ntiv

e to

w

ork.

8.

The

situ

atio

ns w

e ar

e pr

esen

ted

with

are

alw

ays t

hose

whe

re th

ere

is N

OT

an in

tact

trad

ition

al fa

mily

, so

we

can'

t rea

lly u

se th

at si

tuat

ion

to g

uide

us f

or e

stab

lishi

ng b

asel

ines

for c

hild

supp

ort.

Tw

o ho

useh

olds

sim

ply

do n

ot

func

tion

as e

cono

mic

ally

as o

ne (d

uh.)

Thi

s mea

ns, f

or in

stan

ce, t

hat w

e m

ay n

eed

to st

art t

akin

g re

nt in

to a

ccou

nt

- or s

et a

stat

ewid

e av

erag

e to

use

as p

art o

f the

supp

ort c

alcu

latio

n. It

wou

ld h

ave

been

goo

d to

see

mor

e st

atis

tical

in

form

atio

n di

rect

ly re

late

d to

the

fact

of t

wo

hous

ehol

d ec

onom

ics i

n th

e su

rvey

. Th

e te

nsio

n be

twee

n su

ppor

ting

child

ren

both

at a

n ac

cept

able

min

imum

and

to th

e st

anda

rd o

f liv

ing

of th

e pa

rent

s is

diff

icul

t to

mai

ntai

n. W

e do

n't w

ant c

hild

ren

to su

ffer

, eco

nom

ical

ly o

r in

havi

ng a

rela

tions

hip

with

thei

r pa

rent

s; b

ut if

we

push

too

hard

aga

inst

an

oblig

or, o

r don

't re

quire

eno

ugh

from

an

oblig

ee, w

e cr

eate

tens

ions

bot

h be

twee

n th

e pa

rent

s and

with

the

lega

l sys

tem

, so

that

we

win

d up

with

chi

ldre

n w

ho a

re c

augh

t in

the

mid

dle,

pa

rent

s who

feel

they

are

not

bei

ng fa

irly

hear

d or

serv

ed, a

nd a

syst

em th

at se

e-sa

ws b

etw

een

puni

shm

ent a

nd

rew

ard.

I h

ope

that

the

ultim

ate

prov

isio

ns th

at a

re a

dopt

ed fr

om th

is re

view

will

est

ablis

h a

mor

e ev

en-h

ande

d su

ppor

t mod

el th

at w

ill h

old

ever

yone

- pa

rent

s, ch

ildre

n, a

nd th

e ju

dici

ary,

in g

ood

stea

d.

Gen

eral

Com

men

t: Th

anks

to th

e gr

oup

that

did

the

stud

y an

d de

velo

ped

the

reco

mm

enda

tions

. Th

is w

as

obvi

ousl

y an

inte

nsiv

e re

view

. It

conf

irmed

wha

t tho

se o

f us i

n th

e tre

nche

s hav

e ac

tual

ly b

een

awar

e of

for s

ome

time.

I lo

ok fo

rwar

d to

seei

ng th

e re

sults

.

Page 257: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

APP

EN

DIX

D

Rev

iew

of S

tate

wid

e U

nifo

rm C

hild

Sup

port

Gui

delin

e A

ll co

mm

ents

are

ver

batim

unl

ess i

ndic

ated

by

an e

llips

is (…

).

23

4

Ref

eren

ces t

o in

divi

dual

s’ n

ames

and

issu

es n

ot re

latin

g to

com

men

tary

on

the

child

supp

ort g

uide

lines

hav

e be

en e

dite

d as

alle

gatio

ns re

gard

ing

indi

vidu

al c

ase

proc

essi

ng a

re

beyo

nd th

e sc

ope

of th

is st

udy.

C

omm

enta

tor

Com

men

ts

9.

Ran

dy H

off

Pres

iden

t O

DH

C

In C

alifo

rnia

ther

e is

littl

e do

ubt t

hat c

urre

nt c

hild

supp

ort g

uide

lines

are

doi

ng m

ore

harm

than

goo

d fo

r chi

ldre

n of

br

oken

fam

ilies

. One

of t

he p

rimar

y is

sues

pla

guin

g th

e sy

stem

occ

urs w

hen

unre

ason

able

cou

rt or

ders

for c

hild

su

ppor

t are

pla

ced

upon

non

-cus

todi

al p

aren

ts (N

CP'

s) w

ho h

ave

little

or n

o in

com

e.

Ther

efor

e, w

e m

ust e

xplo

re th

e ca

uses

of t

he N

CP'

s ina

bilit

y to

pay

chi

ld su

ppor

t and

am

end

the

Uni

form

Chi

ld

Supp

ort G

uide

lines

in a

man

ner t

hat p

rodu

ces s

ucce

ssfu

l out

com

es in

cas

es o

f lim

ited

inco

me

or n

o in

com

e at

all.

M

any

scho

lars

attr

ibut

e hi

gher

ear

ning

s to

high

er e

duca

tion,

and

man

y pe

er re

view

ed st

udie

s hav

e be

en c

ondu

cted

ov

er th

e ye

ars w

hich

stre

ngth

en su

ch a

stat

emen

t. In

fact

, whe

n a

non -

cust

odia

l par

ent h

as n

o hi

gh sc

hool

dip

lom

a or

col

lege

deg

ree

to p

rese

nt to

a p

rosp

ectiv

e em

ploy

er, t

hey

are

unlik

ely

to g

et a

job

and

thei

r ear

ning

s pot

entia

l is

dras

tical

ly d

imin

ishe

d. T

he re

sulti

ng d

iffic

ulty

of t

he u

nder

educ

ated

NC

P's a

bilit

y to

find

gai

nful

em

ploy

men

t ge

nera

lly re

sults

in th

e N

CP'

s ina

bilit

y to

pay

chi

ld su

ppor

t as o

rder

ed--b

ased

on

Cal

iforn

ia's

curr

ent c

hild

supp

ort

guid

elin

es. T

his i

ssue

als

o be

gs th

e qu

estio

n as

to w

hy th

ere

are

no e

duca

tiona

l adv

anta

ges,

bene

fits o

r op

portu

nitie

s in

plac

e as

ince

ntiv

es fo

r NC

P's w

ho a

re st

rugg

ling

to in

crea

se th

eir e

arni

ng p

ower

via

hig

her

educ

atio

n. If

ther

e w

ere

educ

atio

nal o

ppor

tuni

ties,

or a

t the

ver

y le

ast,

a cl

ass-

time

forb

eara

nce

or d

efer

men

t of

paym

ents

est

ablis

hed

in th

e ch

ild su

ppor

t gui

delin

es, N

CP'

s wou

ld b

e be

tter p

ositi

oned

to a

ffor

d ch

ild su

ppor

t pa

ymen

ts a

s a re

sult

of th

eir e

xpan

ded

educ

atio

n.

In C

alifo

rnia

, mor

e w

omen

atte

nd a

nd g

radu

ate

colle

ge th

an d

o th

eir m

ale

coun

terp

arts

, som

e fe

min

ist g

roup

s may

cl

aim

fem

ales

are

sim

ply

"sm

arte

r" th

an m

ales

but

we

foun

d th

at fi

nanc

ial h

ealth

was

the

mor

e lik

ely

caus

e of

this

di

spar

ity. A

ccor

ding

to tw

enty

-five

col

lege

stud

ents

inte

rvie

wed

at t

he C

alifo

rnia

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

of S

acra

men

to,

the

prim

ary

reas

on fo

r fai

ling

colle

ge o

r bei

ng u

nabl

e to

atte

nd c

olle

ge w

as fi

nanc

ial d

istre

ss, s

uch

as, t

he in

abili

ty

to p

ay fo

r it.

Fina

ncia

l hea

lth a

nd o

nes c

hanc

es o

f atte

ndin

g co

llege

hav

e a

corr

elat

ion

and

can

be st

udie

d fu

rther

to

show

the

latte

r a c

ausa

tion

of th

e fir

st. I

n 20

09, t

he a

fore

men

tione

d ge

nder

dis

parit

y in

pos

t sec

onda

ry e

duca

tion

was

a h

igh

57%

fem

ales

to a

mer

e 43

% o

f mal

es a

ttend

ing

colle

ge: T

his i

ssue

has

reac

hed

a pe

ak si

nce

the

2004

R

epor

t by

the

Cal

iforn

ia P

ost S

econ

dary

Edu

catio

n C

omm

issi

on, w

hich

can

be

view

ed h

ere:

ht

tp://

ww

w.c

pec.

ca.g

ov/c

ompl

eter

epor

ts/2

006r

epor

ts/0

6-08

.pdf

.

This

dan

gero

us d

ispa

rity

pose

s ser

ious

soci

oeco

nom

ic ra

mifi

catio

ns a

nd fu

rther

exa

cerb

ates

the

prob

lem

of m

ale

NC

P's w

ho d

emon

stra

te a

n in

abili

ty to

pay

chi

ld su

ppor

t. Es

peci

ally

NC

P's w

ith li

mite

d or

no

inco

me

and

thos

e w

ho h

ave

few

pro

spec

ts o

f gai

nful

em

ploy

men

t due

to th

eir l

ack

of jo

b qu

alifi

catio

ns. I

f Cal

iforn

ia is

eve

r to

get

child

supp

ort a

rrea

rs u

nder

-con

trol,

this

mas

sive

reve

rse

gend

er d

ispa

rity

in h

ighe

r edu

catio

n si

mpl

y ca

n no

long

er

be o

verlo

oked

.

Sinc

e m

ost c

hild

supp

ort p

ayin

g N

CP'

s are

mal

e (~

80 %

+) it

can

be

reas

oned

that

som

e of

thes

e m

ales

wou

ld

Page 258: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

APP

EN

DIX

D

Rev

iew

of S

tate

wid

e U

nifo

rm C

hild

Sup

port

Gui

delin

e A

ll co

mm

ents

are

ver

batim

unl

ess i

ndic

ated

by

an e

llips

is (…

).

23

5

Ref

eren

ces t

o in

divi

dual

s’ n

ames

and

issu

es n

ot re

latin

g to

com

men

tary

on

the

child

supp

ort g

uide

lines

hav

e be

en e

dite

d as

alle

gatio

ns re

gard

ing

indi

vidu

al c

ase

proc

essi

ng a

re

beyo

nd th

e sc

ope

of th

is st

udy.

C

omm

enta

tor

Com

men

ts

othe

rwis

e at

tend

col

lege

if th

eir f

inan

cial

circ

umst

ance

s im

prov

ed ju

st e

noug

h fo

r the

m to

succ

eed-

-suc

h as

redu

ced

or d

efer

red

child

supp

ort p

aym

ents

. If t

he m

ajor

ity o

f NC

P's (

mal

es) w

ere

able

to a

ttain

a v

alua

ble

(life

cha

ngin

g)

degr

ee o

r tec

hnic

al c

ertif

icat

e fr

om a

n in

stitu

tion

of h

ighe

r lea

rnin

g, C

alifo

rnia

is v

ery

likel

y to

see

an in

crea

se in

ch

ild su

ppor

t pay

men

ts b

eing

pai

d on

tim

e. F

or e

xam

ple,

in th

e ca

ses o

f NC

P's w

ho c

an b

arle

y pa

y ch

ild su

ppor

t, it

seem

s tha

t cou

rt or

dere

d ch

ild su

ppor

t pay

men

ts c

ould

ver

y w

ell b

e st

andi

ng in

the

way

of t

heir

abili

ty to

pay

for

tuiti

on, b

ooks

and

bas

ic n

eces

sitie

s, th

eref

ore,

leav

ing

the

hope

ful N

CP

stud

ent w

ith fe

w o

ptio

ns a

nd a

con

tinue

d in

abili

ty to

mak

e ch

ild su

ppor

t pay

men

ts. T

he c

ycle

of n

on-p

aym

ent c

an c

ontin

ue fo

r yea

rs a

nd y

ears

--som

ethi

ng

mus

t be

done

. A

fine

ana

logy

wou

ld b

e th

at te

achi

ng a

man

to fi

sh is

far b

ette

r for

our

soci

ety

than

mer

ely

fishi

ng fo

r him

and

si

mpl

y ha

ndin

g hi

m th

e fis

h.

Sinc

e fe

mal

es a

re g

ener

ally

the

rece

iver

s of c

hild

supp

ort p

aym

ents

in ~

80%

of c

ases

, it c

ould

be

reas

oned

that

so

me

wom

en w

ho a

re a

ttend

ing

colle

ge u

se th

e "e

xces

s" c

ash

depo

site

d fo

r chi

ld su

ppor

t pay

men

ts fo

r im

prov

ing

thei

r edu

catio

n an

d em

ploy

men

t pro

spec

ts. T

here

is si

mpl

y no

thin

g w

rong

with

doi

ng e

very

thin

g fo

r fem

ales

’ ed

ucat

ion,

unl

ess i

t cau

ses t

he p

robl

em w

e cu

rren

tly h

ave,

whi

ch is

exc

essi

ve n

umbe

rs o

f une

duca

ted

or

unde

redu

cate

d m

ales

who

are

una

ble

to fi

nd a

job

and

unab

le p

ay c

hild

supp

ort a

s a re

sult.

A re

duct

ion

of c

hild

su

ppor

t pai

d to

Cus

todi

al P

aren

ts w

hile

a N

CP

is a

ttend

ing

colle

ge o

r atte

mpt

ing

to a

ttain

a G

ED o

r enr

olle

d in

a

tech

nica

l sch

ool w

ould

und

oubt

edly

ben

efit

both

the

NC

P an

d th

e C

P an

d m

ore

impo

rtant

ly th

e ch

ildre

n in

the

long

ru

n--fo

r the

maj

ority

of c

ases

. Chi

ld su

ppor

t was

nev

er m

eant

to se

rve

as th

e cu

stod

ial p

aren

t’s ti

cket

to p

ay fo

r co

llege

. It s

houl

d be

allo

wed

onl

y fo

r sen

ding

the

child

ren

who

it is

ow

ed to

col

lege

. The

fact

is, C

hild

supp

ort

paym

ents

are

bei

ng u

sed

for e

very

thin

g fr

om tu

ition

to d

rug

use.

To

rect

ify th

is p

robl

em a

nd g

et th

is m

oney

bac

k to

th

e ch

ildre

n m

eans

that

all

exce

ss c

ash

rem

aini

ng fr

om c

hild

supp

ort p

aym

ents

--not

spen

t dire

ctly

on

the

rear

ing

of

a ch

ild/re

n -- m

ust b

e re

turn

ed to

NC

P's a

t the

end

of e

ach

mon

th o

r dep

osite

d in

to a

savi

ngs a

ccou

nt fo

r the

ch

ild/re

ns c

olle

ge e

duca

tion.

To

allo

w c

hild

supp

ort t

o be

spen

t on

thin

gs o

ther

than

wha

t it w

as in

tend

ed to

be

spen

t on,

nam

ely

the

child

ren,

is n

ot in

the

child

/ren'

s bes

t int

eres

t.

The

sing

le m

ost e

ffec

tive

solu

tion

for p

aren

ts w

ho a

buse

chi

ld su

ppor

t pay

men

ts o

r fai

l to

"sha

re" s

tate

fund

ed fo

od

bene

fits t

hat a

re in

tend

ed to

be

used

for b

uyin

g ch

ild/re

n fo

od, i

s to

prov

ide

two

elec

troni

c de

bt c

ards

one

(1) t

o ea

ch p

aren

t or g

uard

ian.

The

n el

ectro

nica

lly se

t lim

its in

the

form

of p

erce

ntag

es th

at c

an b

e sp

ent i

n ac

cord

ance

w

ith a

ctua

l tim

e sp

ent w

ith th

e ch

ild/re

n. F

or e

xam

ple,

an

EBT

food

car

d sh

ould

be

set t

o al

low

a p

aren

t to

spen

d no

mor

e th

an 2

5% o

f the

tota

l mon

thly

bal

ance

for N

CP's

who

are

aw

arde

d 25

% c

usto

dy. C

onve

rsel

y, C

P's w

ho a

re

awar

ded

the

rem

aini

ng p

erce

ntag

e (7

5% in

this

exa

mpl

e) sh

ould

onl

y be

allo

wed

to sp

end

75%

of t

he to

tal f

ood

bene

fits a

vaila

ble

on th

e ca

rd in

any

giv

en m

onth

. Thi

s will

shor

e up

man

y di

spar

ities

in th

e la

rge

food

exp

ense

s

Page 259: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

APP

EN

DIX

D

Rev

iew

of S

tate

wid

e U

nifo

rm C

hild

Sup

port

Gui

delin

e A

ll co

mm

ents

are

ver

batim

unl

ess i

ndic

ated

by

an e

llips

is (…

).

23

6

Ref

eren

ces t

o in

divi

dual

s’ n

ames

and

issu

es n

ot re

latin

g to

com

men

tary

on

the

child

supp

ort g

uide

lines

hav

e be

en e

dite

d as

alle

gatio

ns re

gard

ing

indi

vidu

al c

ase

proc

essi

ng a

re

beyo

nd th

e sc

ope

of th

is st

udy.

C

omm

enta

tor

Com

men

ts

asso

ciat

ed w

ith re

arin

g ch

ildre

n. A

50-

50 sh

are

pare

ntin

g sc

hedu

le sh

ould

hav

e a

50-5

0 EB

T de

bit a

llow

ance

per

pa

rent

. The

sam

e sy

stem

shou

ld a

lso

be im

plem

ente

d fo

r all

cash

chi

ld su

ppor

t pay

men

ts. I

n do

ing

so, b

oth

pare

nts

wou

ld m

aint

ain

a se

nse

of fi

nanc

ial c

ontro

l ove

r the

ir ch

ild/re

ns w

elfa

re. B

ut m

ore

impo

rtant

ly, d

rugs

and

alc

ohol

ic

beve

rage

pur

chas

es, w

ith "c

hild

" sup

port

fund

s, w

ould

be

a th

ing

of th

e pa

st.

Cal

iforn

ia's

cour

ts n

eed

to b

e em

pow

ered

thro

ugh

the

Uni

form

Chi

ld S

uppo

rt G

uide

lines

to e

ncou

rage

CP'

s to

spen

d ch

ild su

ppor

t mon

ey d

irect

ly o

n th

e ch

ild/re

n fo

r who

m it

was

inte

nded

or f

ace

civi

l act

ion

from

NC

P's f

or

mon

etar

y da

mag

es to

the

child

ren

and

thei

r fut

ure

finan

cial

wel

fare

. Allo

win

g ch

ild su

ppor

t to

be sp

ent o

n th

ings

lik

e dr

ugs a

nd a

lcoh

ol is

a c

rime

agai

nst t

he c

hild

ren

of C

alifo

rnia

's br

oken

hom

es-p

erio

d! T

he c

ourts

and

NC

P's

shou

ld b

oth

be fu

lly e

mpo

wer

ed b

y la

w to

pla

ce a

ll Ch

ild su

ppor

t pay

men

ts fo

r use

thro

ugh

an e

lect

roni

c de

bit c

ard

sim

ilar t

o th

e cu

rren

t foo

d st

amp

EBT

card

issu

ed b

y H

HS.

By

doin

g so

will

redu

ce a

busi

ve sp

endi

ng a

nd th

e ro

bbin

g of

Cal

iforn

ia's

child

ren,

a p

erk

that

dru

g an

d al

coho

l add

icte

d C

P's h

ave

enjo

yed

for f

ar to

o lo

ng. C

hild

su

ppor

t is i

nten

ded

for c

hild

ren

not t

he p

aren

ts--t

his f

act h

as b

een

dist

orte

d an

d m

ust b

e re

affir

med

. Cal

iforn

ia

law

mak

ers m

ust r

eite

rate

that

"Chi

ld S

uppo

rt" is

for t

he "

Chi

ld”

in le

gal t

erm

s thr

ough

an

amen

dmen

t to

the

Uni

form

chi

ld su

ppor

t gui

delin

es.

On

a m

ore

dist

urbi

ng n

ote,

mal

e N

CP'

s who

hav

e no

opp

ortu

nitie

s ava

ilabl

e to

them

(or f

eel a

s tho

ugh

they

hav

e no

ne) h

ave

a gr

eate

r pro

pens

ity to

win

d up

in th

e cr

imin

al c

ourt

syst

em. I

t mus

t als

o be

not

ed th

at d

omes

tic

viol

ence

aga

inst

cus

todi

al p

aren

ts is

the

lead

ing

caus

e of

arr

est o

f NC

P's d

urin

g cu

stod

y ne

gotia

tions

. Dom

estic

vi

olen

ce o

ften

occu

rs m

ore

com

mon

ly w

hen

child

supp

ort p

aym

ents

are

not

pai

d-- v

ery

unw

elco

me

soci

al si

de

effe

cts.

Ther

efor

e, a

ssis

ting

NC

P's o

n a

new

pat

h to

war

d su

cces

s may

act

ually

redu

ce th

e nu

mbe

r of n

ew d

omes

tic

viol

ence

cas

es th

at p

rese

nt a

nd e

volv

e du

ring

child

supp

ort/c

usto

dy b

attle

s. In

add

ition

, hel

ping

NC

P's a

chie

ve th

eir

educ

atio

nal g

oals

by

redu

cing

, for

givi

ng o

r def

errin

g ch

ild su

ppor

t pay

men

ts d

urin

g an

NC

P's e

duca

tiona

l pro

gres

s is

a w

inni

ng p

ropo

sitio

n fo

r the

chi

ldre

n of

Cal

iforn

ia's

brok

en h

omes

. N

CP

mal

es w

ho h

ave

cour

t ord

ered

chi

ld su

ppor

t pay

men

ts a

re u

nlik

ely

to a

ttend

col

lege

due

to th

e ex

cess

ive

finan

cial

dem

ands

pla

ced

on th

em b

y th

e co

urts

. As p

revi

ousl

y m

entio

ned,

man

y fe

mal

e C

P's r

ely

on c

hild

supp

ort

paym

ents

to m

eet t

heir

educ

atio

nal g

oals

, con

vers

ely,

man

y m

ale

NC

P's a

re u

nabl

e to

atte

nd c

olle

ge d

ue to

ov

erbu

rden

ing

child

supp

ort p

aym

ents

and

pas

t due

arr

ears

-- ca

usin

g le

gal i

ssue

s (in

clud

ing

crim

inal

act

ions

) as a

re

sult

ther

eof.

Fed

eral

Fin

anci

al a

id p

rogr

ams a

re u

nava

ilabl

e to

mal

es w

ho h

ave

not r

egis

tere

d fo

r the

dra

ft (S

elec

tive

Serv

ice)

or w

ho h

ave

certa

in c

rimin

al c

onvi

ctio

ns--

FTA

's du

e to

non

-pay

men

t of c

hild

supp

ort a

rres

ts

have

lead

to m

any

felo

ny c

onvi

ctio

ns w

hich

may

dis

qual

ify m

ale

NC

P's f

rom

Fed

eral

hel

p fo

r sch

ool.

Arr

estin

g N

CP'

s is c

lear

ly th

e w

rong

app

roac

h to

hel

ping

Cal

iforn

ia's

child

ren -

- and

vio

late

s the

Bill

of R

ight

s. A

s a re

sult

here

tofo

re, s

tudi

es (w

hich

incl

ude

child

supp

ort c

ases

) mus

t con

duct

to d

eter

min

e th

e le

adin

g ca

use

of th

is

Page 260: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

APP

EN

DIX

D

Rev

iew

of S

tate

wid

e U

nifo

rm C

hild

Sup

port

Gui

delin

e A

ll co

mm

ents

are

ver

batim

unl

ess i

ndic

ated

by

an e

llips

is (…

).

23

7

Ref

eren

ces t

o in

divi

dual

s’ n

ames

and

issu

es n

ot re

latin

g to

com

men

tary

on

the

child

supp

ort g

uide

lines

hav

e be

en e

dite

d as

alle

gatio

ns re

gard

ing

indi

vidu

al c

ase

proc

essi

ng a

re

beyo

nd th

e sc

ope

of th

is st

udy.

C

omm

enta

tor

Com

men

ts

detri

men

tal d

ispa

rity

in n

umbe

r of f

emal

es v

s mal

es c

urre

ntly

atte

ndin

g co

llege

. The

afo

rem

entio

ned

disp

arity

sh

ould

be

unde

r ser

ious

scru

tiny

by e

nfor

cers

of T

itle

IX o

f 197

2. U

ntil

then

, chi

ld su

ppor

t gui

delin

es sh

ould

refle

ct

this

pro

foun

d ed

ucat

iona

l dis

parit

y an

d m

ake

adju

stm

ents

to th

e ch

ild su

ppor

t gui

delin

es w

hich

allo

w so

me

min

or

relie

f to

indi

gent

mal

e N

CP'

s who

are

tryi

ng d

ilige

ntly

to g

et th

eir G

.E.D

. or a

ttend

col

lege

or t

echn

ical

scho

ols.

A

noth

er su

btle

fina

ncia

l dis

parit

y ca

n be

foun

d lu

rkin

g in

Cal

iforn

ia's

Hea

lth a

nd H

uman

serv

ices

dep

artm

ents

. Fe

mal

e N

CP'

s and

CP'

s alik

e (n

ot m

ales

NC

P's o

r mal

e C

P's)

hav

e be

en sp

ecifi

cally

targ

eted

for i

ncre

ased

ben

efits

th

ough

sing

le-g

ende

r Hea

lth a

nd H

uman

Ser

vice

s elig

ibili

ty st

anda

rds.

As a

resu

lt, fe

mal

es c

an (a

nd d

o) re

ceiv

e nu

mer

ous g

over

nmen

t spo

nsor

ed c

hild

car

e pr

ogra

ms,

hous

ing

stip

ends

, gra

nts a

nd fo

od p

rogr

ams t

hat a

re n

ot

mad

e av

aila

ble

to th

eir N

CP

mal

e co

unte

rpar

ts-o

r are

wea

k at

bes

t. Th

ese

prog

ram

s are

a v

alua

ble

reso

urce

for

fem

ales

who

are

"stu

ck" i

n a

dow

nwar

d cy

cle

but t

hey

do li

ttle

to h

elp

mal

e N

CP'

s or C

P's g

et b

ack

on th

eir f

eet.

HH

S fa

ils to

del

iver

serv

ices

to n

eedy

mal

e N

CP'

s tim

e an

d tim

e ag

ain -

a g

as v

ouch

er fr

om H

HS

for m

ale

NC

P's t

o ge

t to

wor

k is

not

ava

ilabl

e no

r an

offe

red

serv

ice.

The

Cal

iforn

ia H

HS

mod

el m

ust b

e co

rrec

ted

to c

reat

e th

e lo

wes

t gen

der i

mba

lanc

e po

ssib

le w

hen

any

NC

P en

ters

a H

uman

Ser

vice

s Dep

artm

ent s

eeki

ng fi

nanc

ial a

ssis

tanc

e.

HH

S D

epar

tmen

t hea

ds m

ust t

ake

dras

tic m

easu

res t

o pr

e ven

t the

cur

rent

dis

crim

inat

ion

from

con

tinui

ng w

hen

prov

idin

g se

rvic

es fo

r ind

igen

t NC

P's.

Unt

il th

en, t

he U

nifo

rm c

hild

supp

ort g

uide

lines

and

chi

ld su

ppor

t pay

men

ts

mus

t ref

lect

the

thou

sand

s of d

olla

rs in

ben

efits

that

mal

e N

CP'

s are

inel

igib

le to

rece

ive

but f

emal

e C

P's a

nd N

CP'

s ar

e el

igib

le to

rece

ive.

The

Cal

iforn

ia H

HS

is re

quire

d by

law

to a

ssis

t any

per

son

equa

lly re

gard

less

of g

ende

r; ho

wev

er, t

he H

HS

sets

thei

r elig

ibili

ty c

riter

ia to

mee

t the

like

s of o

nly

one

gend

er, n

amel

y fe

mal

es. F

or e

xam

ple,

th

e ac

rony

m W

IC st

ands

for "

Wom

en, I

nfan

ts a

nd C

hild

ren.

" Thi

s pro

gram

is d

escr

ibed

on

this

web

site

: ht

tp://

ww

w.fn

s.usd

a.go

v/w

ic/

"WIC

pro

vide

s Fed

eral

gra

nts t

o St

ates

for s

uppl

emen

tal f

oods

, hea

lth c

are

refe

rral

s, an

d nu

tritio

n ed

ucat

ion

for

low

-inco

me

preg

nant

, bre

astfe

edin

g, a

nd n

on-b

reas

tfeed

ing

post

partu

m w

omen

, and

to in

fant

s and

chi

ldre

n up

to

age

five

who

are

foun

d to

be

at n

utrit

iona

l ris

k."

The

WIC

pro

gram

is a

won

derf

ul p

rogr

am, f

or w

omen

. Yet

, whe

n a

mal

e C

P or

NC

P w

ho h

as fu

ll or

par

tial

cust

ody

of a

chi

ld o

f age

two

to fi

ve y

ears

old

(non

-bre

astfe

edin

g) a

sks f

or W

IC b

enef

its, h

e w

ill g

ener

ally

be

conf

ront

ed re

gard

ing

the

whe

reab

outs

of t

he m

othe

r. Sh

ortly

, the

reaf

ter,

he a

nd th

e ch

ild w

ill m

ore

than

like

ly b

e de

clin

ed se

rvic

es u

ntil

the

mot

her p

rese

nts h

erse

lf. S

imila

r for

ms o

f thi

s ove

rt se

x di

scrim

inat

ion

in H

HS

has l

ed to

st

ate

taxp

ayer

fund

ed "W

omen

's Sh

elte

rs" b

eing

sued

for r

efus

ing

serv

ices

to m

ales

. Her

e is

a re

late

d ar

ticle

from

O

ctob

er 2

008.

It c

an b

e re

ad b

y vi

sitin

g th

is w

ebsi

te: h

ttp://

artic

les.s

fgat

e.co

m/2

008-

10-1

6/ba

y-ar

ea/1

7135

746_

1_do

mes

tic-v

iole

nce-

appe

als-

cour

t-vio

lenc

e-la

ws .

Unt

il bo

th g

ende

rs c

an b

e eq

ually

ass

iste

d by

H

HS

with

stat

e fu

nds,

the

Uni

form

Chi

ld su

ppor

t gui

delin

es m

ust b

e al

tere

d to

refle

ct th

e la

ck o

f ben

efits

pai

d to

Page 261: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

APP

EN

DIX

D

Rev

iew

of S

tate

wid

e U

nifo

rm C

hild

Sup

port

Gui

delin

e A

ll co

mm

ents

are

ver

batim

unl

ess i

ndic

ated

by

an e

llips

is (…

).

23

8

Ref

eren

ces t

o in

divi

dual

s’ n

ames

and

issu

es n

ot re

latin

g to

com

men

tary

on

the

child

supp

ort g

uide

lines

hav

e be

en e

dite

d as

alle

gatio

ns re

gard

ing

indi

vidu

al c

ase

proc

essi

ng a

re

beyo

nd th

e sc

ope

of th

is st

udy.

C

omm

enta

tor

Com

men

ts

indi

gent

men

who

hav

e ch

ildre

n in

thei

r cus

tody

eith

er fu

ll-tim

e or

par

t-tim

e. T

he d

ispa

rity

in b

enef

it el

igib

ility

and

be

nefit

s pai

d ou

t to

fem

ales

vs.

mal

es in

Cal

iforn

ia is

a w

hopp

ing

$200

in b

enef

its p

aid

to fe

mal

es fo

r eve

ry $

1 pa

id

to m

ales

. Thi

s equ

ate

to h

undr

eds o

f mill

ions

of d

olla

rs a

nnua

lly a

nd h

as fa

r rea

chin

g fin

anci

al im

pact

s on

mal

e N

CP'

s vs t

heir

fem

ale

NC

P's c

ount

erpa

rts.

N

CP'

s who

are

tryi

ng d

ilige

ntly

to g

et b

ack

on th

eir f

eet t

o su

ppor

t the

ir ch

ildre

n an

d pa

y th

eir c

hild

supp

ort m

ay

also

nee

d he

lp b

uyin

g fo

od fo

r a c

hild

--thi

s is a

two

way

stre

et. N

ot o

nly

do fe

mal

es h

ave

troub

le a

ffor

ding

food

for

child

ren,

Non

-Cus

todi

al p

aren

ts a

lso

have

sim

ilar t

roub

le a

ffor

ding

food

for t

heir

child

ren

durin

g th

eir s

ched

uled

pa

rent

ing

time.

All

expe

nses

mus

t be

acco

unte

d fo

r whe

n aw

ardi

ng a

ny c

ash

clai

m fo

r chi

ld su

ppor

t-reg

ardl

ess o

f w

ho h

as th

e ch

ild/re

n fo

r the

mos

t tim

e du

ring

the

wee

k or

mon

th. R

ecei

pts s

houl

d be

pre

sent

ed a

nd sh

all b

e ac

cept

ed b

y th

e co

urts

as c

hild

rear

ing

expe

nses

rega

rdle

ss o

f who

the

CP

or N

CP is

. Th

ese

two

ques

tions

hav

e no

w a

risen

: Sho

uld

indi

gent

NC

P's b

e fo

rced

to h

ave

thei

r chi

ldre

n go

hun

gry

whi

le

cust

odia

l par

ents

col

lect

food

stam

ps, s

tipen

ds, g

as v

ouch

ers,

subs

iste

nce

chec

ks a

nd W

IC?

Shou

ld N

CP'

s be

plac

ed in

a p

ositi

on to

beg

a C

usto

dial

Par

ent f

or fo

od w

hen

the

child

ren

get h

ungr

y du

ring

the

NC

P's p

aren

ting

time?

I do

n't t

hink

so, a

nd th

ese

extra

exp

ense

s pla

ced

upon

indi

gent

NC

P's-

-whe

n th

e N

CP'

s can

aff

ord

them

-- sh

ould

be

cons

ider

ed in

full

whe

n m

akin

g a

deci

sion

rega

rdin

g ho

w m

uch

a cl

aim

for c

hild

supp

ort s

houl

d be

aw

arde

d or

wha

t pay

men

ts w

ill b

e us

ed fo

r wha

t pur

pose

s. Th

e co

urt s

houl

d al

so h

ave

the

disc

retio

n of

aw

ardi

ng

som

e of

the

food

stam

ps, s

tipen

ds, s

ubsi

sten

ce o

r cas

h to

any

indi

gent

NC

P w

ho is

turn

ed d

own

or d

enie

d be

nefit

s fr

om a

stat

e fu

nded

HH

S D

epar

tmen

t. Th

e po

wer

to p

aren

t is n

ot fo

r law

mak

ers t

o m

anip

ulat

e bu

t the

pow

er a

s to

how

one

spen

ds a

chi

ld's

food

mon

ey is

. O

n a

light

er n

ote,

Cal

iforn

ia sh

ould

be

mor

e pr

ogre

ssiv

e an

d of

fer s

imila

r pro

gram

s lik

e W

IC b

ut in

stea

d ca

ll th

em

"MIC

" fo

r Men

, Inf

ants

and

Chi

ldre

n. T

hese

pro

gram

s sho

uld

be im

plem

ente

d fo

r mal

es w

ho h

ave

full

or p

artia

l cu

stod

y of

infa

nts a

nd b

iolo

gica

l or a

dopt

ed c

hild

ren

unde

r age

five

yea

rs o

ld. S

omet

imes

Cus

todi

al p

aren

ts

"Hoa

rd"

wha

t the

stat

e ha

s pro

vide

d to

them

in th

e fo

rm o

f foo

d or

food

stam

ps. N

ot p

rovi

ding

food

serv

ices

to

both

par

ents

, reg

ardl

ess o

f who

m th

e C

P or

NC

P is

, lea

ves t

he c

hild

with

out f

ood

whe

n th

e C

P re

fuse

s to

give

som

e of

the

subs

idiz

ed fo

od to

the

NC

P--th

is a

lmos

t alw

ays l

eads

to a

n ar

gum

ent b

etw

een

CP

and

NC

P's.

By

split

ting

food

stam

p se

rvic

es p

ropo

rtion

al to

indi

vidu

al p

aren

tal t

ime

spen

t with

a c

hild

/ren

will

ens

ure

that

alte

rcat

ions

(d

omes

tic v

iole

nce)

do

not e

rupt

whe

n a

NC

P as

ks a

CP

if th

ey c

an h

ave

som

e fo

od st

amps

or f

ood

to fe

ed th

e ch

ildre

n. E

spec

ially

whi

le th

e ch

ildre

n ar

e w

ith a

n in

dige

nt N

CP

durin

g no

rmal

ly sc

hedu

led

pare

ntin

g tim

e. U

ntil

then

, the

Uni

form

Chi

ld S

uppo

rt G

uide

lines

mus

t tak

e in

to a

ccou

nt th

e m

assi

ve c

osts

of b

uyin

g gr

ocer

ies f

or

child

ren

in th

is a

ge ra

nge

and

dedu

ct a

ny g

roce

ry p

urch

ases

mad

e fo

r the

chi

ldre

n fr

om a

ny c

ourt

orde

red

child

su

ppor

t. N

CP'

s exp

ense

s are

rare

ly st

ate

spon

sore

d or

subs

idiz

ed a

nd a

re o

utra

geou

sly

high

. The

se N

CP'

s exp

ense

s

Page 262: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

APP

EN

DIX

D

Rev

iew

of S

tate

wid

e U

nifo

rm C

hild

Sup

port

Gui

delin

e A

ll co

mm

ents

are

ver

batim

unl

ess i

ndic

ated

by

an e

llips

is (…

).

23

9

Ref

eren

ces t

o in

divi

dual

s’ n

ames

and

issu

es n

ot re

latin

g to

com

men

tary

on

the

child

supp

ort g

uide

lines

hav

e be

en e

dite

d as

alle

gatio

ns re

gard

ing

indi

vidu

al c

ase

proc

essi

ng a

re

beyo

nd th

e sc

ope

of th

is st

udy.

C

omm

enta

tor

Com

men

ts

mus

t be

acco

unte

d fo

r whe

n se

tting

chi

ld su

ppor

t gui

delin

es. N

CP'

s or C

P's w

ho a

re n

ot e

ntitl

ed to

the

mill

ions

of

dolla

rs in

HH

S be

nefit

s tha

t are

ava

ilabl

e to

CP'

s sho

uld

be c

ompe

nsat

ed v

ia lo

wer

ed o

r for

give

n ch

ild su

ppor

t pa

ymen

ts w

hen

child

supp

ort g

uide

lines

are

bei

ng c

onsi

dere

d.

H

ere

is a

n of

f -top

ic a

nd le

ss si

gnifi

cant

pro

posa

l, ye

t a v

ery

serio

us fa

ctor

in m

ale

NC

P's i

nabi

lity

to p

ay c

hild

su

ppor

t. It

lies i

n di

scrim

inat

ory

Aut

omob

ile in

sura

nce

prac

tices

and

thei

r rel

ated

pre

miu

ms.

This

fact

or m

ust a

lso

be ta

ken

into

acc

ount

whe

n ca

lcul

atin

g ch

ild su

ppor

t and

est

ablis

hing

gui

delin

es. T

here

is a

mas

sive

dis

parit

y in

pa

ymen

t am

ount

s mad

e by

mal

es v

s. fe

mal

es to

insu

ranc

e co

mpa

nies

(All)

. All

Calif

orni

a m

ales

pay

on

aver

age

of

$800

.00

mor

e pe

r yea

r for

full

cove

rage

Aut

o in

sura

nce

than

do

thei

r sim

ilarly

situ

ated

fem

ale

coun

terp

arts

(Gei

co

& F

a rm

ers)

. Thi

s may

not

seem

like

a su

bsta

ntia

l fig

ure

unle

ss o

ne c

onsi

ders

the

finan

cial

ly c

halle

nged

col

lege

st

uden

t who

mus

t cho

ose

betw

een

payi

ng fo

r car

insu

ranc

e, p

ayin

g fo

r col

lege

tuiti

on o

r mak

ing

a ch

ild su

ppor

t pa

ymen

t. In

201

0, $

800

is ro

ughl

y th

e co

st o

f one

and

a h

alf s

emes

ters

wor

th o

f col

lege

text

book

s. Th

at m

eans

m

ales

, ove

r the

cou

rse

of fi

ve y

ears

of c

olle

ge, p

ay o

ver $

4000

mor

e in

car

insu

ranc

e pr

emiu

ms t

han

do fe

mal

es.

Thes

e pa

ymen

ts m

ade

to in

sura

nce

com

pani

es a

re c

ompu

lsor

y in

nat

ure,

sinc

e fa

ilure

to m

aint

ain

valid

aut

o-in

sura

nce

cove

rage

can

lead

to a

rres

t and

fine

s tot

alin

g ov

er $

800

+ --

amon

g ot

her p

enal

ties.

This

ove

rt bu

sine

ss

prac

tice

disc

rimin

atio

n sh

ould

be

corr

ecte

d th

roug

h a

Bill

intro

duce

d in

the

Calif

orni

a Le

gisl

atur

e. U

ntil

then

, the

C

alifo

rnia

's U

nifo

rm C

hild

Sup

port

Gui

delin

es m

ust t

ake

thes

e ad

ditio

nal e

xpen

ses t

hat m

ale

NC

P's v

s. fe

mal

e N

CP'

s are

requ

ired

to p

ay b

y la

w.

With

that

said

, we

can

now

pro

pose

two

prim

ary

chan

ges t

o Ca

lifor

nia's

Uni

form

Chi

ld S

uppo

rt G

uide

lines

that

w

ill im

pact

and

like

ly re

ctify

man

y of

thes

e di

spar

ities

onc

e an

d fo

r all.

Th

e w

ay to

cor

rect

the

afor

emen

tione

d ge

nder

dis

parit

y in

hig

her e

duca

tion

is to

pro

vide

a fu

ll de

ferm

ent o

f chi

ld

supp

ort p

aym

ents

, with

out i

nter

est,

durin

g an

y pe

riod

a N

on-c

usto

dial

par

ent (

NC

P) is

atte

ndin

g an

acc

redi

ted

inst

itutio

n of

hig

her e

duca

tion.

Fur

ther

mor

e, w

hen

a N

CP

does

not

cur

rent

ly h

ave

a hi

gh sc

hool

dip

lom

a an

d th

ey

are

atte

mpt

ing

to a

ttain

a G

.E.D

., th

en c

hild

supp

ort p

aym

ents

mus

t be

wai

ved,

redu

ced

or fo

rgiv

en a

t the

rate

of

100%

whi

le th

e un

dere

duca

ted

NC

P is

atte

ndin

g cl

asse

s, w

ith th

e ex

cept

ion

that

the

actio

ns ta

ken

by th

e N

CP

will

di

rect

ly le

ad to

the

NC

P re

ceiv

ing

her o

r his

G.E

.D.

In a

dditi

on, P

amph

lets

shou

ld b

e pr

ovid

ed a

nd p

oste

d fo

r the

se

serv

ices

and

def

erm

ents

at a

ll po

ints

of c

onta

ct w

ith C

hild

Sup

port

agen

cies

stat

ewid

e--in

clud

ing

but n

ot li

mite

d to

di

rect

mai

lings

. If

prop

erly

impl

emen

ted,

thes

e tw

o ch

ange

s will

lead

to a

shor

t ter

m so

cial

refo

rm th

at w

ill u

ndou

bted

ly h

ave

posi

tive

long

term

eff

ects

on

NC

P's a

bilit

y to

pay

cou

rt or

dere

d ch

ild su

ppor

t, as

wel

l as b

eing

in th

e be

st in

tere

st o

f th

e ch

ildre

n of

bro

ken

hom

es. T

he st

ate

of C

alifo

rnia

has

a la

rge

arre

ars b

alan

ce a

nd th

ese

two

chan

ges t

o th

e C

alifo

rnia

Chi

ld S

uppo

rt G

uide

lines

will

get

the

NC

P's e

duca

ted

and

into

the

wor

k fo

rce.

The

self

este

em o

f NC

P's

Page 263: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

APP

EN

DIX

D

Rev

iew

of S

tate

wid

e U

nifo

rm C

hild

Sup

port

Gui

delin

e A

ll co

mm

ents

are

ver

batim

unl

ess i

ndic

ated

by

an e

llips

is (…

).

24

0

Ref

eren

ces t

o in

divi

dual

s’ n

ames

and

issu

es n

ot re

latin

g to

com

men

tary

on

the

child

supp

ort g

uide

lines

hav

e be

en e

dite

d as

alle

gatio

ns re

gard

ing

indi

vidu

al c

ase

proc

essi

ng a

re

beyo

nd th

e sc

ope

of th

is st

udy.

C

omm

enta

tor

Com

men

ts

will

be

impr

oved

sign

ifica

ntly

redu

cing

gov

ernm

enta

l dep

ende

nce,

pre

vent

ing

new

dom

estic

vio

lenc

e ca

ses,

low

erin

g th

e ov

eral

l sta

tew

ide

arre

ars (

mor

e ch

ild su

ppor

t pai

d) a

nd p

rovi

de a

n in

crea

se in

hea

lthie

r chi

ld/p

aren

t co

ntac

t --an

d ul

timat

ely,

lead

ing

to a

soci

ety

that

can

be

prou

d of

its a

ccom

plis

hmen

ts.

PLU

S: T

his i

s a g

ood

idea

--tha

t is w

hy th

e ch

ild su

ppor

t gui

delin

es sh

ould

be

alte

red

to re

flect

this

pow

erfu

l too

l in

setti

ng in

dige

nt N

CP'

s on

the

road

to e

duca

tiona

l suc

cess

--not

con

tinue

d fa

ilure

.

AD

DIT

ION

AL

PRO

POSA

LS:

Alte

r the

Uni

form

Chi

ld S

uppo

rt G

uide

lines

to re

flect

the

maj

or e

xpen

ses o

f hav

ing

a ch

ild fo

r onl

y a

few

day

s out

of

the

wee

k.

In c

ases

of 2

5% o

r mor

e p a

rent

ing

time,

the

NC

P'S

expe

nses

nea

rly e

qual

thos

e sp

ent b

y cu

stod

ial p

aren

ts w

ho

have

a c

hild

for l

ess t

han

or e

qual

to 7

5% o

f the

tim

e. E

xpen

ses s

uch

as e

lect

ric b

ills f

or th

e "o

ther

" ho

me,

wat

er

bills

for t

he "o

ther

" ho

me

and

the

expe

nses

of h

avin

g un

used

food

go

bad

etc.

The

se a

dditi

onal

exp

ense

s (am

ong

hund

reds

mor

e) m

ust b

e ta

ken

into

acc

ount

whe

n ca

lcul

atin

g ch

ild su

ppor

t. Th

e su

m o

f the

se a

dditi

onal

exp

ense

s ar

e la

rge

enou

gh th

at m

any

NC

P's a

re le

ft w

ith li

ttle

food

for t

hem

selv

es a

nd n

o ga

s mon

ey to

get

to w

ork.

A

s men

tione

d th

roug

hout

, ple

ase

esta

blis

h th

e ch

ild su

ppor

t deb

it ca

rd sy

stem

to p

reve

nt a

buse

of f

unds

that

are

sp

ecifi

cally

des

igne

d to

supp

ort c

hild

ren;

nam

ely,

pre

vent

the

purc

hase

s of d

rugs

and

alc

ohol

ic b

ever

ages

. Pro

vide

a

card

for b

oth

NC

P's a

nd C

P's t

o en

sure

bot

h pa

rent

hav

e ac

cess

to c

hild

supp

ort f

unds

-rega

rdle

ss o

f who

has

bee

n aw

arde

d ch

ild su

ppor

t pay

men

ts. S

et p

erce

ntag

es o

f car

d us

e di

rect

ly p

ropo

rtion

al to

am

ount

of c

usto

dy a

war

ded.

A

NC

P w

ith a

0%

cus

tody

aw

ard

wou

ld a

lso

have

a z

ero

dolla

r car

d sp

endi

ng b

alan

ce. W

hile

the

othe

r par

ent w

ould

ha

ve a

100

% sp

endi

ng b

alan

ce. A

50-

50 sh

ared

par

entin

g ag

reem

ent s

houl

d al

so m

aint

ain

a 50

-50

card

spen

ding

ba

lanc

e -re

gard

less

of w

ho p

ays f

or th

e fu

nds t

o be

pla

ced

on th

e ca

rd. T

his s

yste

m w

ould

be

in th

e be

st in

tere

st o

f th

e ch

ildre

n be

caus

e it

will

allo

w th

e co

urts

to g

auge

and

acc

urat

ely

bala

nce

the

fund

s fro

m o

ne p

aren

t to

anot

her

pare

nt; t

here

fore

, con

tinuo

usly

max

imiz

ing

the

all f

unds

ava

ilabl

e fo

r the

chi

ld/re

n, w

hile

sim

ulta

neou

sly

prev

entin

g th

e ab

use

of th

e ch

ild/re

ns fu

nds.

It

's w

ell p

ast w

e m

ake

the

syst

em fa

ir fo

r eve

ryon

e in

volv

ed, a

s it i

s rig

ht n

ow, t

he so

cial

trau

ma

endu

red

by n

on-

cust

odia

l par

ents

and

thei

r chi

ldre

n w

ill la

st a

life

time.

We

mus

t mak

e th

ese

chan

ges f

or th

e ch

ildre

n w

ho a

re

caug

ht in

the

mid

dle

of a

n un

fair

syst

em. G

od B

less

the

Chi

ldre

n of

Cal

iforn

ia's

Bro

ken

Hom

es.

Page 264: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

APP

EN

DIX

D

Rev

iew

of S

tate

wid

e U

nifo

rm C

hild

Sup

port

Gui

delin

e A

ll co

mm

ents

are

ver

batim

unl

ess i

ndic

ated

by

an e

llips

is (…

).

24

1

Ref

eren

ces t

o in

divi

dual

s’ n

ames

and

issu

es n

ot re

latin

g to

com

men

tary

on

the

child

supp

ort g

uide

lines

hav

e be

en e

dite

d as

alle

gatio

ns re

gard

ing

indi

vidu

al c

ase

proc

essi

ng a

re

beyo

nd th

e sc

ope

of th

is st

udy.

C

omm

enta

tor

Com

men

ts

10.

Litig

ants

For

Just

ice

Ja

nette

M. I

saac

s C

ivil

Rig

hts A

ctiv

ist

In R

e R

ecom

men

datio

n 2:

Eva

luat

e th

e cu

rren

t inc

ome

attri

butio

n po

licie

s:

I rec

omm

end

that

you

con

sider

mod

ifyin

g th

e pr

esum

ptio

n th

at im

puta

tion

shal

l not

be

base

d so

lely

on

a V

ocat

iona

l Exa

min

er's

test

imon

y.

Impu

tatio

n sh

ould

be

base

d on

act

ual m

oney

ear

ned

by th

e ob

ligor

vs.

unea

rned

spec

ulat

ive

inco

me

that

the

cour

t or

ders

the

oblig

or to

pay

.

Impu

ted

inco

me

mus

t be

subs

tant

iate

d by

act

ual h

isto

rical

vs.

hypo

thet

ical

and

/or s

pecu

lativ

e nu

mbe

rs (b

ased

on

W2'

s and

or t

ax re

turn

s). P

roof

of e

arni

ngs s

houl

d no

t be

base

d on

the

spec

ulat

ive

scen

ario

of o

ne b

iase

d vo

catio

nal

exam

iner

hire

d to

influ

ence

the

cour

t in

one

litig

ant's

favo

r for

impu

tatio

n pu

rpos

es.

Act

ual a

nd h

isto

rical

inco

me

base

d on

pay

stub

s, ta

x re

turn

s or W

2's f

iled

with

in th

e pa

st o

ne to

five

yea

rs sh

ould

ta

ke p

rece

denc

e ov

er a

hyp

othe

tical

wha

t if e

arni

ngs s

cena

rio.

In m

y ca

se fo

r ins

tanc

e, …

I w

as im

pute

d to

pay

$1,

223.

00 re

troac

tivel

y in

chi

ld su

ppor

t (pe

r mon

th) b

ased

on

a hy

poth

etic

al e

arni

ngs s

cena

rio.

I hav

e st

ill n

ot b

een

able

to e

arn

the

amou

nt I

was

impu

ted

to p

ay b

ased

on

this

"wha

t if I

had

bee

n pa

id"

hypo

thet

ical

ear

ning

s sce

nario

. In

clos

ing,

impu

ted

inco

me

mus

t be

base

d on

act

ual v

s. hy

poth

etic

al e

arni

ng

scen

ario

s.

11.

Mat

thew

M. K

rem

er, C

FLS

I wou

ld c

omm

ent a

s to

the

seco

nd re

com

men

datio

n, a

s fol

low

s:

Whi

le c

ase

law

, suc

h as

Reg

nery

and

its

prog

eny,

are

use

ful i

n gi

ving

us

benc

hmar

k te

sts

for

impu

ting

inco

me,

m

ore

rece

nt d

ecis

ions

(In

re M

arria

ge o

f Bar

dzik

(200

8) 1

65 C

al.A

pp.4

th 1

291)

go

on to

put

the

burd

en o

f pro

of o

n th

e pa

rty s

eeki

ng to

impu

te in

com

e to

the

othe

r. It

see

ms

to m

e th

at th

e bu

rden

sho

uld

be o

n th

e no

n- o

r un

der-

perf

orm

ing

pare

nt to

sho

w th

at in

com

e sh

ould

not

be

impu

ted

to h

im/h

er a

nd if

(s)

he m

eets

that

bur

den

it w

ould

th

en sh

ift to

the

othe

r par

ty

12.

Supe

rior C

ourt

of L

os A

ngel

es C

ount

y Ja

net G

arci

a, C

ourt

Man

ager

Pl

anni

ng a

nd R

esea

rch

Uni

t

Agr

ee w

ith t

he r

ecom

enda

tions

- Th

e G

uide

line

stud

y in

volv

ed a

ran

dom

sam

ple

of 1

,226

chi

ld s

uppo

rt or

ders

en

tere

d in

200

8 in

11

coun

ties

(spl

it be

twee

n ve

ry la

rge,

larg

e, m

ediu

m a

nd s

mal

l cou

ntie

s). T

he s

ampl

e in

clud

ed

alm

ost e

qual

shar

es o

f IV

-D a

nd n

on-IV

-D c

ases

. - T

he 2

010

stud

y fo

und

guid

elin

e de

viat

ions

in 1

5 pe

rcen

t of t

he c

ases

revi

ewed

. Thi

s de

viat

ion

rate

is h

ighe

r tha

n th

at o

f pr

evio

us y

ears

' stu

dies

(19

98,

2001

and

200

5) w

hich

ran

ged

from

9 t

o 10

per

cent

. Th

e co

mm

issi

oner

s

Page 265: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

APP

EN

DIX

D

Rev

iew

of S

tate

wid

e U

nifo

rm C

hild

Sup

port

Gui

delin

e A

ll co

mm

ents

are

ver

batim

unl

ess i

ndic

ated

by

an e

llips

is (…

).

24

2

Ref

eren

ces t

o in

divi

dual

s’ n

ames

and

issu

es n

ot re

latin

g to

com

men

tary

on

the

child

supp

ort g

uide

lines

hav

e be

en e

dite

d as

alle

gatio

ns re

gard

ing

indi

vidu

al c

ase

proc

essi

ng a

re

beyo

nd th

e sc

ope

of th

is st

udy.

C

omm

enta

tor

Com

men

ts

surv

eyed

for

thi

s st

udy

ackn

owle

dged

tha

t th

ey d

evia

ted

in c

ases

whe

re t

he o

blig

or h

as v

ery

low

inc

ome

and

paym

ent o

f the

gui

delin

e am

ount

wou

ld im

pove

rish

the

oblig

or.

- In

ord

erin

g su

ppor

t, C

alifo

rnia

doe

s no

t con

side

r ho

w m

uch

inco

me

the

oblig

or n

eeds

to li

ve a

t a

subs

iste

nce

leve

l. C

alifo

rnia

use

s on

ly a

per

cent

age

redu

ctio

n to

the

regu

lar g

uide

line

amou

nt, a

nd th

en, o

nly

for o

blig

ors

with

$1

,000

net

inco

me

per m

onth

or l

ess.

- B

y co

ntra

st, m

ost s

tate

s ha

ve a

"se

lf-su

ppor

t res

erve

" as

the

unde

rlyin

g ba

sis

for t

he s

uppo

rt or

der i

n lo

w in

com

e ca

ses.

This

res

erve

is li

nked

to th

e fe

dera

l pov

erty

leve

l for

one

per

son

and

the

resu

lting

sup

port

orde

r in

thes

e st

ates

is th

e am

ount

the

oblig

or e

arns

abo

ve th

e fe

dera

l pov

erty

leve

l. -

Add

ition

ally

, C

alifo

rnia

's in

com

e pr

esum

ptio

n po

licy

mak

es t

he g

uide

line

prob

lem

s w

orse

for

low

inc

ome

pare

nts.

In IV

-D c

ases

whe

re th

e lo

cal a

genc

y is

est

ablis

hing

the

supp

ort o

rder

and

the

oblig

or's

inco

me

hist

ory

and

inco

me

is n

ot k

now

n, in

com

e is

pre

sum

ed a

t min

imum

wag

e fo

r 40

hou

rs p

er w

eek.

Alm

ost a

ll ot

her

stat

es h

ave

polic

ies t

hat c

onsi

der t

he c

urre

nt jo

b m

arke

t or p

resu

me

few

er w

ork

hour

s.

- One

of t

he re

com

men

datio

ns is

that

the

low

-inco

me

adju

stm

ent b

e re

vise

d to

mor

e ac

cura

tely

refle

ct th

e fin

anci

al

circ

umst

ance

s of

low

inco

me

oblig

ors.

A s

econ

d re

com

men

datio

n is

that

the

curr

ent i

ncom

e at

tribu

tion

polic

ies

be

revi

site

d.

- Th

e pe

rcen

tage

of

orde

rs e

nter

ed t

hrou

gh d

efau

lt, 4

6 pe

rcen

t, is

bac

k up

. C

omm

issi

oner

s be

lieve

tha

t m

any

defa

ulte

d or

ders

are

one

s in

whi

ch D

CSS

req

uest

ed a

rel

ativ

ely

low

ord

er t

hat

the

oblig

or d

id n

ot c

onte

st.

Adv

ocat

es b

elie

ve th

at it

is d

ue to

the

econ

omic

rece

ssio

n an

d th

e un

affo

rdab

ility

of a

ttorn

ey re

pres

enta

tion.

- R

egar

dles

s of t

he re

ason

for a

n in

crea

se in

the

defa

ult r

ate,

one

of t

he re

com

men

datio

ns is

to in

crea

se a

cces

s, un

ders

tand

ing

and

invo

lvem

ent b

y pa

rent

s. Fo

r the

mos

t par

t, be

tter e

duca

ted

pare

nts h

ave

high

er c

ompl

ianc

e ra

tes

and

are

mor

e in

volv

ed w

ith th

eir c

hild

ren.

13

. D

onna

L. M

alle

n A

ttorn

ey

I con

cur w

ith c

oncl

usio

n 21

as t

o th

e de

vast

atin

g im

pact

on

child

ren

that

is e

ngen

dere

d by

the

use

of p

erce

nt o

f cu

stod

ial t

imes

hare

as a

Gui

delin

e fa

ctor

. I h

ave

been

in p

ract

ice

as a

Fam

ily L

aw S

peci

alis

t bef

ore

and

afte

r the

G

uide

lines

wen

t int

o ef

fect

. I h

ave

seen

hig

h-co

nflic

t cus

tody

bat

tles,

mot

ivat

ed b

y a

pare

nt's

desi

re to

redu

ce o

r in

crea

se c

hild

supp

ort,

beco

me

com

mon

plac

e an

d pr

edic

tabl

e, si

nce

the

Gui

delin

es w

ent i

nto

effe

ct.

This

is to

xic

to c

hild

ren.

Th

e pr

opos

al to

use

"bl

ock

times

" of

cus

tody

per

cent

age

(on

Page

116

, in

the

Focu

s Gro

up re

sults

), or

alte

rnat

e

Page 266: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

APP

EN

DIX

D

Rev

iew

of S

tate

wid

e U

nifo

rm C

hild

Sup

port

Gui

delin

e A

ll co

mm

ents

are

ver

batim

unl

ess i

ndic

ated

by

an e

llips

is (…

).

24

3

Ref

eren

ces t

o in

divi

dual

s’ n

ames

and

issu

es n

ot re

latin

g to

com

men

tary

on

the

child

supp

ort g

uide

lines

hav

e be

en e

dite

d as

alle

gatio

ns re

gard

ing

indi

vidu

al c

ase

proc

essi

ng a

re

beyo

nd th

e sc

ope

of th

is st

udy.

C

omm

enta

tor

Com

men

ts

appr

oach

es, s

uch

as th

e "p

erce

ntag

e of

inco

me"

util

ized

in o

ther

stat

es, s

houl

d be

inco

rpor

ated

into

the

reco

mm

enda

tions

as a

pos

sibl

e m

odifi

catio

n to

the

Gui

delin

e fo

rmul

a.

14.

Partn

ersh

ip fo

r Res

pons

ible

Par

entin

g R

on C

uff

Com

man

der

The

advo

cate

s who

atte

nded

our

mee

ting

in S

an F

ranc

isco

wer

e un

anim

ous o

n tw

o po

ints

: 1.

) The

gui

delin

e is

too

com

plex

for t

he a

vera

ge p

aren

t to

antic

ipat

e th

eir o

blig

atio

n 2.

) The

gui

delin

e sh

ould

rely

prim

arily

on

the

actu

al c

ost t

o ra

ise

a ch

ild a

nd m

inim

ize

conv

ersa

tion

or a

rgum

ent

abou

t par

ent's

inco

me.

15

. Su

perio

r Cou

rt of

San

Die

go C

ount

y M

icha

el L

. Rod

dy

Cou

rt Ex

ecut

ive

Off

icer

Agr

ee w

ith re

com

men

datio

ns in

the

stud

y.

16.

Alb

ert S

chaf

er

LCSW

Se

rco-

NA

Cur

rent

gui

delin

es re

sult

in c

hron

ic m

isus

e of

the

syst

em re

sulti

ng in

har

sh, u

njus

tifie

d, a

nd fa

tal c

onse

quen

ces t

o th

e no

ncus

todi

al p

aren

t. Th

ere

is n

ow a

pat

tern

of s

uici

de re

sulti

ng fr

om th

e ab

usiv

e na

ture

of t

he a

pply

ing

child

su

ppor

t gui

delin

es. B

ecau

se th

e C

ourts

do

not i

mpo

se a

ny sa

nctio

ns o

n fa

lse

alle

gatio

ns, t

hey

are

prof

essi

onal

co

ntrib

utin

g to

the

suic

ides

of a

n in

crea

sing

num

ber o

f non

cust

odia

l par

ents

. Th

is a

lso

cont

ribut

es to

the

incr

ease

of

suic

ides

in o

ur m

ilita

ry. A

s a su

icid

e pr

even

tion

coor

dina

tor f

or th

e N

avy

Res

erve

s I'm

gre

atly

con

cern

ed b

y th

e bl

ind

eye

of th

e co

urts

in th

is m

atte

r. It

is n

ever

in th

e be

st in

tere

st o

f chi

ldre

n or

oth

er fa

mily

mem

bers

whe

n so

meo

ne c

omm

its su

icid

e. T

he c

urre

nt c

hild

supp

ort g

uide

lines

will

dig

dee

per i

nto

the

pock

et th

an is

nec

essa

ry

and

then

cut

off

the

indi

vidu

als a

bilit

y to

pro

vide

any

supp

ort b

y re

voki

ng th

e pr

ofes

sion

al li

cens

es th

at a

re

inst

rum

enta

l in

prov

idin

g in

com

e. T

he n

otifi

catio

n st

anda

rds f

or S

how

of C

ause

are

det

rimen

tal t

o so

cial

just

ice

and

com

mon

sens

e. M

ailin

g a

notic

e w

ithou

t ins

urin

g th

e in

divi

dual

rece

ived

the

notic

e no

t onl

y re

sults

in in

crea

sed

abili

ty to

col

lect

wel

fare

reim

burs

emen

t but

als

o pu

nish

es in

noce

nt c

itize

ns w

ho a

re n

ow o

blig

ated

to p

ay c

hild

su

ppor

t for

chi

ldre

n w

ho a

re n

ot th

eirs

and

the

detri

men

t of t

heir

own

child

ren

and

fam

ilies

. M

ost v

ulne

rabl

e to

this

pr

actic

e ar

e th

e Ci

tizen

War

riors

who

are

def

endi

ng o

ur n

atio

n in

Iraq

and

Afg

hani

stan

. M

y jo

b is

to p

rovi

de a

sa

fety

net

to h

elp

thes

e fa

mili

es w

ho a

re a

t hig

h ris

k du

e to

the

stre

ssor

s of o

ur so

ciet

y. C

omba

t is w

here

we

infli

ct

mor

e st

ress

on

our e

nem

y th

an o

ur e

nem

y ca

n in

flict

on

us; t

here

fore

our

abi

lity

to m

anag

e st

ress

is a

s crit

ical

as

our a

bilit

y to

con

trol b

leed

ing

in th

e fie

ld.

As l

ong

as th

e st

ick

appr

oach

is u

sed,

soci

ety

will

not

ben

efit

from

the

hard

han

ded

appr

oach

that

is c

urre

ntly

bei

ng u

sed.

Th

e co

urts

nee

d to

be

educ

ated

on

the

cons

eque

nces

of t

heir

actio

ns.

It do

es n

ot m

atte

r if t

here

are

ple

nty

of la

ws t

o pr

otec

t if t

hey

are

igno

red

beca

use

the

cour

ts b

lindl

y be

lieve

wha

t the

y ar

e do

ing

are

right

. 17

. Ji

m U

nter

shin

e G

roun

d Ze

ro S

ervi

ces

The

Fam

ily L

aw U

ncer

tain

ty P

rinci

pal i

n C

alifo

rnia

W

hat k

ind

of T

ijuan

a is

this

?

Page 267: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

APP

EN

DIX

D

Rev

iew

of S

tate

wid

e U

nifo

rm C

hild

Sup

port

Gui

delin

e A

ll co

mm

ents

are

ver

batim

unl

ess i

ndic

ated

by

an e

llips

is (…

).

24

4

Ref

eren

ces t

o in

divi

dual

s’ n

ames

and

issu

es n

ot re

latin

g to

com

men

tary

on

the

child

supp

ort g

uide

lines

hav

e be

en e

dite

d as

alle

gatio

ns re

gard

ing

indi

vidu

al c

ase

proc

essi

ng a

re

beyo

nd th

e sc

ope

of th

is st

udy.

C

omm

enta

tor

Com

men

ts

http

://w

ww

.gnd

zero

srv.

com

/Web

%20

Page

s/fl_

unce

rtain

ty.h

tm

“In

the

shar

p fo

rmul

atio

n of

the

law

of c

ausa

lity

- ‘if

we

know

the

pres

ent e

xact

ly, w

e ca

n ca

lcul

ate

the

futu

re’ –

it

is n

ot th

e co

nclu

sion

that

is w

rong

but

the

prem

ise.

” (H

eise

nber

g, in

unc

erta

inty

prin

cipl

e pa

per,

1927

) Th

ere

is a

dis

tinct

ion

betw

een

a gu

idel

ine

and

a ru

le, a

pro

cess

and

a ra

cket

, or a

syst

em a

nd a

railr

oad.

Whe

n it

com

es to

soci

al p

olic

y, th

ere

mus

t be

a th

orou

gh u

nder

stan

ding

of t

he d

ynam

ics o

f a p

robl

em b

efor

e a

solu

tion

can

be in

telli

gent

ly p

ropo

sed.

Soc

ial p

olic

y th

at is

impl

emen

ted

base

d on

an

erro

neou

s pre

mis

e m

ay n

ot o

nly

resu

lt in

in

effe

ctiv

enes

s – it

may

just

star

t a re

volu

tion.

Th

e U

.S. O

ffic

e of

Chi

ld S

uppo

rt En

forc

emen

t (O

CSE

) rep

orte

d ch

ild su

ppor

t arr

eara

ges o

f $84

bill

ion

acro

ss a

ll st

ates

in 2

000.

The

Sta

te o

f Cal

iforn

ia le

ads t

he n

atio

n re

porti

ng a

rrea

rage

s of $

15.8

bill

ion,

with

Tex

as ($

7.9

billi

on) a

nd M

ichi

gan

($6.

3 bi

llion

) tra

iling

the

natio

nal l

eade

r in

inef

fect

iven

ess b

y le

ss th

an h

alf.

The

inep

titud

e of

th

e C

SE a

genc

y op

erat

ing

in C

alifo

rnia

has

bee

n th

e fo

cus o

f muc

h co

nste

rnat

ion

by th

ose

atte

mpt

ing

to b

alan

ce

the

Stat

e’s b

udge

t eve

ry y

ear.

* 2

000

- Fed

eral

law

(USC

42

658a

) is e

nact

ed b

y C

ongr

ess,

whi

ch sp

ecifi

es th

e st

ate

ince

ntiv

e ca

lcul

atio

ns (U

SC

42 6

58 re

peal

ed).

The

new

met

hod

allo

ws S

tate

s to

doub

le th

e co

llect

ions

that

mus

t be

dist

ribut

ed la

st, w

hich

in

clud

es T

AN

F, F

oste

r Car

e, a

nd ‘s

uppo

rt ob

ligat

ions

not

requ

ired

to b

e as

sign

ed’.

* 2

000

- Pol

icy

Stud

ies I

nc (P

SI) i

s pai

d by

Cal

iforn

ia ta

xpay

ers t

o co

nduc

t the

“Ca

lifor

nia

Chi

ld S

uppo

rt G

uide

line

Rev

iew

200

1”. P

SI re

com

men

ds n

o ch

ange

s to

the

Stat

e’s c

hild

supp

ort a

war

ds a

nd re

com

men

ds: “

the

resu

lts fr

om th

e U

rban

Inst

itute

’s st

udy

on c

hild

supp

ort d

ebt b

e co

nsid

ered

whe

n re

leas

ed. I

t may

pro

vide

furth

er

insi

ghts

on

the

abili

ty to

pay

in th

ese

pres

umed

inco

me

case

s.”

* 2

001

- Pol

icy

Stud

ies I

nc is

pai

d by

Cal

iforn

ia ta

xpay

ers t

o in

vest

igat

e th

e St

ate’

s CSE

acc

ount

ing

with

the

outc

ome

repo

rted

by th

e LA

Tim

es: "

Glo

win

g re

port

com

es o

n th

e tw

o-ye

ar a

nniv

ersa

ry o

f the

stat

e ag

ency

that

co

llect

s cou

rt-or

dere

d pa

ymen

ts, w

hose

am

ount

s dou

bled

on

aver

age

per c

ase"

. *

200

3 - T

he U

rban

Inst

itute

(UI)

is p

aid

by C

alifo

rnia

taxp

ayer

s to

cond

uct t

he “

Col

lect

abili

ty S

tudy

” en

title

d “E

xam

inin

g C

hild

Sup

port

Arr

ears

in C

alifo

rnia

”. U

I rec

omm

ends

: ‘C

alifo

rnia

shou

ld c

onsi

der t

he in

tere

st c

harg

es

on u

npai

d ch

ild su

ppor

t. W

e es

timat

e th

at 2

7% o

f Cal

iforn

ia’s

chi

ld su

ppor

t arr

ears

, or $

3.9

billi

on, w

as in

tere

st in

20

00’ a

nd ‘a

s far

as w

e kn

ow, t

here

is n

o pr

iori

reas

on fo

r cha

rgin

g in

tere

st b

efor

e pr

inci

pal.

We

estim

ate

that

if

Cal

iforn

ia re

vers

ed th

is o

rder

, it w

ould

redu

ce it

s arr

ears

bal

ance

by

6% o

ver a

10

year

per

iod’

.

Page 268: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

APP

EN

DIX

D

Rev

iew

of S

tate

wid

e U

nifo

rm C

hild

Sup

port

Gui

delin

e A

ll co

mm

ents

are

ver

batim

unl

ess i

ndic

ated

by

an e

llips

is (…

).

24

5

Ref

eren

ces t

o in

divi

dual

s’ n

ames

and

issu

es n

ot re

latin

g to

com

men

tary

on

the

child

supp

ort g

uide

lines

hav

e be

en e

dite

d as

alle

gatio

ns re

gard

ing

indi

vidu

al c

ase

proc

essi

ng a

re

beyo

nd th

e sc

ope

of th

is st

udy.

C

omm

enta

tor

Com

men

ts

* 2

005

- Pol

icy

Stud

ies I

nc is

pai

d by

Cal

iforn

ia ta

xpay

ers t

o co

nduc

t the

“Ca

lifor

nia

Chi

ld S

uppo

rt G

uide

line

Rev

iew

200

5". P

SI a

ckno

wle

dged

the

UI p

ersp

ectiv

e: ‘T

he C

olle

ctib

ility

Stu

dy id

entif

ied

the

follo

win

g th

ree

reas

ons f

or a

rrea

rs g

row

th d

urin

g th

e 19

90s:

(1) s

uppo

rt or

der a

mou

nts t

hat w

ere

too

high

for l

ow-in

com

e ob

ligor

s, (2

) inc

ompl

ete

enfo

rcem

ent,

and

(3) a

sses

smen

t of i

nter

est o

n ar

rear

s.’ P

SI re

com

men

ds, h

owev

er: ‘

No

abun

danc

e of

com

pelli

ng e

vide

nce

sugg

ests

that

the

basi

c gu

idel

ine

form

ula

need

s to

be c

hang

ed.’

Fede

ral l

aw sp

ecifi

es h

ow c

olle

ctio

ns b

y st

ate

CSE

age

ncie

s mus

t be

dist

ribut

ed (U

SC 4

2 65

7) a

nd d

eman

ds th

at

child

supp

ort p

rinci

pal t

hat a

ccru

ed w

hile

not

rece

ivin

g TA

NF

mus

t be

paid

to th

e cu

stod

ial p

aren

t firs

t. Th

e ‘p

riori

reas

on fo

r cha

rgin

g in

tere

st be

fore

prin

cipa

l’ (th

at se

emed

to a

llude

UI)

is th

e sa

me

reas

on th

at c

ompe

lled

Gra

y D

avis

to v

eto

pate

rnity

frau

d le

gisl

atio

n –

Cal

iforn

ia se

eks t

o m

axim

ize

Fede

ral f

undi

ng re

gard

less

of t

he c

olla

tera

l da

mag

e in

curr

ed o

n th

e pa

rent

s and

the

child

ren

who

are

forc

ed to

be

vict

imiz

ed b

y th

e St

ate’

s law

less

‘mon

ey

mac

hine

’. “I

bel

ieve

that

the

exis

tenc

e of

the

clas

sica

l ‘pa

th’ c

an b

e pr

egna

ntly

form

ulat

ed a

s fol

low

s: T

he ‘p

ath’

com

es in

to

exis

tenc

e on

ly w

hen

we

obse

rve

it. “

(Hei

senb

erg,

in u

ncer

tain

ty p

rinci

ple

pape

r, 19

27)

Cal

iforn

ia h

as c

hose

n to

use

‘the

pat

h le

ss tr

avel

ed’ (

com

pare

d to

the

law

abi

ding

Sta

tes)

by

driv

ing

pare

nts

atte

mpt

ing

to su

ppor

t the

ir ch

ildre

n to

une

mpl

oym

ent,

whi

ch fo

rces

the

cust

odia

l par

ent a

nd th

eir c

hild

ren

to

TAN

F, w

hich

allo

ws C

SE to

kee

p th

e de

bt g

row

ing

by d

isco

urag

ing

paym

ent,

whi

ch w

ill a

llow

‘wel

fare

to w

ork’

to

hel

p le

ave

the

child

ren

hom

e al

one,

whi

ch w

ill a

llow

Fos

ter C

are

to h

erd

the

child

ren

to sa

me-

sex

hous

ehol

ds,

whi

ch w

ill a

llow

the

finan

cial

ly st

able

Fos

ter p

aren

ts to

take

a $

10,0

00 p

er y

ear t

ax d

educ

tion

for e

ach

child

(or

even

mor

e if

they

requ

est s

iblin

gs).

Alth

ough

the

pare

nt w

ho is

orig

inal

ly ta

rget

ed fo

r col

lect

ion

will

be

forc

ed to

fo

ot th

e bi

ll fo

r all

aspe

cts o

f the

ir fa

mily

’s d

estru

ctio

n - t

he p

ract

ice

of d

istri

butin

g in

tere

st fi

rst,

resu

lts in

the

taxp

ayer

s rar

ely

seei

ng a

pen

ny o

f rei

mbu

rsem

ent,

and

the

targ

eted

par

ent f

rom

slow

ing

the

grow

th o

f the

deb

t. A

t lea

st w

hen

a Ti

juan

a co

p pu

lls y

ou o

ver w

hile

driv

ing

in M

exic

o, h

e w

ill o

nly

take

you

r driv

ers l

icen

se, o

r you

r ca

r, or

put

you

in ja

il if

you

refu

se to

giv

e hi

m a

ll yo

ur m

oney

. In

Cal

iforn

ia th

ey w

ill a

lso

take

you

r kid

s, yo

ur

hous

e, a

nd y

our b

usin

ess,

to a

llow

them

to ri

p of

f the

ir C

ount

ry’s

taxp

ayer

s.

18.

Hon

Reb

ecca

Wig

htm

an

Chi

ld S

uppo

rt C

omm

issi

oner

Su

perio

r Cou

rt of

San

Fra

ncis

co C

ount

y

Con

clus

ion

6: A

s a C

omm

issi

oner

, I w

ould

als

o st

ate

that

ther

e is

ano

ther

reas

on fo

r the

tren

ds n

oted

: "l

ack

of

good

info

rmat

ion"

(i.e

. wor

k -re

late

d ch

ild c

are

is o

ften

not i

nclu

ded

if th

ere

is in

suff

icie

nt in

form

atio

n; sa

me

for

issu

es re

gard

ing

hard

ship

s)

Con

clus

ion

10:

I do

not k

now

if th

e fu

ll st

udy

show

ed a

bre

akdo

wn

on th

is is

sue

of m

issi

ng in

form

atio

n be

twee

n

Page 269: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

APP

EN

DIX

D

Rev

iew

of S

tate

wid

e U

nifo

rm C

hild

Sup

port

Gui

delin

e A

ll co

mm

ents

are

ver

batim

unl

ess i

ndic

ated

by

an e

llips

is (…

).

24

6

Ref

eren

ces t

o in

divi

dual

s’ n

ames

and

issu

es n

ot re

latin

g to

com

men

tary

on

the

child

supp

ort g

uide

lines

hav

e be

en e

dite

d as

alle

gatio

ns re

gard

ing

indi

vidu

al c

ase

proc

essi

ng a

re

beyo

nd th

e sc

ope

of th

is st

udy.

C

omm

enta

tor

Com

men

ts

IV-D

and

non

IV-D

cas

es, b

ut if

it d

id n

ot, i

t sho

uld.

In

my

expe

rienc

e, th

ere

is a

n ev

en g

reat

er p

erce

ntag

e of

m

issi

ng in

form

atio

n in

non

IV-D

cas

es, p

artic

ular

ly o

n th

e ite

m o

f not

spec

ifyin

g gu

idel

ine.

Thi

s con

clus

ion,

in m

y vi

ew, p

oint

s to

the

need

to re

quire

that

a c

alcu

latio

n be

atta

ched

to e

very

ord

er (a

t lea

st in

the

IV-D

dep

artm

ents

). C

oncl

usio

ns 1

3 an

d 14

: I c

anno

t agr

ee w

ith th

ese

conc

lusi

ons e

noug

h - p

artic

ular

ly th

at th

e LI

A (l

ow-in

com

e ad

just

men

t) is

inad

equa

te!

Rec

omm

e nda

tion

1: I

wou

ld su

gges

t tha

t the

con

cept

of a

self-

supp

ort r

eser

ve a

mou

nt (b

asic

min

imum

livi

ng

expe

nses

) be

cons

ider

ed, p

erha

ps ty

ing

it in

to a

per

cent

age

of th

e po

verty

leve

l. G

iven

the

inad

equa

cy o

f the

low

-in

com

e ad

just

men

t, I s

pend

qui

te a

bit

of ti

me

durin

g he

arin

gs d

oing

ana

lyse

s to

dete

rmin

e if

an o

blig

or q

ualif

ies

for a

n of

f-gu

idel

ine

(on

the

basi

s/le

gal c

once

pt o

f the

City

& C

ount

y of

San

Fra

ncis

co v

. Mill

er (1

996)

49

CA

4th

866

case

. It

is im

pera

tive

that

the

amou

nt o

f chi

ld su

ppor

t im

pose

d no

t be

so h

igh

that

the

oblig

or w

ill n

ot b

e ab

le

to m

eet t

heir

min

imum

bas

ic n

eeds

to li

ve.

Rec

omm

enda

tion

2: I

agr

ee a

nd w

ould

sugg

est t

hat w

hile

ther

e ne

eds t

o be

uni

form

ity, t

here

als

o ne

eds t

o be

som

e fle

xibi

lity

(i.e.

inco

me

impu

tatio

n ne

eds t

o be

con

sist

ent w

ith th

e re

ality

of t

he e

cono

mic

regi

on -

e.g.

seas

onal

farm

w

orke

rs a

nd o

ppor

tuni

ties i

n Tu

lare

Cou

nty

are

not t

he sa

me

as th

ey a

re in

Mar

in C

ount

y or

LA

). R

ecom

men

datio

n 3:

In

addi

tion

to e

duca

ting

stak

ehol

ders

, it w

ould

be

help

ful t

o al

so d

evel

op st

rate

gies

for

educ

atin

g th

e pa

rent

s at a

n ea

rly st

age,

whi

ch a

re b

uilt

into

BO

TH th

e st

akeh

olde

rs' a

nd th

e ch

ild su

ppor

t age

ncy'

s pr

oces

ses.

For

exa

mpl

e, in

SF,

thro

ugh

the

EPIC

pro

ject

(des

igne

d to

redu

ce d

efau

lts a

nd g

et e

arly

par

ent

parti

cipa

tion)

, cas

ewor

kers

are

trai

ned

on h

ow to

ass

ist p

aren

ts w

ith fi

lling

out

an

answ

er a

nd/o

r if o

btai

ning

a

stip

ulat

ion,

then

mak

ing

sure

they

und

erst

and

the

need

to fi

le a

mot

ion

if th

eir c

ircum

stan

ces c

hang

e. I

t sho

uld

be a

pa

rt of

the

proc

ess a

t eve

ry p

lac e

whe

re th

at fa

mily

inte

ract

s -- i

nclu

ding

the

Title

IV-A

side

. Th

ere

is a

com

plet

e di

scon

nect

bet

wee

n th

e IV

-A a

nd IV

-D a

nd th

e w

orke

rs u

nder

stan

ding

wha

t hap

pens

on

the

othe

r sid

e.

Rec

omm

enda

tion

5: I

act

ually

bel

ieve

this

reco

mm

enda

tion

shou

ld b

e m

odifi

ed to

REQ

UIR

E m

ore

info

rmat

ion

in

the

case

file

. M

any

times

, whe

n fa

ced

with

a m

odifi

catio

n of

chi

ld su

ppor

t, it

help

s to

know

wha

t the

fact

ors w

ere

that

led

to th

e pe

ndin

g or

der,

so th

at th

e co

urt c

an d

eter

min

e w

heth

er th

ere

has b

een

a su

bsta

ntia

l cha

nge.

It i

s als

o ex

trem

ely

help

ful t

o se

e a

prio

r cal

cula

tion

-- w

hich

can

show

, at a

gla

nce,

wha

t the

cou

rt's p

rior f

indi

ngs w

ere

on a

nu

mbe

r of i

ssue

s, in

clud

ing

times

hare

, num

ber o

f har

dshi

ps g

rant

ed, e

tc.

It w

ould

hel

p tre

men

dous

ly --

and

the

cour

t wo u

ldn'

t hav

e to

re-in

vent

the

whe

el a

nd ta

ke te

stim

ony

all o

ver a

gain

whe

re th

e pa

rties

are

sayi

ng th

at th

e vi

sita

tion

hasn

't ch

ange

d si

nce

the

last

tim

e. I

n th

ose

inst

ance

s, th

e co

urt c

an si

mpl

y ut

ilize

the

times

hare

use

d at

th

e la

st h

earin

g --

if th

ey c

an fi

nd it

! H

avin

g th

e ca

lcul

atio

ns a

ttach

ed to

prio

r ord

ers,

with

all

the

atte

ndan

t

Page 270: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

APP

EN

DIX

D

Rev

iew

of S

tate

wid

e U

nifo

rm C

hild

Sup

port

Gui

delin

e A

ll co

mm

ents

are

ver

batim

unl

ess i

ndic

ated

by

an e

llips

is (…

).

24

7

Ref

eren

ces t

o in

divi

dual

s’ n

ames

and

issu

es n

ot re

latin

g to

com

men

tary

on

the

child

supp

ort g

uide

lines

hav

e be

en e

dite

d as

alle

gatio

ns re

gard

ing

indi

vidu

al c

ase

proc

essi

ng a

re

beyo

nd th

e sc

ope

of th

is st

udy.

C

omm

enta

tor

Com

men

ts

info

rmat

ion,

hel

ps re

duce

par

ties f

rom

pro

vidi

ng in

cons

iste

nt h

isto

rical

info

rmat

ion

to th

e co

urt a

s wel

l.

I do

sinc

erel

y ho

pe th

at p

erha

ps th

ere

will

be

anot

her c

hanc

e to

mak

e co

mm

ents

, pro

vide

inpu

t on

thes

e im

porta

nt

topi

cs.

Than

k yo

u.

19.

Kev

in M

. You

ng

Nat

iona

l Coa

litio

n Fo

r Men

I atte

nded

the

Sout

hern

Cal

iforn

ia a

dvoc

ates

mee

ting

and

am a

ppal

led

with

the

lack

of i

nteg

rity

the

grou

p ru

nnin

g th

e m

eetin

g. T

hey

did

not r

efle

ct o

ur p

ositi

on a

t all.

It r

emin

ded

me

of ty

pica

l pol

itics

. W

e w

ill h

ave

a m

eetin

g,

liste

n to

wha

t the

y ha

ve to

say,

and

then

we

are

goin

g to

do

wha

t we

wan

t reg

ardl

ess o

f wha

t the

adv

ocat

es b

roug

ht

up.

The

Div

orce

Indu

stry

has

bea

ten

us a

ll do

wn

to th

e po

int w

here

99%

of t

he p

eopl

e af

fect

ed b

y th

is In

dust

ry h

ave

give

n up

. O

f cou

rse

ther

e is

1%

of u

s tha

t will

seek

cha

nge

in th

is In

dust

ry a

nd to

real

ly th

ink

abou

t the

chi

ldre

n.

The

advo

cate

s wan

ted

the

Gui

delin

es to

be

base

d on

REA

L co

st, N

OT

inco

me

of th

e pa

rent

s. W

hen

you

take

a

fam

ily th

at is

split

ting

apar

t who

wer

e su

rviv

ing

on a

set i

ncom

e th

en y

ou h

ave

to c

reat

e TW

O h

ouse

hold

s, w

hy in

th

e w

orld

wou

ld y

ou ta

ke in

com

e fr

om o

ne p

aren

t and

giv

e it

to th

e ot

her.

It m

akes

no

sens

e. I

kno

w, I

and

my

child

ren

are

a vi

ctim

of t

his s

yste

m.

In so

me

way

s the

ir m

othe

r has

bee

n ne

gativ

ely

impa

cted

by

this

syst

em a

s w

ell a

nd sh

e w

as th

e on

e re

ceiv

ing

mon

ey b

ased

on

this

syst

em.

We

need

eco

nom

ic sp

ecia

list t

o lo

ok a

t thi

s pro

blem

and

mak

e a

fair

and

equi

tabl

e pr

ogra

m th

at w

ill w

ork.

We

had

Prof

. Will

iam

S. C

oman

or fr

om U

CLA

atte

nd th

e m

eetin

g an

d he

told

the

Gui

delin

e te

am th

at w

hat w

e ha

ve in

pl

ace

is n

ot w

orki

ng.

Thin

k ab

out i

t, if

you

had

som

ethi

ng th

at re

ally

wor

ked,

you

wou

ld n

ot b

e sp

endi

ng so

muc

h m

oney

tryi

ng to

co

llect

the

outra

geou

s Chi

ld S

uppo

rt su

ms.

The

Fed

s nee

d to

dis

cont

inue

the

subs

idy

of th

is sy

stem

and

may

be th

e sy

stem

wou

ld ru

n m

ore

effic

ient

and

fair

to a

ll in

volv

ed.

Plea

se ta

ke a

look

at w

hat w

e ac

tual

ly sa

id.

It w

as re

cord

e d a

nd fi

lmed

. I w

onde

r if w

e w

ill b

e ab

le to

get

that

m

ater

ial.

Nex

t tim

e w

e w

ill h

ave

an in

depe

nden

t par

ty a

t the

tabl

e re

cord

ing

the

even

t.

We

need

a m

ajor

ove

rhau

l of t

he G

uide

lines

. The

stat

us q

uo is

just

ano

ther

indi

catio

n th

at th

e D

ivor

ce In

dust

ry w

ill

cont

inue

to ta

ke o

ur m

oney

and

live

it u

p at

our

exp

ense

. 20

. M

embe

r of t

he P

ublic

C

hild

supp

ort l

evel

s are

not

orio

usly

hig

h fo

r low

er-in

com

e in

divi

dual

s. W

here

is th

e co

nsid

erat

ion

of th

e ac

tual

ty

pica

l exp

ense

s for

rais

ing

a ch

ild fo

r peo

ple

at v

ario

us in

com

e le

vels

.

Page 271: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

APP

EN

DIX

D

Rev

iew

of S

tate

wid

e U

nifo

rm C

hild

Sup

port

Gui

delin

e A

ll co

mm

ents

are

ver

batim

unl

ess i

ndic

ated

by

an e

llips

is (…

).

24

8

Ref

eren

ces t

o in

divi

dual

s’ n

ames

and

issu

es n

ot re

latin

g to

com

men

tary

on

the

child

supp

ort g

uide

lines

hav

e be

en e

dite

d as

alle

gatio

ns re

gard

ing

indi

vidu

al c

ase

proc

essi

ng a

re

beyo

nd th

e sc

ope

of th

is st

udy.

C

omm

enta

tor

Com

men

ts

Chi

ld w

elfa

re w

ould

pro

babl

y be

impr

oved

by

avoi

ding

the

cons

eque

nce

of n

on-c

usto

dial

par

ents

end

ing

up

atte

mpt

ing

to a

void

the

auth

oriti

es b

ecau

se o

f lev

els t

hat m

is-m

atch

thei

r cap

acity

. W

here

is th

e co

nsid

erat

ion

of th

e fa

ct th

at m

ost n

on-c

ompl

iant

par

ents

are

low

inco

me,

une

mpl

oyed

, inj

ured

, or

sick

? W

here

is a

mea

ns fo

r les

s -ed

ucat

ed a

nd p

oor n

on-c

usto

dial

par

ents

to g

et th

e le

vel o

f chi

ld su

ppor

t to

chan

ge w

ith

thei

r som

etim

es q

uick

ly c

hang

ing

empl

oym

ent s

tatu

s and

inco

me?

To o

man

y pe

ople

end

up

in d

eep

troub

le,

hom

eles

s, or

suic

idin

g be

caus

e of

the

lack

of r

ealis

m a

nd re

spon

sive

ness

in th

e sy

stem

. W

hy w

ere

the

effo

rts to

solic

it pu

blic

com

men

t so

feeb

le?

21.

Mem

ber o

f the

Pub

lic

Chi

ld su

ppor

t am

ount

pai

d sh

ould

be

calc

ulat

ed b

y pe

rson

's in

com

e A

ND

exp

ense

s mon

thly

, as w

ell a

s fam

ily si

ze

and

fam

ily o

blig

atio

ns.

A p

erso

n's o

verti

me

is n

ot c

onsi

sten

t and

ther

efor

e sh

ould

NO

T be

incl

uded

whe

n ca

lcul

atin

g th

e am

ount

pai

d/du

e. C

hild

supp

ort s

houl

d al

so b

e da

ted

on th

e co

urt d

ate

whe

n it

is se

t, no

t by

whe

n an

ang

ry e

x sp

ouse

file

s the

cla

im a

nd m

akes

the

othe

r per

son

past

due

on

paym

ents

! A

lso,

a te

enag

er sh

ould

hav

e to

see

both

par

ents

on

a co

nsis

tent

bas

is, n

ot w

hen

he/s

he d

ecid

es to

, the

y ar

e no

t adu

lts u

ntil

they

are

18!

22

. M

embe

r of t

he P

ublic

A

syst

em o

f det

erm

inin

g ch

ild su

ppor

t tha

t is b

ased

sole

ly o

n in

com

e of

par

ents

and

tim

esha

re is

com

plet

ely

inad

equa

te a

nd u

nfai

r. In

all

othe

r are

as o

f law

(civ

il, c

rimin

al, e

tc.)

indi

vidu

als a

re h

eld

acco

unta

ble

for t

heir

choi

ces a

nd/o

r act

ions

, and

rig

htly

so.

Not

so w

ith fa

mily

law

. Th

e la

ws a

s the

y ap

ply

to c

hild

cus

tody

and

chi

ld su

ppor

t sho

uld

also

take

into

co

nsid

erat

ion

the

deta

ils, l

ike

"why

are

the

child

ren

bein

g pu

t in

a po

sitio

n w

here

chi

ld su

ppor

t is n

eces

sary

?" a

nd

"Who

is re

spon

sibl

e fo

r put

ting

them

into

that

pos

ition

?" "

Who

shou

ld b

e he

ld a

ccou

ntab

le?"

In

so fa

r as t

hese

th

ings

can

be

prov

en b

eyon

d a

reas

onab

le d

oubt

, the

ans

wer

s to

thes

e qu

estio

ns sh

ould

be

the

miti

gatin

g fa

ctor

s in

deci

ding

bot

h ch

ild c

usto

dy a

nd c

hild

supp

ort a

war

ds; n

ot so

me

antiq

uate

d, o

verly

sim

plifi

ed fo

rmul

a.

Let's

con

side

r thi

s exa

mpl

e: A

wom

an e

nter

s int

o m

arria

ge, d

oes n

ot st

ay fa

ithfu

l, re

fuse

s to

wor

k or

pro

vide

he

rsel

f with

a c

aree

r by

her o

wn

choi

ce (w

hich

gre

atly

skew

s the

inco

me

betw

een

the

two)

, the

n la

ter c

hoos

es to

en

d th

e m

arria

ge, a

nd th

e fa

ther

get

s 50/

50 c

usto

dy o

f the

chi

ldre

n be

caus

e th

e co

urts

wou

ldn'

t giv

e hi

m fu

ll cu

stod

y. W

hy sh

ould

the

husb

and

be h

eld

resp

onsi

ble

for a

ny a

mou

nt o

f fin

anci

al su

ppor

t sim

ply

beca

use

he w

as

prev

ious

ly th

e br

ead

win

ner?

In th

is c

ase,

non

e of

the

harm

ful a

ctio

ns th

at c

ause

d th

e fa

ilure

of t

he m

arria

ge a

nd

put t

he c

hild

ren

into

jeop

ardy

wer

e th

e re

sult

of a

ny w

rong

doi

ng o

n hi

s par

t, ye

t he

is p

enal

ized

by

havi

ng h

is

child

ren

take

n aw

ay a

nd h

avin

g 25

to 5

0% o

f his

afte

r tax

inco

me

take

n fr

om h

im a

nd g

iven

to th

e m

othe

r. S

he

bene

fits d

irect

ly fr

om h

er p

oor c

hoic

es. H

ow is

that

fair?

Bec

ause

it's

wha

t's b

est f

or th

e ch

ildre

n to

mai

ntai

n th

eir

Page 272: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

APP

EN

DIX

D

Rev

iew

of S

tate

wid

e U

nifo

rm C

hild

Sup

port

Gui

delin

e A

ll co

mm

ents

are

ver

batim

unl

ess i

ndic

ated

by

an e

llips

is (…

).

24

9

Ref

eren

ces t

o in

divi

dual

s’ n

ames

and

issu

es n

ot re

latin

g to

com

men

tary

on

the

child

supp

ort g

uide

lines

hav

e be

en e

dite

d as

alle

gatio

ns re

gard

ing

indi

vidu

al c

ase

proc

essi

ng a

re

beyo

nd th

e sc

ope

of th

is st

udy.

C

omm

enta

tor

Com

men

ts

stan

dard

of l

ivin

g? W

hy is

the

mot

her n

ot h

eld

to a

hig

her a

ccou

ntab

ility

for c

ausin

g th

eir s

tand

ard

of li

ving

to b

e de

clin

ing

in th

e fir

st p

lace

? A

nd w

hy is

it a

ssum

ed th

at th

e po

or c

hoic

es o

f one

(or e

ven

both

) of t

he p

aren

ts w

ould

ev

en a

llow

the

stan

dard

of l

ivin

g fo

r the

chi

ldre

n to

rem

ain

the

sam

e? T

hat i

s a fa

ulty

pre

sum

ptio

n fr

om th

e ve

ry

begi

nnin

g.

Als

o, w

hy is

it th

at th

e m

othe

r can

re-m

arry

to a

noth

er in

divi

dual

, and

that

new

spou

se's

inco

me

is n

ot fa

ctor

ed in

?

If w

hat i

s at q

uest

ion

here

is th

e st

anda

rd o

f liv

ing

for t

he c

hild

ren

whi

le th

ey a

re in

thei

r mot

her's

car

e, h

ow is

it

rem

otel

y re

alis

tic to

com

plet

ely

igno

re th

e ad

just

ed fa

mily

hou

seho

ld in

com

e du

e to

the

new

spou

se?

Alte

rnat

ely,

if th

e fa

ther

in th

is c

ase

(the

one

payi

ng c

hild

supp

ort),

goe

s on

to e

njoy

car

eer s

ucce

ss a

nd h

is st

anda

rd

of li

ving

incr

ease

s, ho

w is

it re

mot

ely

fair

to a

ssum

e th

an th

at th

e m

othe

r is e

ntitl

ed to

eve

n M

OR

E m

oney

from

hi

m?

Wou

ldn'

t the

chi

ldre

n's s

tand

ard

of li

ving

that

they

had

bec

ome

accu

stom

ed to

whi

le th

e pa

rent

s wer

e to

geth

er re

mai

n th

e sa

me

if he

sim

ply

cont

inue

d to

pro

vide

the

sam

e ch

ild su

ppor

t? Y

et, b

ecau

se h

is in

com

e go

es

up, t

he c

hild

supp

ort g

oes u

p. T

his i

s unf

air.

Life

is n

ot a

s sim

ple

as a

form

ula.

To

excl

ude

com

mon

sens

e fr

om th

e ch

ild su

ppor

t law

s is u

nfai

r to

ever

ybod

y,

incl

udin

g th

e ch

ildre

n, b

ecau

se it

onl

y en

cour

ages

thos

e w

ho c

an m

anip

ulat

e th

e sy

stem

and

ben

efit

from

it to

do

exac

tly th

at.

Ulti

mat

ely

this

lead

s to

far m

ore

harm

to th

e ch

ildre

n th

an g

ood.

Th

e w

hole

syst

em n

eeds

to b

e ov

erha

uled

. 23

. M

embe

r of t

he P

ublic

Th

e tim

e sh

are

fact

or a

ppea

rs to

serv

e tw

o pu

rpos

es; 1

) the

refle

ct a

shar

ing

of c

hild

ela

ted

expe

nses

, and

2) t

o en

cour

age

non -

cust

odia

l vis

itatio

n.

Unf

ortu

nate

ly, t

he ti

me

shar

e fa

ctor

spur

s liti

gatio

n be

caus

e of

its f

inan

cial

impa

ct. I

als

o be

lieve

the

stru

ggle

ove

r tim

e sh

are

that

is fi

nanc

ially

mot

ivat

ed, r

esul

ts in

har

m to

the

child

ren

of th

e re

latio

nshi

p. I

will

not

go

into

det

ail

unle

ss a

sked

to su

ppor

t thi

s lat

er o

bser

vatio

n.

To a

llevi

ate

the

burd

en o

n th

e co

urts

, but

still

serv

e th

e pu

rpos

es st

ated

abo

ve, a

floo

r, si

gnifi

cant

ly a

bove

zer

o sh

ould

be

set,

at th

e di

scre

tion

of th

e Ju

dge

or C

omm

issi

oner

. Fo

r, ex

ampl

e, in

the

case

of s

ucce

ssfu

l par

enta

l alie

natio

n, th

e C

ourt

may

use

a 2

0% sh

arin

g fa

ctor

des

pite

the

limite

d or

abs

ence

of c

onta

ct w

ron g

fully

cre

ated

by

the

cust

odia

l par

ent.

I hop

e m

y op

inio

n is

hel

pful

and

I ho

pe it

will

be

cons

ider

ed a

t som

e fu

ture

opp

ortu

nity

.

Page 273: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

APP

EN

DIX

D

Rev

iew

of S

tate

wid

e U

nifo

rm C

hild

Sup

port

Gui

delin

e A

ll co

mm

ents

are

ver

batim

unl

ess i

ndic

ated

by

an e

llips

is (…

).

25

0

Ref

eren

ces t

o in

divi

dual

s’ n

ames

and

issu

es n

ot re

latin

g to

com

men

tary

on

the

child

supp

ort g

uide

lines

hav

e be

en e

dite

d as

alle

gatio

ns re

gard

ing

indi

vidu

al c

ase

proc

essi

ng a

re

beyo

nd th

e sc

ope

of th

is st

udy.

C

omm

enta

tor

Com

men

ts

24.

Mem

ber o

f the

Pub

lic

The

curr

ent f

orm

ula

for w

hat i

s dis

hone

stly

cal

led

"Chi

ld S

uppo

rt" in

Cal

iforn

ia is

pun

itive

by

desi

gn.

It is

in

tend

ed to

, and

doe

s act

ually

, pun

ish

alm

ost e

xclu

sive

ly fa

ther

s as i

f the

y w

ere

guilt

y of

som

e cr

ime.

A g

reat

m

any

sinc

ere

peop

le b

elie

ve th

at th

is is

com

plet

ely

appr

opria

te.

Som

e ha

ve w

orke

d ha

rd to

infla

te th

e m

yth

of th

e "a

ble

non-

paye

r", t

hat i

s, a

man

who

has

the

mea

ns to

pay

but

refu

ses t

o ac

cept

this

as h

is o

blig

atio

n. S

ome

"abl

e no

n -pa

yers

" do

exi

st, b

ut n

ot in

the

quan

tity

and

prop

ortio

n th

at th

e w

omen

's ha

te g

roup

s hav

e cl

aim

ed.

Far m

ore

ofte

n a

non-

paye

r is a

man

livi

ng in

pov

erty

. B

ut it

is h

ard

to g

ener

ate

hatre

d fo

r the

se m

en a

t the

bot

tom

of t

he

econ

omic

ladd

er, a

nd so

the

myt

h of

a w

ell -o

ff m

an w

ho si

mpl

y re

fuse

s to

pay

child

supp

ort o

ut o

f sel

fishn

ess w

as

man

ufac

ture

d.

It w

ould

be

nice

to b

elie

ve th

at o

ur d

emoc

ratic

form

of g

over

nmen

t, cr

afte

d by

the

geni

us o

f our

foun

ding

fath

ers,

mak

es o

ur n

atio

n im

mun

e or

at l

east

resi

stan

t to

the

hatre

d bo

rn o

f pre

judi

ce si

ncer

ely

felt

and

sinc

erel

y tu

rned

into

ac

tion

by th

ose

impr

ison

ed b

y le

sser

form

s of g

over

nmen

t. S

adly

, eac

h of

us k

now

s wel

l of t

he c

ount

erex

ampl

es

from

our

his

tory

that

this

is n

ot th

e ca

se.

R

epea

tedl

y ou

r his

tory

con

tain

s epi

sode

s whe

re th

e m

asse

s sup

porte

d th

e co

nvic

tion

that

one

gro

up o

r ano

ther

did

no

t des

erve

the

just

ice

and

prot

ectio

n so

bril

liant

ly w

oven

into

our

Con

stitu

tion

and

Bill

of R

ight

s. S

lave

ry n

early

br

oke

our c

ount

ry, a

nd th

e Ji

m C

row

bel

iefs

hav

e ye

t to

be e

radi

cate

d in

the

hear

ts a

nd m

inds

of a

ll ou

r citi

zens

. Th

e op

pres

sion

of w

omen

, bas

ed o

n si

ncer

ely

held

bel

iefs

abo

ut th

e ph

ysio

logi

cal i

nfer

iorit

y of

wom

en, t

ook

gene

ratio

ns to

reso

lve.

The

inte

rnm

ent o

f Am

eric

an c

itize

ns o

f Jap

anes

e de

scen

t was

end

orse

d an

d ac

cept

ed a

t the

hi

ghes

t lev

el o

f gov

ernm

ent.

At t

he h

eigh

t of t

hese

opp

ress

ive

prac

tices

, if y

ou h

ad a

sked

the

aver

age

citiz

en, t

hey

wou

ld h

ave

expr

esse

d ou

trage

at

the

idea

that

mem

bers

of t

he o

ppre

ssed

gro

ups o

ught

to b

e tre

ated

fairl

y: th

at th

ey o

ught

to h

ave

the

just

ice

and

prot

ectio

n pr

omis

ed b

y th

e C

onst

itutio

n an

d Bi

ll of

Rig

hts.

We

wer

e ab

le to

be

conv

ince

d th

at th

ese

grou

ps w

ere

not d

eser

ving

of f

airn

ess,

and

hist

ory

unam

bigu

ousl

y do

cum

ents

that

they

did

not

get

it.

The

elec

ted

gove

rnm

ent o

ften

embr

aced

the

mis

info

rmat

ion

that

supp

orte

d pr

ejud

ice,

teac

hing

that

the

nega

tive

rega

rd fo

r the

opp

ress

ed g

roup

was

just

ified

. A

nd sa

dly,

the

cour

ts, t

ime

and

time

agai

n, o

ffer

ed th

emse

lves

as t

he

tool

s of b

igot

ry, b

endi

ng th

eir i

nter

pret

atio

ns o

f the

stat

ute

law

to se

rve

thes

e irr

atio

nal h

atre

ds.

His

tory

als

o do

cum

ents

that

som

etim

es, i

t was

the

cour

ts th

at le

d th

e co

untry

out

of t

he v

ile m

ire o

f pre

judi

ce.

It is

sadl

y ea

sy to

con

nect

with

our

inne

r pre

judi

ce e

ven

toda

y. A

sk y

ours

elf:

shou

ld w

e be

fair

and

just

to b

oth

the

mom

and

the

dad

in a

div

orce

?

Page 274: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

APP

EN

DIX

D

Rev

iew

of S

tate

wid

e U

nifo

rm C

hild

Sup

port

Gui

delin

e A

ll co

mm

ents

are

ver

batim

unl

ess i

ndic

ated

by

an e

llips

is (…

).

25

1

Ref

eren

ces t

o in

divi

dual

s’ n

ames

and

issu

es n

ot re

latin

g to

com

men

tary

on

the

child

supp

ort g

uide

lines

hav

e be

en e

dite

d as

alle

gatio

ns re

gard

ing

indi

vidu

al c

ase

proc

essi

ng a

re

beyo

nd th

e sc

ope

of th

is st

udy.

C

omm

enta

tor

Com

men

ts

The

knee

-jerk

reac

tion

is "H

ell n

o, h

e is

an

aban

doni

ng w

ease

l!" T

his i

s w

hat I

lear

ned

in m

y ad

oles

cenc

e an

d ea

rly p

ost-c

olle

ge li

fe, w

ithou

t kno

win

g ex

actly

why

. Th

at I

lear

ned

this

eve

n th

ough

I liv

ed w

ith a

pow

erfu

l co

unte

r exa

mpl

e is

som

ewha

t baf

fling

to m

e, a

nd I

look

for s

omet

hing

to b

lam

e it

on.

I rea

lize

now

it is

the

prod

uct

of th

e w

omen

's ha

te g

roup

s. W

hen

my

own

pare

nts d

ivor

ced,

my

fath

er re

mai

ned

a co

mm

itted

par

ent t

o m

e an

d m

y si

blin

gs, a

nd I

lived

with

hi

m o

n an

d of

f thr

ough

out m

y co

llege

yea

rs.

But

I be

lieve

d I w

as o

ne o

f a lu

cky

few

, and

that

the

aver

age

divo

rced

da

d *w

as*

an a

band

onin

g w

ease

l. A

fter c

olle

ge, w

hen

I loo

ked

for s

ome

oppo

rtuni

ty to

giv

e ba

ck so

me

of th

e pr

ospe

rity

I was

enj

oyin

g un

der d

emoc

racy

and

cap

italis

m, I

vol

unte

ered

as a

Big

Bro

ther

for 7

yea

rs.

My

own

daug

hter

was

bor

n in

199

4, a

nd I

lobb

ied

my

wife

to li

ve a

s equ

al p

aren

ts, w

orki

ng a

t par

t tim

e jo

bs a

nd

enjo

ying

a li

fe w

here

we

had

lots

of f

amily

tim

e, b

ut n

ot a

trip

to E

urop

e ev

ery

year

. Sh

e co

nclu

ded

that

such

a li

fe

was

not

wor

th li

ving

, and

left

to p

ursu

e a

bette

r Mr.

Mea

l tic

ket.

I lea

rned

that

the

cour

ts o

pera

ted

with

the

sam

e be

liefs

that

I ha

d in

tern

aliz

ed in

spite

of m

y ow

n lif

e ex

perie

nce:

th

at m

en w

ere

aban

doni

ng w

ease

ls, a

nd, n

ot fi

t to

be p

aren

ts, d

eser

ve to

be

puni

shed

sim

ply

base

d on

thei

r gen

der.

I had

to fi

ght,

som

etim

es a

t gre

at e

xpen

se, t

o re

mai

n a

pare

nt to

our

dau

ghte

r. I

met

man

y si

ncer

e pe

ople

who

had

in

tern

aliz

ed th

e sa

me

anti-

mal

e bi

gotry

, and

act

ed a

s if i

t wer

e a

nobl

e ca

use

to p

reve

nt c

hild

ren

from

spen

ding

car

e gi

ving

tim

e w

ith a

mal

e pa

rent

, eve

n th

eir o

wn

biol

ogic

al fa

ther

s who

dea

rly lo

ve th

em.

An

entir

e in

dust

ry h

as

evol

ved

who

se o

nly

purp

ose

is to

pun

ish

this

unw

orth

y vi

ctim

, the

div

orce

d da

d, a

nd se

para

te h

im fr

om h

is

child

ren.

A

nd h

ow d

oes o

ne e

xpla

in th

ese

peop

le, p

rofit

ing

from

the

prej

udic

e of

fath

er-h

ate?

Th

e sa

me

way

one

exp

lain

s tho

se w

ho b

uilt

inte

rnm

ent c

amps

. Th

e sa

me

way

one

exp

lain

s sla

ve o

wne

rs.

They

hav

e "i

nter

naliz

ed th

e va

lues

," pe

rhap

s not

onl

y be

caus

e it

prof

its th

em, b

ut b

ecau

se th

ey a

re re

info

rced

by

med

ia a

nd c

ultu

ral p

reju

dice

s all

arou

nd.

Fina

ncia

l chi

ld su

ppor

t is p

art o

f thi

s pun

ishm

ent t

hey

belie

ve th

e di

vorc

ed d

ad d

eser

ves.

Page 275: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

APP

EN

DIX

D

Rev

iew

of S

tate

wid

e U

nifo

rm C

hild

Sup

port

Gui

delin

e A

ll co

mm

ents

are

ver

batim

unl

ess i

ndic

ated

by

an e

llips

is (…

).

25

2

Ref

eren

ces t

o in

divi

dual

s’ n

ames

and

issu

es n

ot re

latin

g to

com

men

tary

on

the

child

supp

ort g

uide

lines

hav

e be

en e

dite

d as

alle

gatio

ns re

gard

ing

indi

vidu

al c

ase

proc

essi

ng a

re

beyo

nd th

e sc

ope

of th

is st

udy.

C

omm

enta

tor

Com

men

ts

Sinc

e th

e en

actm

ent o

f the

cur

rent

form

ula

used

for c

hild

supp

ort i

n C

alifo

rnia

, wha

t has

tran

spire

d?

1. L

enor

e W

eitz

man

fina

lly a

dmitt

ed th

e st

atis

tic th

at m

ade

her f

amou

s was

an

erro

r 2.

CS

Enfo

rcem

ent b

urea

ucra

cies

hav

e ba

lloon

ed, a

nd o

ne h

as fa

iled

only

to g

ive

way

to a

noth

er th

at

also

fails

3.

The

col

lect

ion

of a

rrea

rage

s has

not

impr

oved

, and

the

mor

e ho

nest

thin

k ta

nks h

ave

conc

lude

d th

at 7

5% a

re

unco

llect

able

as t

hey

are

owed

by

adul

ts li

ving

in p

over

ty

4. A

hug

e am

ount

of C

S th

at w

as b

eing

pai

d on

tim

e in

full

is n

ow ro

uted

thro

ugh

thes

e bu

reau

crac

ies,

incr

easi

ng

thei

r cla

imed

col

lect

ions

with

out d

entin

g th

e ar

rear

ages

5.

Dr.

War

ren

Farr

ell p

ublis

hed

a bo

ok e

xpla

inin

g m

any

if no

t all

of th

e st

atis

tical

diff

eren

ces b

etw

een

aver

age

sala

ries o

f men

and

wom

en.

Mos

t are

exp

lain

ed b

y w

omen

cho

osin

g pa

ths t

hat p

rovi

de so

me

form

of f

ulfil

lmen

t in

lieu

of m

oney

. Th

at th

e cu

rren

t CS

form

ula

is p

uniti

ve is

und

enia

ble.

Exc

essi

ve su

ppor

t aw

ards

pre

vent

men

from

savi

ng fo

r the

ir ch

ildre

n's c

olle

ge.

Fede

ral c

odes

con

tribu

te to

the

inju

stic

e al

so: C

S is

Tax

free

inco

me

to m

om a

nd A

LL T

HE

TAX

DED

UCT

ION

S go

to m

om.

No

tax

bene

fits w

hats

oeve

r to

dad.

La

wm

aker

s who

con

side

r the

form

ula

lear

n ho

w "i

ncom

e sh

ares

" w

orks

: as a

form

of "

gerr

yman

derin

g" to

tran

sfer

ta

x-fr

ee c

ash

into

the

hom

e of

the

fem

ale

pare

nt.

It em

bodi

es th

e as

sum

ptio

n th

at *

ever

y* d

ad w

ill d

eclin

e to

su

ppor

t his

chi

ldre

n, w

hich

is u

ntru

e an

d pr

ejud

icia

l on

its fa

ce. I

t ena

bles

the

fem

ale

pare

nt to

han

d th

e ch

ild e

very

sh

irt, d

ress

, pai

r of p

ants

, and

sock

that

the

fath

er p

aren

t has

pai

d fo

r, an

d gi

ve th

e m

ale

pare

nt n

o cr

edit.

It

is e

asy

to se

e th

e in

just

ice

of C

alifo

rnia

's "i

ncom

e sh

ares

" by

spen

ding

a v

ery

few

mom

ents

with

a su

ppor

t ca

lcul

ator

. St

art w

ith a

fully

equ

al sc

enar

io (e

qual

inco

mes

and

equ

al ti

mes

car

ing

for t

he c

hild

ren)

, the

n ch

ange

th

e tim

esha

re b

y on

e da

y pe

r mon

th. m

ore

with

the

mom

, the

n w

ith th

e da

d. T

he a

mou

nt o

f mon

ey th

at sh

ifts o

ver

one

day

diff

eren

ce w

ould

out

rage

any

one

who

bel

ieve

d in

fairn

ess t

o bo

th p

aren

ts.

I am

cer

tain

that

Law

mak

ers h

ave

the

inte

llect

ual c

apac

ity to

und

erst

and

that

it is

"Dou

ble

Bill

ing"

to u

se a

cos

t of

livin

g pr

oxy

that

incl

udes

chi

ld c

are

and

med

ical

cos

ts, y

et a

dd st

atut

e la

w th

at re

quire

s tha

t the

se c

osts

be

*add

ed*

to th

e fo

rmul

a am

ount

.

Ove

r and

ove

r Wom

en's

advo

cate

s rep

ort s

uppo

rt ca

lcul

atio

n re

sults

that

are

err

oneo

usly

low

, and

whi

le th

e er

rors

Page 276: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

APP

EN

DIX

D

Rev

iew

of S

tate

wid

e U

nifo

rm C

hild

Sup

port

Gui

delin

e A

ll co

mm

ents

are

ver

batim

unl

ess i

ndic

ated

by

an e

llips

is (…

).

25

3

Ref

eren

ces t

o in

divi

dual

s’ n

ames

and

issu

es n

ot re

latin

g to

com

men

tary

on

the

child

supp

ort g

uide

lines

hav

e be

en e

dite

d as

alle

gatio

ns re

gard

ing

indi

vidu

al c

ase

proc

essi

ng a

re

beyo

nd th

e sc

ope

of th

is st

udy.

C

omm

enta

tor

Com

men

ts

are

poin

ted

out t

hey

rem

ain

unco

rrec

ted.

M

ost l

awm

aker

s see

this

and

do

noth

ing,

per

haps

bec

ause

you

too

belie

ve si

ncer

ely

that

the

divo

rced

dad

des

erve

s to

be

puni

shed

. Th

is fo

rmul

a ha

s suc

ceed

ed in

pun

ishi

ng a

gre

at m

any

inno

cent

men

. D

on't

you

real

ize

that

som

e of

thes

e in

noce

nt

men

are

you

r son

s, br

othe

rs, c

ousi

ns, u

ncle

s, an

d so

met

imes

you

r fat

hers

? C

an't

you

look

into

you

r hea

rt an

d re

aliz

e th

at e

ach

time

we

have

, as a

nat

ion,

ele

cted

to p

unis

h se

lect

ed g

roup

s by

deny

ing

that

Con

stitu

tiona

l pro

tect

ions

shou

ld a

pply

to th

em, f

utur

e ge

nera

tions

hav

e co

ndem

ned

this

as r

epug

nant

an

d sh

amef

ul?

Sho

uldn

't th

e fo

rmul

a be

abo

ut fa

irnes

s, an

d no

t abo

ut p

ublic

sent

imen

t dis

torte

d by

Wom

en's

hate

gr

oups

? I h

ope

it w

ill n

ot ta

ke a

noth

er g

ener

atio

n to

cha

nge

the

supp

ort f

orm

ula

to b

e fa

ir to

the

divo

rced

dad

. N

ot a

ll w

omen

supp

ort t

he a

gend

a of

the

hate

gro

ups,

and

one

day

thos

e w

ho c

ome

afte

r you

will

reco

gniz

e th

at y

ou w

ere

blin

ded

by th

e bi

gotry

of y

our b

elie

fs.

25

. M

embe

r of t

he P

ublic

Th

e C

hild

Sup

port

Gui

delin

e is

unr

ealis

tic, b

/c th

e ju

dge

or c

omm

issi

oner

ofte

n se

ts a

rbitr

ary

mon

thly

inco

me

on a

pa

rent

just

bec

ause

of o

ne's

colle

ge d

egre

e. T

he c

urre

nt sy

stem

fails

the

fam

ily &

cau

ses s

o m

uch

grie

f and

stre

ss

that

ofte

n a

pare

nt w

ho is

self-

empl

oyed

can

't co

pe a

nd lo

ses h

is o

r her

bus

ines

s/job

. Cur

rent

per

sona

l and

em

otio

nal c

ircum

stan

ce M

UST

be

take

n in

to a

ccou

nt o

r the

unf

air C

hild

Sup

port

orde

r add

s mor

e st

ress

furth

er

burd

enin

g th

at p

aren

t dire

ctly

and

the

fam

ily in

dire

ctly

. Th

e G

uide

line

can

be im

prov

ed b

y us

ing

fost

er c

are

cost

s as a

gui

delin

e an

d IF

the

cour

t doe

s con

side

r im

putin

g a

pare

nt's

mon

thly

wag

e it

mus

t als

o pr

ovid

e th

e op

portu

nity

for t

hat p

aren

t to

esta

blis

h ev

iden

ce a

s to

his/

her c

urre

nt

emot

iona

l sta

te a

s it r

elat

es to

ear

ning

pow

er. T

he c

ourt

mus

t tak

e in

to a

ccou

nt fi

nanc

ial d

eman

d ac

cord

ing

to th

e pa

rent

's ci

rcum

stan

ces a

nd st

atio

n in

life

. It

is th

is p

aren

t's o

pini

on th

at th

e Fa

mily

Law

syst

em is

bro

ken:

it c

reat

es a

n ov

erw

helm

ing

amou

nt o

f add

ition

al

stre

ss fo

r the

chi

ld a

nd th

e pa

rent

s. It

drai

ns fa

mily

savi

ngs a

ccou

nts f

or th

e vu

lture

s with

law

deg

rees

. Cal

iforn

ia’s

br

oken

Fam

ily L

aw sy

stem

is u

nder

min

ing

the

fabr

ic o

f our

soci

ety

beca

use

it ha

s fai

led

to p

rovi

de it

s citi

zens

bas

ic

right

to re

dres

s grie

vanc

e. T

here

is a

n ur

gent

nee

d to

refo

rm th

e C

alifo

rnia

fam

ily la

w sy

stem

and

seve

ral n

atio

nally

re

cogn

ized

par

ent e

duca

tors

hav

e pr

ovid

ed w

orki

ng m

odel

s whi

ch d

o no

t inc

lude

atto

rney

s. Th

e st

ate

shou

ld p

rovi

de a

ttorn

eys i

n fa

mily

law

like

the

coun

ty d

oes f

or c

ases

in D

CFS

. Pro

vidi

ng p

aren

ts w

ith 5

0-

Page 277: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

APP

EN

DIX

D

Rev

iew

of S

tate

wid

e U

nifo

rm C

hild

Sup

port

Gui

delin

e A

ll co

mm

ents

are

ver

batim

unl

ess i

ndic

ated

by

an e

llips

is (…

).

25

4

Ref

eren

ces t

o in

divi

dual

s’ n

ames

and

issu

es n

ot re

latin

g to

com

men

tary

on

the

child

supp

ort g

uide

lines

hav

e be

en e

dite

d as

alle

gatio

ns re

gard

ing

indi

vidu

al c

ase

proc

essi

ng a

re

beyo

nd th

e sc

ope

of th

is st

udy.

C

omm

enta

tor

Com

men

ts

50 p

hysi

cal c

usto

dy o

rder

s red

uces

one

par

ent's

"pr

ofit

mot

ive"

and

kee

ps b

oth

pare

nts i

nvol

ved

emot

iona

lly a

nd

finan

cial

ly in

the

cost

s of c

hild

rear

ing.

Th

e cu

rren

t sys

tem

rew

ards

the

wea

lthie

r par

ent w

ho c

an a

fford

an

atto

rney

. Thi

s hur

ts th

e ch

ild(r

en) e

mot

iona

lly

beca

use

this

beh

avio

r is a

imed

at a

liena

ting

the

less

er p

aren

t, re

duci

ng th

at p

aren

t’s ti

me

with

the

child

(ren

) and

in

crea

sing

that

par

ent’s

fina

ncia

l obl

igat

ion.

26

. M

embe

r of t

he P

ublic

C

alifo

rnia

's K

Fac

tor s

houl

d be

low

ered

or r

emov

ed, s

ince

the

cost

of l

ivin

g is

irre

leva

nt b

ecau

se th

e G

uide

line

is

base

d on

per

cent

ages

of i

ncom

e. In

add

ition

, the

K fa

ctor

onl

y ap

plie

s up

to a

com

bine

d in

com

e of

$6,

600

a m

onth

, ab

ove

that

it g

oes t

o th

e H

Fac

tor,

whi

ch is

hig

her.

This

is h

ardl

y fa

ir to

par

ents

like

mys

elf w

ho h

ave

wor

ked

long

an

d ha

rd to

bec

ome

good

pro

vide

rs fo

r our

fam

ilies

, and

now

we

are

de-fa

cto

bein

g pu

nish

ed fo

r our

succ

ess.

Rea

lity

is th

at a

fter d

ivor

ce o

r sep

arat

ion

no o

ne in

the

fam

ily (c

hild

ren

nor p

aren

ts) c

an m

aint

ain

the

sam

e st

anda

rd

of li

ving

afte

r the

bre

akup

as b

efor

e, b

ecau

se th

e sa

me

inco

me

whi

ch su

ppor

ted

one

hous

ehol

d m

ust n

ow su

ppor

t tw

o, th

eref

ore

livin

g st

anda

rds a

re in

evita

bly

goin

g to

dec

line.

The

Uni

form

Chi

ld S

uppo

rt G

uide

line

shou

ld b

e ba

sed

on th

e ne

eds o

f the

chi

ldre

n in

volv

ed a

nd sh

ould

be

rela

ted

to th

e ac

tual

cos

t of r

aisi

ng a

chi

ld. T

he R

evie

w

glos

ses o

ver t

his v

ery

impo

rtant

issu

e.

Ano

ther

ver

y im

porta

nt is

sue

whi

ch is

tota

lly a

bsen

t fro

m th

e gu

idel

ine

mus

t add

ress

ho w

BO

TH p

aren

ts h

ave

equa

l res

pons

ibili

ty to

pro

vide

eco

nom

ical

ly fo

r the

chi

ldre

n af

ter d

ivor

ce, i

f the

y tru

ly w

ish

for t

heir

child

ren

to

mai

ntai

n th

eir f

orm

er st

anda

rd o

f liv

ing,

and

not

just

bec

ause

the

"law

" so

stat

es it

. The

tota

l res

pons

ibili

ty to

su

ppor

t the

chi

ldre

n sh

ould

NO

T be

just

on

the

wor

king

par

ent w

ho is

bei

ng p

enal

ized

by

the

curr

ent l

aw/g

uide

line

for h

avin

g be

en a

n ex

celle

nt p

rovi

der w

hile

the

mot

her (

in m

y ca

se) s

its a

t hom

e an

d do

es n

ot w

ork

whi

le e

xpec

ting

to b

e pr

ovid

ed a

nd li

ve a

t the

sam

e st

anda

rd o

f liv

ing

as b

efor

e ta

king

adv

anta

ge o

f the

fact

that

she

has b

een

awar

ded

full

cust

ody

of th

e ch

ildre

n an

d us

ing

THA

T fa

ct a

s an

excu

se to

not

wor

k! V

ERY

, VER

Y

FRU

STR

ATI

NG

SIT

UA

TIO

N!!

! 27

. M

embe

r of t

he P

ublic

Th

e pr

opos

ed c

hang

es fa

il to

add

ress

serio

us a

nd m

ater

ial s

hortc

omin

gs o

f Cal

iforn

ia C

S gu

idel

ines

and

cal

cula

tion

of "K

" va

lues

, inc

ludi

ng th

e fo

llow

ing:

1.

The

obj

ectiv

e of

the

guid

elin

es is

to "e

qual

ize

the

stan

dard

of l

ivin

g be

twee

n th

e ho

mes

" H

owev

er, t

he g

uide

lines

co

nsid

er O

NLY

hou

seho

ld in

com

e an

d no

t sav

ings

. Bec

ause

the

K fa

ctor

ass

umes

that

all

inco

me

goes

to

cons

umpt

ion,

and

ther

e is

no

reco

gniti

on th

at C

alifo

rnia

ns a

ctua

lly sa

ve a

por

tion

of in

com

e, th

e gu

idel

ines

go

beyo

nd e

qual

izin

g th

e st

anda

rd o

f liv

ing,

but

als

o eq

ualiz

e sa

ving

s (or

the

oppo

rtuni

ty to

save

) bet

wee

n th

e ho

mes

. Th

is e

ffec

tivel

y eq

ualiz

es re

tirem

ent o

f the

par

ties w

hich

ove

rrea

ches

the

lette

r and

inte

nt o

f the

law

. Ign

orin

g ho

useh

old

savi

ng ra

tes i

s a se

rious

flaw

in th

e de

term

inat

ion

of th

e "K

" va

lue

and

is o

ne o

f the

reas

ons t

he a

war

ds

ofte

n re

sult

in su

ppor

t pay

men

ts w

ell i

n ex

cess

of t

he a

ctua

l spe

ndin

g pe

r chi

ld b

y in

tact

fam

ilies

as c

alcu

late

d by

Page 278: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

APP

EN

DIX

D

Rev

iew

of S

tate

wid

e U

nifo

rm C

hild

Sup

port

Gui

delin

e A

ll co

mm

ents

are

ver

batim

unl

ess i

ndic

ated

by

an e

llips

is (…

).

25

5

Ref

eren

ces t

o in

divi

dual

s’ n

ames

and

issu

es n

ot re

latin

g to

com

men

tary

on

the

child

supp

ort g

uide

lines

hav

e be

en e

dite

d as

alle

gatio

ns re

gard

ing

indi

vidu

al c

ase

proc

essi

ng a

re

beyo

nd th

e sc

ope

of th

is st

udy.

C

omm

enta

tor

Com

men

ts

USD

A.

2. A

noth

er m

ajor

flaw

in th

e ch

ild su

ppor

t cal

cula

tions

is th

at th

e st

udie

s on

whi

ch th

e K

fact

or is

bas

ed in

tend

to

capt

ure

all h

ouse

hold

spen

ding

on

child

ren.

How

ever

, Cal

iforn

ia st

atut

e pr

ovid

es th

at c

erta

in e

xpen

ses s

uch

as

dayc

are,

hea

lthca

re, a

nd tu

ition

shou

ld b

e co

nsid

ered

sepa

rate

ly.

Sinc

e th

ese

expe

nses

are

con

side

red

sepa

rate

ly,

the

K fa

ctor

shou

ld b

e ad

just

ed d

ownw

ard

to e

ffec

tivel

y ba

ck o

ut th

e es

timat

ed fa

mily

spen

ding

on

heal

thca

re,

dayc

are,

and

scho

ol e

xpen

ses s

o th

at th

e ac

tual

am

ount

s can

be

adde

d se

para

tely

. Cur

rent

ly, t

he g

uide

lines

dou

ble

coun

t the

se a

mou

nts.

(i.e.

, the

"K

" in

clud

es A

LL sp

endi

ng, s

o if

heal

thca

re, d

ayca

re, e

tc a

re a

dded

afte

r the

fact

, K

shou

ld b

e lo

wer

ed to

allo

w fo

r it).

B

oth

of th

ese

shor

tcom

ings

are

root

ed in

the

flaw

ed e

cono

met

ric "

scie

nce"

con

duct

ed b

y a

child

supp

ort c

olle

ctio

n ag

ency

ca

lled

PSI a

nd it

s suc

cess

or fi

rms (

such

as C

ente

r for

Pol

icy

Res

earc

h) a

ll ba

sed

in D

enve

r Col

orad

o an

d af

filia

ted

with

Rob

ert

Will

iam

s. Th

ese

grou

ps re

ly o

n ou

tdat

ed e

cono

mic

rese

arch

by

1800

's ec

onom

ist E

rnst

Eng

le a

nd a

sing

le, s

hort

dura

tion

stud

y fr

om 1

984

by T

hom

as E

spen

shad

e to

est

imat

e "i

ncom

e sh

ares

". E

pens

hade

's in

com

e sh

ares

stud

y at

tem

pted

to in

dire

ctly

es

timat

e ho

w m

uch

inco

me

wel

fare

fam

ilies

livi

ng in

Wis

cons

in w

ere

spen

ding

on

child

car

e ba

sed

upon

cha

nges

in fa

mily

sp

endi

ng o

n to

bacc

o pr

oduc

ts. O

bvio

usly

, suc

h fa

mili

es b

ear l

ittle

to n

o re

sem

blan

ce to

typi

cal C

alifo

rnia

fam

ilies

in th

e ye

ar

2011

. The

gap

bet

wee

n Ep

ensh

ade's

test

gro

up a

nd c

onte

mpo

rary

Am

eric

an fa

mili

es sh

ows u

p cl

early

as a

gro

ss d

iffer

ence

in

USD

A a

ctua

l fam

ily sp

endi

ng le

vels

and

the

typi

cal C

hild

Sup

port

orde

r iss

ued

by C

alifo

rnia

Fam

ily C

ourts

. (E

dito

r’s N

ote:

Pl

ease

see

Cha

pter

2 o

f the

Stu

dy a

nd p

age

ten

in p

artic

ular

for a

list

of t

he 5

old

er st

udie

s and

4 n

ewer

stud

ies u

sed

to a

naly

ze c

hild

rear

ing

expe

nditu

res a

nd st

ate

guid

elin

es).

The

stat

e ha

s ret

aine

d its

adv

isor

s with

out c

ompe

titiv

e bi

ds si

nce

2001

. The

Cou

ncil'

s ong

oing

use

of t

hese

firm

s is

a gr

oss d

isse

rvic

e to

the

citiz

ens o

f Cal

iforn

ia; t

he sc

ienc

e em

ploy

ed b

y th

ese

firm

s is f

unda

men

tally

flaw

ed a

nd

ripe

for c

onst

itutio

nal c

halle

nge

as a

n ar

bitra

ry v

iola

tion

of d

ue p

roce

ss. (

Edito

r’s N

ote:

All

child

supp

ort

proc

urem

ents

wer

e pu

blic

ly so

licite

d an

d co

mpl

ied

with

stat

e pr

ocur

emen

t sta

ndar

ds).

28.

Mem

ber o

f the

Pub

lic

I am

writ

ing

abou

t the

poo

r and

mis

lead

ing

desi

gn o

f Cal

iforn

ia's

Fam

ily L

aw fo

rm #

150

(FL-

150)

, whi

ch I

belie

ve

indu

ces o

blig

ors t

o pa

y hi

gher

am

ount

s in

child

supp

o rt t

han

they

act

ually

ow

e. T

he fo

rm im

plie

s tha

t the

*p

erso

nal*

hea

lth e

xpen

ses o

f the

chi

ld su

ppor

t obl

igor

are

not

elig

ible

to b

e co

unte

d as

a d

educ

tion

for t

he p

urpo

se

of c

alcu

latin

g ch

ild su

ppor

t. T

his l

ikel

y cr

eate

s an

assu

mpt

ion

by m

any

child

supp

o rt o

blig

ors t

hat t

heir

own

pers

onal

hea

lth c

are

prem

ium

s and

exp

ense

s (i.e

. hea

lth p

rem

ium

s for

the

adul

t par

ent's

hea

lth c

over

age,

dis

tinct

fr

om th

e pr

emiu

ms p

aid

for c

over

ing

the

child

) mus

t be

paid

com

plet

ely

inde

pend

ent o

f the

ir ch

ild su

ppor

t ob

ligat

ion,

and

as a

con

sequ

ence

such

obl

igor

s are

sadd

led

with

arti

ficia

lly h

igh

child

supp

ort o

rder

s. H

ere

is th

e re

leva

nt se

ctio

n of

the

stat

e fa

mily

cod

e. A

s you

can

see,

the

heal

th p

rem

ium

s for

the

pare

nt --

and

not

ju

st th

ose

for t

he c

hild

-- a

re to

be

fact

ored

in a

s ded

uctio

ns in

the

calc

ulat

ion

of c

hild

supp

ort:

Page 279: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

APP

EN

DIX

D

Rev

iew

of S

tate

wid

e U

nifo

rm C

hild

Sup

port

Gui

delin

e A

ll co

mm

ents

are

ver

batim

unl

ess i

ndic

ated

by

an e

llips

is (…

).

25

6

Ref

eren

ces t

o in

divi

dual

s’ n

ames

and

issu

es n

ot re

latin

g to

com

men

tary

on

the

child

supp

ort g

uide

lines

hav

e be

en e

dite

d as

alle

gatio

ns re

gard

ing

indi

vidu

al c

ase

proc

essi

ng a

re

beyo

nd th

e sc

ope

of th

is st

udy.

C

omm

enta

tor

Com

men

ts

CA

LIFO

RN

IA F

AM

ILY

CO

DE

Sect

ion

4059

. Th

e an

nual

net

dis

posa

ble

inco

me

of e

ach

pare

nt sh

all b

e co

mpu

ted

by d

educ

ting

from

his

or h

er

annu

al g

ross

inco

me

the

actu

al a

mou

nts a

ttrib

utab

le to

the

follo

win

g ite

ms o

r oth

er it

ems p

erm

itted

und

er th

is

artic

le:

(d) D

educ

tions

for h

ealth

insu

ranc

e or

hea

lth p

lan

prem

ium

s for

the

pare

nt a

nd fo

r any

chi

ldre

n th

e pa

rent

has

an

oblig

atio

n to

supp

ort a

nd d

educ

tions

for s

tate

dis

abili

ty in

sura

nce

prem

ium

s.

Bel

ow a

re th

e re

leva

nt p

ortio

ns o

f the

form

FL-

150,

Inco

me

and

Expe

nse

Dec

lara

tion.

The

UR

L to

the

form

on

the

stat

e W

eb si

te is

dis

play

ed b

elow

: In

com

e an

d Ex

pens

e D

ecla

ratio

n (f

orm

FL-

150)

: ht

tp://

ww

w.c

ourti

nfo.

ca.g

ov/fo

rms/

docu

men

ts/fl

150.

pdf

Bel

ow, y

ou'll

see

that

the

phra

se "

tota

l mon

thly

am

ount

" is u

sed,

but

doe

sn't

spec

ify w

heth

er th

e so

-cal

led

tota

l sh

ould

om

it or

incl

ude

the

pare

nt's

heal

th c

are

prem

ium

s; it

's va

gue.

An

oblig

or c

ould

pla

usib

ly in

fer t

hat t

his i

tem

re

fers

to th

e to

tal m

onth

ly a

mou

nt th

at h

e or

she

pays

spec

ifica

lly fo

r the

chi

ld's

heal

th c

are

prem

ium

s onl

y, ra

ther

th

an th

ose

of th

e pa

rent

too.

==

====

====

====

====

====

====

====

====

====

====

====

===

Page

2:

10. D

educ

tions

*

c. M

edic

al, h

ospi

tal,

dent

al, a

nd o

ther

hea

lth in

sura

nce

prem

ium

s (to

tal m

onth

ly a

mou

nt)

====

====

====

====

====

====

====

====

====

====

====

====

= A

gain

, in

anot

her s

ectio

n th

e ph

rase

"ave

rage

mon

thly

exp

ense

s" is

use

d, b

ut v

ague

ly d

oesn

't m

entio

n th

at th

e pa

rent

's he

alth

car

e pr

emiu

ms s

houl

d be

incl

uded

with

in th

is fi

gure

: ==

====

====

====

====

====

====

====

====

====

====

====

===

Page 280: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

APP

EN

DIX

D

Rev

iew

of S

tate

wid

e U

nifo

rm C

hild

Sup

port

Gui

delin

e A

ll co

mm

ents

are

ver

batim

unl

ess i

ndic

ated

by

an e

llips

is (…

).

25

7

Ref

eren

ces t

o in

divi

dual

s’ n

ames

and

issu

es n

ot re

latin

g to

com

men

tary

on

the

child

supp

ort g

uide

lines

hav

e be

en e

dite

d as

alle

gatio

ns re

gard

ing

indi

vidu

al c

ase

proc

essi

ng a

re

beyo

nd th

e sc

ope

of th

is st

udy.

C

omm

enta

tor

Com

men

ts

Page

3:

13. A

vera

ge m

onth

ly e

xpen

ses

* b

. Hea

lth-c

are

cost

s not

pai

d by

insu

ranc

e ==

====

====

====

====

====

====

====

====

====

====

====

===

Page

4 is

the

key

page

in fa

ctor

ing

in c

hild

supp

ort;

it is

spec

ifica

lly e

ntitl

ed "C

hild

Sup

port

Info

rmat

ion,

" im

plyi

ng

that

wha

teve

r ded

uctio

ns a

re c

laim

ed h

ere

are

spec

ific

to th

e fo

rmul

a ca

lcul

atio

n w

here

as th

e pr

eced

ing

page

s are

no

t. N

otic

e th

at th

e on

ly w

ay th

at a

par

ent c

ould

cla

im h

is p

erso

nal h

ealth

car

e pr

emiu

ms o

n th

is p

age

is to

util

ize

the

last

item

that

men

tions

"ext

rem

e fin

anci

al h

ards

hip.

" S

ince

whe

n is

it a

n "e

xtre

me"

circ

umst

ance

for a

par

ent

mer

ely

to in

sure

him

self?

The

ala

rmis

t lan

guag

e pr

esen

ts a

sign

ifica

nt d

isin

cent

ive

for a

n ob

ligor

to sp

ecify

his

ow

n pe

rson

al h

ealth

car

e pr

emiu

ms i

n th

is se

ctio

n, a

nd a

s a c

onse

quen

ce h

is c

hild

supp

ort o

blig

atio

n is

like

ly to

be

calc

ulat

ed a

t an

exce

ssiv

ely

high

figu

re (i

n vi

olat

ion

of th

e Fa

mily

Cod

e 40

59(d

) tha

t I q

uote

d ab

ove.

N

otic

e al

so th

at th

e w

ord

"chi

ldre

n's"

is u

sed

excl

usiv

ely,

and

is a

ctua

lly in

tent

iona

lly si

ngle

d ou

t in

the

form

by

bein

g B

OLD

ED in

the

*prin

ted*

form

's te

xt (t

he b

olde

d po

rtion

is sh

own

belo

w, o

n ite

m 1

7d, i

n ca

pita

l let

ters

)!

This

is w

hat I

mea

nt w

hen

I use

d th

e ph

rase

"gla

ring

subt

lety

" to

refe

r to

this

poo

rly-d

esig

ned

(and

app

aren

tly

inte

ntio

nally

mis

lead

ing)

form

: ==

====

====

====

====

====

====

====

====

====

====

====

===

Page

4

Item

s 16 -

20:

"Chi

ld S

uppo

rt In

form

atio

n"

17. C

hild

ren'

s hea

lth-c

are

expe

nses

*

d. T

he m

onth

ly c

ost f

or th

e C

HIL

DR

EN'S

hea

lth in

sura

nce

is o

r wou

ld b

e (s

peci

fy):

$___

___

18.

Add

ition

al e

xpen

ses f

or th

e ch

ildre

n in

this

cas

e *

b. C

hild

ren'

s hea

lth c

are

not c

over

ed b

y in

sura

nce:

$__

____

19

. Sp

ecia

l har

dshi

ps.

I ask

the

cour

t to

cons

ider

the

follo

win

g sp

ecia

l fin

anci

al c

ircum

stan

ces:

Page 281: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

APP

EN

DIX

D

Rev

iew

of S

tate

wid

e U

nifo

rm C

hild

Sup

port

Gui

delin

e A

ll co

mm

ents

are

ver

batim

unl

ess i

ndic

ated

by

an e

llips

is (…

).

25

8

Ref

eren

ces t

o in

divi

dual

s’ n

ames

and

issu

es n

ot re

latin

g to

com

men

tary

on

the

child

supp

ort g

uide

lines

hav

e be

en e

dite

d as

alle

gatio

ns re

gard

ing

indi

vidu

al c

ase

proc

essi

ng a

re

beyo

nd th

e sc

ope

of th

is st

udy.

C

omm

enta

tor

Com

men

ts

* a

. Ext

raor

dina

ry h

ealth

exp

ense

s not

incl

uded

in 1

8b: $

____

__

- Th

e ex

pens

es li

sted

in a

, b, a

nd c

cre

ate

an e

xtre

me

finan

cial

har

dshi

p be

caus

e (e

xpla

in):

====

====

====

====

====

====

====

====

====

====

====

====

= A

gain

, why

shou

ld th

e st

ate's

form

so th

orou

ghly

em

phas

ize

only

the

heal

th p

rem

ium

s and

uni

nsur

ed e

xpen

ses f

or

the

child

ren,

whi

le im

plyi

ng th

at a

ny m

entio

n of

the

pare

nt's

heal

th p

rem

ium

s and

exp

ense

s sho

uld

be c

onsi

dere

d so

"ex

traor

dina

ry" t

hat t

hey

som

ehow

repr

esen

t an

"ext

rem

e fin

anci

al h

ards

hip,

" req

uirin

g th

e pa

rent

to "e

xpla

in"

them

? Is

n't i

t nor

mal

for a

par

ent t

o in

sure

him

self?

Isn

't it

in th

e ch

ild's

best

inte

rest

for t

he p

aren

t to

have

hea

lth

cove

rage

for h

imse

lf?

Cal

iforn

ia's

FL-1

50 In

com

e an

d Ex

pens

e D

ecla

ratio

n fo

rm is

sore

ly m

isle

adin

g, in

adeq

uate

, and

in d

irect

co

ntra

vent

ion

of th

e st

ate's

Fam

ily C

ode

sect

ion

4059

(d).

The

par

ent's

per

sona

l hea

lth c

are

prem

ium

s and

un

insu

red

expe

nses

shou

ld a

bsol

utel

y be

incl

uded

as a

ded

uctio

n in

the

stat

e's fo

rmul

a fo

r cal

cula

ting

child

supp

ort,

and

I sus

pect

that

this

form

is c

ausi

ng to

o m

any

pare

nts t

o un

witt

ingl

y be

obl

igat

ed to

pay

mor

e ch

ild su

ppor

t tha

n th

ey a

ctua

lly o

we

unde

r sta

te la

w. (

Edito

r’s N

ote:

Thi

s com

men

t has

bee

n fo

rwar

ded

to A

dmin

istra

tive

Off

ice

of

the

Cou

rts st

aff f

or re

view

of c

omm

ent r

elat

ing

to F

orm

FL-

150)

. 29

. M

embe

r of t

he P

ublic

Th

e C

hild

Sup

port

Gui

delin

e is

gro

ssly

unf

air,

unre

alis

tic, a

nd d

oes a

bsol

utel

y no

thin

g to

stop

the

seve

re h

uman

rig

hts v

iola

tions

aga

inst

goo

d, lo

ving

par

ents

(esp

ecia

lly fa

ther

s)…

30

. M

embe

r of t

he P

ublic

The

mos

t im

porta

nt c

hang

es n

eede

d ar

e)ta

ke a

way

the

ince

ntiv

e to

ask

for c

usto

dy to

avo

id p

ayin

g su

ppor

t; 2)

1)

Unf

ortu

nate

ly, I

hea

r cas

e af

ter c

ase

whe

re a

par

ent w

ho h

ad n

o in

tere

st in

rais

ing

the

child

ren

befo

re th

e di

vorc

e, w

ill fi

ght f

or fu

ll cu

stod

y to

avo

id c

hild

supp

ort o

blig

atio

ns. I

n m

y pe

rfec

t wor

ld, t

here

wou

ld b

e no

chi

ld

supp

ort a

nd 5

0/50

cus

tody

, exc

ept i

n ca

ses w

here

the

child

test

ifies

to p

hysi

cal a

buse

. Pe

rhap

s the

re c

ould

be

a ru

le, i

f a c

hild

is le

ft w

ith a

third

par

ty, t

he o

ther

spou

se h

as fi

rst r

ight

of r

efus

al, a

nd a

ny

time

take

n by

the

othe

r spo

use

is c

ompe

nsat

ed a

t the

sam

e ra

te a

s day

care

. So,

star

ting

at 5

0/50

pre

sum

ptio

n, if

A

leav

es th

e ch

ild w

ith a

nan

ny 2

4/7,

B c

an o

pt to

take

the

child

all

that

tim

e an

d be

com

pens

ated

$10

per

hou

r, 24

ho

urs p

er d

ay, 3

.5 d

ays p

er w

eek.

Tha

t is $

840

per w

eek

or a

bout

$35

00 p

er m

onth

. Tha

t is w

orst

cas

e, if

A w

ants

to

spen

d no

tim

e w

ith th

e ch

ild.

If th

e pa

rent

s agr

ee to

a d

iffer

ent t

ime

shar

e, sa

y B

get

s 90%

, if A

still

leav

es th

e ki

ds w

ith a

nan

ny d

urin

g hi

s ent

ire

time,

he

only

pay

s B 1

/5th

the

abov

e fig

ures

. Thi

s enc

oura

ges A

to ta

ke le

ss c

usto

dial

tim

e if

he p

lans

to h

ire

som

eone

to w

atch

the

child

ren

for h

im.

Page 282: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

APP

EN

DIX

D

Rev

iew

of S

tate

wid

e U

nifo

rm C

hild

Sup

port

Gui

delin

e A

ll co

mm

ents

are

ver

batim

unl

ess i

ndic

ated

by

an e

llips

is (…

).

25

9

Ref

eren

ces t

o in

divi

dual

s’ n

ames

and

issu

es n

ot re

latin

g to

com

men

tary

on

the

child

supp

ort g

uide

lines

hav

e be

en e

dite

d as

alle

gatio

ns re

gard

ing

indi

vidu

al c

ase

proc

essi

ng a

re

beyo

nd th

e sc

ope

of th

is st

udy.

C

omm

enta

tor

Com

men

ts

31.

Mem

ber o

f the

Pub

lic

The

Chi

ld S

uppo

rt G

uide

line

is a

rbitr

ary

and

unfa

ir. In

my

case

, the

fam

ily re

side

nce

in w

hich

the

mot

her r

esid

ed

with

the

child

ren

was

ess

entia

lly p

aid

off,

with

onl

y ne

glig

ible

mon

thly

recu

rrin

g co

sts f

or in

sura

nce/

taxe

s. Th

e G

uide

line

mad

e no

exc

eptio

n fo

r the

am

ount

of m

oney

the

fath

er h

ad to

pay

for s

pous

al/c

hild

supp

ort b

ased

on

the

fact

that

the

fam

ily re

side

nce

had

been

pai

d of

f. Th

is p

rovi

ded

the

mot

her w

ith e

xces

sive

mon

thly

inco

me,

and

st

rippe

d th

e fa

ther

of n

eede

d ca

sh fl

ow to

pay

his

ow

n m

onth

ly c

osts

. Acc

omm

odat

ion

need

s to

be m

ade

for a

ctua

l co

sts,

not j

ust a

stan

dard

form

ula.

Thi

s was

a h

uge

finan

cial

bur

den

in m

y ca

se.

32.

Mem

ber o

f the

Pub

lic

I par

ticip

ated

in th

e B

urba

nk fo

cus g

roup

, whi

ch w

as re

cord

ed.

Cha

pter

6 o

f the

Dra

ft R

epor

t is f

actu

ally

inco

rrec

t, an

d is

in e

ffec

t mis

lead

ing

as to

the

inpu

t fro

m st

akeh

olde

rs.

In g

ener

al, t

he p

artic

ipan

ts v

ery

delib

erat

ely

and

clea

rly c

omm

unic

ated

the

curr

ent G

uide

line

that

Cal

iforn

ia u

ses i

s fu

ndam

enta

lly fl

awed

and

doe

s not

wor

k. It

incr

ease

s liti

gatio

n of

cus

tody

/vis

itatio

n, a

nd is

a g

reat

SO

UR

CE

of

conf

lict b

etw

een

pare

nts.

This

shou

ld h

ave

been

repo

rted

to th

e Le

gisl

atur

e in

at l

east

as c

lear

a m

anne

r as i

t was

re

porte

d to

the

Judi

cial

Cou

ncil'

s res

earc

h co

ntra

ctor

. In

stea

d, g

reat

edi

toria

l lic

ense

was

take

n su

ch th

at th

e re

porti

ng o

f the

stak

ehol

der i

nput

read

s as i

f the

cou

rt us

ers

supp

ort t

he p

rem

ises

: the

Gui

delin

e is

subs

tant

ially

fine

, onl

y m

inor

cha

nges

are

nee

ded,

and

that

cou

rt us

ers j

ust

need

to b

e "e

duca

ted"

to m

ake

the

Gui

delin

e w

ork.

It w

ould

hav

e be

en m

ore

appr

opria

te fo

r the

Judi

cial

Cou

ncil'

s re

sear

ch c

ontra

ctor

to h

ave

repo

rted

the

cour

t use

rs' i

nput

that

the

curr

ent G

uide

line

is in

nee

d of

subs

tant

ial c

hang

e w

ithou

t edi

ting

out t

he m

essa

ge.

Mor

eove

r, th

e Ju

dici

al C

ounc

il's r

esea

rch

cont

ract

or e

dite

d th

e st

akeh

olde

r inp

ut to

the

poin

t of b

eing

fact

ually

in

corr

ect.

Even

thou

gh th

e m

ajor

ity o

f par

ticip

ants

in th

e B

urba

nk m

eetin

g sa

id th

at c

hild

supp

ort s

houl

d no

t be

base

d on

a p

erce

ntag

e of

a p

aren

t's in

com

e, b

ut ra

ther

on

the

Act

ual C

ost o

f Rai

sing

a C

hild

, the

Judi

cial

Cou

ncil'

s re

sear

ch c

ontra

ctor

repo

rted

that

"O

ne p

artic

ipan

t in

Burb

ank

agre

ed w

ith th

is v

iew

poin

t, bu

t mos

t of t

he o

ther

pa

rtici

pant

s in

Bur

bank

felt

that

this

met

hod

wou

ld b

e un

reas

onab

le" (

p. 1

18).

This

is fa

ctua

lly in

corr

ect.

The

reco

rd sh

ould

be

revi

ewed

and

this

shou

ld b

e co

rrec

ted.

In fa

ct, t

he c

omm

on u

nify

ing

them

e of

mos

t cou

rt us

ers i

n bo

th th

e Sa

n Fr

anci

sco

and

Bur

bank

mee

ting

was

that

the

basi

s of t

he c

urre

nt G

uide

line

shou

ld b

e th

e A

ctua

l Cos

t ra

ther

than

a p

erce

ntag

e or

shar

e of

inco

me.

The

stak

ehol

ders

shou

ld n

ot b

e si

lenc

ed th

roug

h th

e ed

itoria

l pro

cess

. Fi

nally

, "da

ta in

terp

reta

tion"

on

the

surv

eys s

houl

d ha

ve b

een

prov

ided

. Sur

veys

are

am

enab

le to

"int

erpr

etat

ion"

. R

evie

w o

f the

raw

dat

a pr

ovid

ed c

lear

ly in

dica

tes t

hat t

he c

urre

nt G

uide

line

does

NO

T m

eet t

he p

olic

ies s

et fo

rth

by th

e Le

gisl

atur

e. B

asic

surv

ey re

porti

ng w

ould

cle

arly

indi

cate

that

cer

tain

pol

icie

s are

mor

e st

rong

ly n

ot b

eing

m

et th

an o

ther

s, an

d th

is sh

ould

hav

e th

en b

een

tied

to th

e or

al in

put o

f the

par

ticip

ants

. Aga

in, t

his w

ould

end

in

Page 283: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

APP

EN

DIX

D

Rev

iew

of S

tate

wid

e U

nifo

rm C

hild

Sup

port

Gui

delin

e A

ll co

mm

ents

are

ver

batim

unl

ess i

ndic

ated

by

an e

llips

is (…

).

26

0

Ref

eren

ces t

o in

divi

dual

s’ n

ames

and

issu

es n

ot re

latin

g to

com

men

tary

on

the

child

supp

ort g

uide

lines

hav

e be

en e

dite

d as

alle

gatio

ns re

gard

ing

indi

vidu

al c

ase

proc

essi

ng a

re

beyo

nd th

e sc

ope

of th

is st

udy.

C

omm

enta

tor

Com

men

ts

the

conc

lusi

on th

at th

e cu

rren

t Gui

delin

e is

in n

eed

of su

bsta

ntia

l cha

nge.

[One

reas

on fo

r thi

s is b

ecau

se m

oder

n fa

mily

pat

tern

s diff

er su

bsta

ntia

lly fr

om th

ose

that

exi

sted

whe

n th

e cu

rren

t sup

port

mod

el w

as d

evel

oped

-i.e

., tim

es h

ave

chan

ges,

but t

he m

odel

has

n't.]

H

ad th

e in

put f

rom

stak

ehol

ders

bee

n re

porte

d ac

cura

tely

, a re

ason

able

Rec

omm

enda

tion

wou

ld h

ave

been

to "

form

a

dive

rse

task

forc

e re

pres

entin

g al

l sta

keho

lder

s (ra

ther

than

just

cou

rt us

ers)

to e

xplo

re th

e po

ssib

ility

of u

pdat

ing

the

Gui

delin

e in

mor

e th

an ju

st a

supe

rfic

ial m

anne

r." T

his p

roce

ss sh

ould

be

cond

ucte

d pu

blic

ally

, tra

nspa

rent

ly,

and

on th

e re

cord

. C

onsu

ltant

’s R

espo

nse:

Cha

pter

6 d

oes n

ot st

ate

or im

ply

that

par

ticip

ants

of t

he fo

cus g

roup

s vie

w th

e G

uide

line

as “

subs

tant

ially

fine

” an

d “o

nly

min

or c

hang

es a

re n

eede

d” a

s the

com

men

tato

r pur

ports

. To

the

cont

rary

, Cha

pter

6

stat

es th

at o

ne o

f the

maj

or th

emes

of t

he fo

cus g

roup

s is t

hat p

artic

ipan

ts d

o no

t bel

ieve

the

curr

ent G

uide

line

is

fair

(3rd

bul

let o

n pa

ge 1

14) a

nd id

entif

ies s

ever

al m

ajor

cha

nges

reco

mm

ende

d by

par

ticip

ants

. Pag

es 1

16-1

19

deta

il th

e re

ason

s why

par

ticip

ants

thin

k th

e G

uide

line

is n

ot fa

ir. I

t use

s the

par

ticip

ants

’ une

dite

d w

ords

and

in

clud

es th

e co

mm

enta

tor’

s poi

nt th

at th

e G

uide

line

incr

ease

s cus

tody

/vis

itatio

n lit

igat

ion

and

conf

lict b

etw

een

the

pare

nts (

see

seco

nd a

nd la

st pa

ragr

aphs

of p

age

116)

. C

hapt

er 6

als

o id

entif

ies m

any

reco

mm

enda

tions

that

wou

ld

prod

uce

maj

or G

uide

line

chan

ges s

uch

as th

e re

com

men

datio

n of

som

e pa

rtici

pant

s to

base

the

Gui

delin

e on

50/

50

cust

ody

and

mak

e 50

/50

cust

ody

pres

umpt

ive

in fa

mily

law

stat

ute

(pag

e 11

6), t

he re

com

men

datio

n to

incr

ease

the

low

-inco

me

adju

stm

ent (

page

117

), an

d se

vera

l oth

ers.

Cha

pter

6 d

oes n

ot st

ate

that

onl

y on

e B

urba

nk p

artic

ipan

t be

lieve

s tha

t the

Gui

delin

e sh

ould

be

base

d on

act

ual c

hild

-rear

ing

cost

as t

he c

omm

enta

tor p

urpo

rts.

The

poin

t of

the

disc

ussi

on o

n pa

ge 1

18 is

that

the

San

Fran

cisc

o an

d B

urba

nk fo

cus g

roup

s diff

ered

on

whe

ther

inco

me

shou

ld

be c

onsi

dere

d in

the

Gui

delin

es c

alcu

latio

n, n

ot th

at th

ey d

isag

ree

on b

asin

g th

e G

uide

line

on c

hild

-rear

ing

cost

s.

Som

e of

the

San

Fran

cisc

o pa

rtici

pant

s ins

iste

d th

at th

e pa

rent

s’ in

com

es sh

ould

not

be

cons

ider

ed in

the

Gui

delin

e ca

lcul

atio

n, ra

ther

the

Gui

delin

e sh

ould

be

base

d on

a fi

xed

amou

nt to

cov

er th

e co

st o

f chi

ld re

arin

g si

mila

r to

fost

er c

are

paym

ents

. In

con

trast

, as d

iscu

ssed

on

page

118

, sev

eral

Bur

bank

par

ticip

ants

bel

ieve

that

bec

ause

hig

h-in

com

e pa

rent

s spe

nd m

ore

on c

hild

rear

ing

than

low

-inco

me

pare

nts t

hat t

he G

uide

lines

cal

cula

tion

shou

ld in

deed

co

nsid

er in

com

e.

As d

iscu

ssed

in C

hapt

er 2

, the

re a

re v

ario

us m

etho

dolo

gies

for m

easu

ring

child

-rear

ing

cost

s and

se

vera

l gui

delin

es m

odel

s. S

ome

met

hodo

logi

es d

o co

nsid

er in

com

e an

d ot

hers

do

not.

Mos

t gui

delin

es m

odel

s us

ed b

y st

ates

, inc

ludi

ng th

e C

alifo

rnia

Gui

delin

e, c

onsi

der i

ncom

e an

d re

ly o

n m

easu

rem

ents

of c

hild

-rear

ing

cost

s th

at re

late

to in

com

e, a

lbei

t the

mod

els d

iffer

and

they

do

not a

ll re

ly o

n th

e sa

me

mea

sure

men

ts. T

here

are

als

o ot

her g

uide

lines

mod

els t

hat a

im to

pro

vide

the

child

with

the

sam

e st

anda

rd o

f liv

ing

in b

oth

pare

nts’

hou

seho

lds.

Thus

, the

y co

nsid

er e

ach

pare

nt’s

inco

me

but n

ot th

e co

st o

f chi

ld re

arin

g. S

ince

the

info

rmat

ion

from

Cha

pter

2

was

not

pro

vide

d to

par

ticip

ants

in a

dvan

ce o

f the

focu

s gro

ups a

nd is

tech

nica

l, pa

rtici

pant

s wer

e no

t exp

ecte

d to

us

e th

e sa

me

conc

epts

and

def

initi

ons p

rovi

ded

in C

hapt

er 2

. N

onet

hele

ss, C

hapt

er 6

con

tain

s the

stak

ehol

der’

s

Page 284: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

APP

EN

DIX

D

Rev

iew

of S

tate

wid

e U

nifo

rm C

hild

Sup

port

Gui

delin

e A

ll co

mm

ents

are

ver

batim

unl

ess i

ndic

ated

by

an e

llips

is (…

).

26

1

Ref

eren

ces t

o in

divi

dual

s’ n

ames

and

issu

es n

ot re

latin

g to

com

men

tary

on

the

child

supp

ort g

uide

lines

hav

e be

en e

dite

d as

alle

gatio

ns re

gard

ing

indi

vidu

al c

ase

proc

essi

ng a

re

beyo

nd th

e sc

ope

of th

is st

udy.

C

omm

enta

tor

Com

men

ts

uned

ited

inpu

t and

was

not

edi

ted

to b

e co

nsis

tent

with

the

term

s and

con

cept

s use

d in

Cha

pter

2.

Mor

eove

r, w

ith

the

exce

ptio

n of

bei

ng C

alifo

rnia

bas

ed, m

ost p

artic

ipan

ts d

id n

ot e

labo

rate

on

wha

t the

y m

eant

by

actu

al c

hild

-re

arin

g co

st a

nd o

ften

inte

rtwin

ed it

with

oth

er c

once

pts t

hey

belie

ved

shou

ld o

r sho

uld

not b

e co

nsid

ered

in th

e G

uide

line.

For

exa

mpl

e, so

me

parti

cipa

nts e

xplic

itly

stat

ed th

e G

uide

line

amou

nt sh

ould

be

base

d on

a

pres

umpt

ion

of e

qual

cus

tody

and

oth

er p

artic

ipan

ts e

xplic

itly

stat

ed th

e G

uide

line

shou

ld n

ot b

e ba

sed

on p

aren

ts’

inco

mes

. O

ther

spec

ifica

tions

that

wer

e m

entio

ned

incl

uded

usi

ng a

mar

gina

l cos

t met

hodo

logy

, tha

t mea

surin

g ho

usin

g ex

pens

es a

ccur

atel

y w

as k

ey to

an

actu

al m

easu

rem

ent o

f chi

ld-re

arin

g co

st, a

nd th

e co

st sh

ould

con

side

r th

ree -

inco

me

tiers

(e.g

., lo

w, m

iddl

e an

d hi

gh in

com

es).

In a

ll, th

e vi

ew th

at th

e m

easu

rem

ent o

f chi

ld-re

arin

g co

st

is w

orth

y of

furth

er st

udy

is c

aptu

red

in th

e th

ird b

ulle

t of p

age

119

that

stat

es “

A n

umbe

r of p

artic

ipan

ts e

xpre

ssed

ge

nera

l con

cern

s abo

ut th

e ec

onom

ic b

asis

of t

he G

uide

line.

The

se p

artic

ipan

ts b

elie

ved

that

the

econ

omic

stud

ies

shou

ld b

e re

exam

ined

.”

33

. M

embe

r of t

he P

ublic

M

othe

r's/F

athe

r's w

ho a

re p

ayin

g ch

ild su

ppor

t sho

uld

be a

ble

to c

laim

thei

r chi

ldre

n as

dep

ende

nts o

n th

eir t

axes

. M

othe

r's/F

athe

r's w

ho a

re re

ceiv

ing

child

supp

ort s

houl

d ha

ve to

acc

ount

for c

hild

sup

port

as in

com

e…

34.

Mem

ber o

f the

Pub

lic

Chi

ld su

ppor

t nee

ds to

be

abol

ishe

d en

tirel

y m

uch

less

deb

tor's

pris

on fo

r it.

In li

ght o

f an

econ

omy

that

has

ove

r a

9% u

nem

ploy

men

t rat

e, c

hild

supp

ort o

rder

s are

sim

ply

Gov

ernm

ent o

rder

ed in

carc

erat

ion

base

d on

pov

erty

leve

l.

Abo

lish

child

supp

ort a

s the

slav

ery

mec

hani

sm it

is.

35.

Mem

ber o

f the

Pub

lic

This

pro

cess

is to

tally

one

side

d to

the

wom

en in

the

supp

ort c

ateg

ory.

My

ex-w

ife q

uit h

er jo

b an

d th

en I

had

to

pay

extra

, and

my

expe

nses

wer

e ne

ver a

llow

ed to

be

acce

pted

. On

top

of th

at, o

nce

I got

cus

tody

of m

y so

n, m

y ex

w

as su

ppos

e to

pay

supp

ort a

nd re

fuse

d an

d th

e co

urts

refu

sed

to e

nfor

ce th

e po

licy.

I am

still

ow

ed o

ver $

7,00

0 fr

om m

y ex

, and

the

stat

e re

fuse

s to

enfo

rce

the

issu

e, a

nd th

at is

now

for o

ver 4

yea

rs. P

leas

e co

ntac

t me

and

take

th

is o

n an

d en

forc

e th

e la

ws f

or b

oth

side

s and

not

just

agai

nst t

he fa

ther

s. 36

. M

embe

r of t

he P

ublic

Th

ank

you

for t

he o

ppor

tuni

ty to

com

men

t on

the

Rev

iew

of C

alifo

rnia

’s S

tate

wid

e U

nifo

rm C

hild

Sup

port

Gui

delin

e.

Term

inat

ion

of S

uppo

rt an

d Su

ppor

t Bey

ond

Maj

ority

: Te

rmin

atio

n of

chi

ld su

ppor

t sho

uld

be th

e ag

e of

21,

or 2

3 if

the

child

is e

nrol

led

full

time

at a

n ac

cred

ited

inst

itutio

n of

hig

her l

earn

ing.

18

year

-old

chi

ldre

n ra

rely

hav

e th

e ca

paci

ty to

supp

ort t

hem

selv

es ri

ght o

ut o

f hig

h sc

hool

. The

par

ent w

hom

the

child

is p

rinci

pally

dep

ende

nt sh

ould

not

car

ry th

e so

le b

urde

n of

pro

vidi

ng b

asic

liv

ing

expe

nses

and

col

lege

tuiti

on; r

athe

r the

se e

xpen

ses s

houl

d be

shar

ed b

y bo

th p

aren

ts.

Chi

ld S

uppo

rt G

uide

line

for H

igh

Cos

t Cou

ntie

s:

Page 285: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

APP

EN

DIX

D

Rev

iew

of S

tate

wid

e U

nifo

rm C

hild

Sup

port

Gui

delin

e A

ll co

mm

ents

are

ver

batim

unl

ess i

ndic

ated

by

an e

llips

is (…

).

26

2

Ref

eren

ces t

o in

divi

dual

s’ n

ames

and

issu

es n

ot re

latin

g to

com

men

tary

on

the

child

supp

ort g

uide

lines

hav

e be

en e

dite

d as

alle

gatio

ns re

gard

ing

indi

vidu

al c

ase

proc

essi

ng a

re

beyo

nd th

e sc

ope

of th

is st

udy.

C

omm

enta

tor

Com

men

ts

Gui

delin

e ch

ild su

ppor

t sho

uld

be c

alcu

late

d ba

sed

on th

e co

unty

in w

hich

the

child

prim

arily

live

s. Fo

r exa

mpl

e,

as o

f Jun

e, 2

010,

fair

mar

ket r

ent f

or a

thre

e be

droo

m h

ome

in L

os A

ngel

es w

as $

1,82

8, b

ut th

e sa

me

thre

e be

droo

m h

ome

in G

lenn

Cou

nty

was

$93

9 - a

diff

eren

ce o

f $88

9. T

his r

esul

ts in

inad

equa

te c

hild

supp

ort a

war

ds

for c

usto

dial

par

ents

rais

ing

child

ren

in h

igh

cost

cou

ntie

s.

Hea

lth In

sura

nce/

Unc

over

ed M

edic

al E

xpen

ses:

N

on-c

usto

dial

par

ents

in n

on-IV

-D c

ases

, who

are

ord

ered

to p

rovi

de h

ealth

insu

ranc

e co

vera

ge a

nd a

con

tribu

tive

shar

e of

reas

onab

le u

ncov

ered

med

ical

exp

ense

s, bu

t fai

l to

com

ply,

com

prom

ise

the

heal

th o

f the

ir ch

ildre

n. In

lig

ht o

f the

unc

erta

inty

surr

ound

ing

heal

th c

are

refo

rm, a

n ad

min

istra

tive

mec

hani

sm sh

ould

be

put i

n pl

ace

to

guar

ante

e co

mpl

ianc

e w

ith th

e pr

ovis

ion

of h

ealth

insu

ranc

e. A

dditi

onal

ly, c

usto

dial

par

ents

in n

on-IV

-D c

ases

ha

ve a

ver

y di

ffic

ult t

ime

obta

inin

g re

imbu

rsem

ent f

rom

non

-cus

todi

al p

aren

ts fo

r unc

over

ed m

edic

al e

xpen

ses.

The

loca

l chi

ld su

ppor

t age

ncie

s ref

use

to e

nfor

ce th

e or

ders

, lea

ving

cus

todi

al p

aren

ts w

ith m

edic

al b

ills t

hat c

an’t

be p

aid.

Thi

s res

ults

in d

erog

ator

y cr

edit

repo

rting

and

col

lect

ion

actio

ns si

nce

the

cust

odia

l par

ent i

s hel

d lia

ble

for

the

entir

e bi

ll. T

here

is n

othi

ng fa

ir or

equ

itabl

e ab

out t

his f

or th

e cu

stod

ial p

aren

t. N

ew le

gisl

atio

n sh

ould

be

cons

ider

ed re

quiri

ng m

edic

al p

rovi

ders

to li

mit

thei

r col

lect

ion

activ

ity to

the

cour

t ord

ered

con

tribu

tive

shar

e of

ea

ch p

aren

t.

Gui

delin

e C

hild

Sup

port

for H

igh

Earn

ers W

ith L

ess T

han

10%

Tim

esha

re:

The

curr

ent g

uide

line

is fa

r too

leni

ent t

owar

d hi

gh e

arni

ng n

on-c

usto

dial

par

ents

who

cho

ose

to sp

end

10%

or l

ess

of th

eir t

ime

with

thei

r chi

ldre

n. T

hey

have

shun

ned

thei

r par

enta

l res

pons

ibili

ties a

nd h

ave

crea

ted

a he

avy

finan

cial

and

phy

sica

l bur

den

for t

he c

usto

dial

par

ent.

Fur

ther

, the

cus

todi

al p

aren

t’s c

apac

ity to

ear

n is

dim

inis

hed

due

to th

e am

ount

of t

ime

need

ed to

car

e fo

r the

chi

ldre

n. F

or th

e pu

rpos

e of

illu

strat

ing

this

, the

onl

ine

Cal

iforn

ia

Gui

delin

e C

hild

Sup

port

Calc

ulat

or w

as u

sed

with

the

follo

win

g pa

ram

eter

s: tw

o ch

ildre

n, c

ombi

ned

inco

me

of th

e pa

rent

s-$2

00,0

00. T

he n

on-c

usto

dial

par

ent h

as c

hose

n to

mov

e aw

ay fr

om th

e ch

ildre

n, re

sulti

ng in

a 0

%

times

hare

, has

gro

ss w

ages

of $

10,4

17 p

er m

onth

, and

file

s tax

es a

s “Si

ngle

.” T

he c

usto

dial

par

ent h

as g

ross

wag

es

of $

6,25

0 pe

r mon

th a

nd fi

les t

axes

as “

Hea

d of

Hou

seho

ld.”

The

onl

ine

Dep

artm

ent o

f Chi

ld S

uppo

rt Se

rvic

es

Cal

iforn

ia G

uide

line

Chi

ld S

uppo

rt C

alcu

lato

r res

ults

in a

$2,

028

per m

onth

chi

ld su

ppor

t aw

ard

to th

e cu

stod

ial

pare

nt. T

his c

hild

supp

ort o

blig

atio

n re

pres

ents

19%

of t

he n

on-c

usto

dial

par

ent’s

gro

ss in

com

e, a

nd 3

1% o

f net

in

com

e.

Acc

ordi

ng to

the

June

, 201

0 C

alifo

rnia

Bud

get P

roje

ct p

ublic

atio

n, “

Mak

ing

Ends

Mee

t: H

ow M

uch

Doe

s It C

ost

Page 286: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

APP

EN

DIX

D

Rev

iew

of S

tate

wid

e U

nifo

rm C

hild

Sup

port

Gui

delin

e A

ll co

mm

ents

are

ver

batim

unl

ess i

ndic

ated

by

an e

llips

is (…

).

26

3

Ref

eren

ces t

o in

divi

dual

s’ n

ames

and

issu

es n

ot re

latin

g to

com

men

tary

on

the

child

supp

ort g

uide

lines

hav

e be

en e

dite

d as

alle

gatio

ns re

gard

ing

indi

vidu

al c

ase

proc

essi

ng a

re

beyo

nd th

e sc

ope

of th

is st

udy.

C

omm

enta

tor

Com

men

ts

To R

aise

a F

amily

in C

alifo

rnia

?, th

e ba

sic

fam

ily b

udge

t (no

t an

uppe

r mid

dle

clas

s fam

ily b

udge

t) fo

r a si

ngle

pa

rent

fam

ily is

$5,

353,

whi

ch is

mor

e th

an tw

ice

the

$2,0

28 c

hild

supp

ort a

war

d in

the

abov

e ill

ustra

tion.

It

is ti

me

to se

nd a

cle

ar m

essa

ge to

par

ents

who

aba

ndon

thei

r chi

ldre

n - a

nd th

e m

essa

ge is

, if y

ou c

hoos

e no

t to

spen

d tim

e w

ith y

our c

hild

ren,

gui

delin

e ch

ild su

ppor

t will

incr

ease

con

side

rabl

y. T

he g

uide

line

shou

ld b

e m

odifi

ed

to a

min

imum

of 4

0% o

f net

inco

me

for n

on-c

usto

dial

par

ents

ear

ning

$10

0,00

0 or

mor

e pe

r yea

r, an

d sh

ould

not

de

crea

se u

ntil

the

non -

cust

odia

l par

ent’s

inco

me

reac

hes $

250,

000.

Fo

cus G

roup

s With

Sta

keho

lder

s:

Futu

re re

view

s of t

he S

tate

wid

e U

nifo

rm C

hild

Sup

port

Gui

delin

e sh

ould

enc

oura

ge m

ore

parti

cipa

tion

from

m

iddl

e an

d up

per c

lass

cus

todi

al st

akeh

olde

rs in

focu

s gro

ups,

as th

e co

mm

ents

in th

is re

view

prim

arily

focu

sed

on

low

inco

me

oblig

ors.

37.

Mem

ber o

f the

Pub

lic

This

Rev

iew

of S

tate

wid

e U

nifo

rm C

hild

Sup

port

Gui

delin

e pr

oper

ly d

eter

min

ed th

at C

alifo

rnia

's gu

idel

ine

child

su

ppor

t for

mul

a is

at t

he h

igh

end

of th

e ra

nge

of m

easu

rem

ents

of c

hild

-rear

ing

expe

nditu

res.

Mea

ning

Cal

iforn

ia's

child

supp

ort s

yste

m is

ver

y co

stly

to th

e no

n cu

stod

ial p

aren

t and

ver

y lu

crat

ive

to th

e cu

stod

ial p

aren

t, in

mos

t ca

ses.

Th

is c

hild

supp

ort s

yste

m m

onet

arily

enc

oura

ges c

usto

dial

par

ents

to re

duce

the

non

cust

odia

l par

ent's

par

entin

g tim

e to

ach

ieve

hig

her c

hild

supp

ort b

eing

rew

arde

d. T

his m

akes

a b

ad si

tuat

ion

even

wor

se.

This

syst

em b

enef

its th

e cu

stod

ial p

aren

t in

ever

y in

stan

ce a

nd h

urts

the

non

cust

odia

l par

ent.

Thi

s alie

nate

s the

no

n cu

stod

ial p

aren

t fro

m th

e ch

ildre

n’s l

ives

.

38.

Mem

ber o

f the

Pub

lic

Unf

ortu

nate

ly th

e R

evie

w w

as b

arel

y pu

blic

ized

, and

in th

e pa

ttern

of e

arlie

r rev

iew

s did

not

add

ress

any

of t

he

sign

ifica

nt is

sues

for p

aren

ts, a

ffec

ting

thei

r chi

ldre

n, re

late

d to

exp

endi

ture

s on

child

ren

and

the

amou

nt o

f chi

ld

supp

ort t

he g

uide

line

pres

umes

shou

ld b

e or

dere

d---w

hich

are

esp

ecia

lly p

ress

ing

in th

is ti

me

of p

erva

sive

ec

onom

ic tu

rmoi

l and

som

etim

es e

xcru

ciat

ing

finan

cial

dis

tress

. 39

. M

embe

r of t

he P

ublic

Th

e C

alifo

rnia

Gui

delin

e C

alcu

latio

n sh

ould

be

done

aw

ay w

ith.

Any

thin

g so

com

plex

that

a p

erso

n ca

nnot

un

ders

tand

how

thei

r sup

port

is c

alcu

late

d do

es n

ot se

rve

the

citiz

enry

wel

l. It

is a

bur

eauc

ratic

gov

ernm

enta

l ca

lcul

atio

n th

at d

oes n

ot se

rve

the

fam

ilies

or t

axpa

yers

of C

alifo

rnia

. It a

lso

disc

rimin

ates

aga

inst

the

wor

king

poo

r an

d th

e no

n-cu

stod

ial p

aren

t. Th

e w

orki

ng p

oor c

an b

e as

sess

ed w

ith a

supp

ort o

rder

whe

re a

non

-wor

king

par

ent

with

gov

ernm

ent b

enef

its re

ceiv

ing

a hi

gher

inco

me

is n

ot a

sses

sed

with

supp

ort.

If th

e cu

stod

ial p

aren

t can

cho

ose

not t

o w

ork

then

the

sam

e rig

ht sh

ould

be

give

n to

the

non-

cust

odia

l par

ent.

Eac

h

Page 287: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

APP

EN

DIX

D

Rev

iew

of S

tate

wid

e U

nifo

rm C

hild

Sup

port

Gui

delin

e A

ll co

mm

ents

are

ver

batim

unl

ess i

ndic

ated

by

an e

llips

is (…

).

26

4

Ref

eren

ces t

o in

divi

dual

s’ n

ames

and

issu

es n

ot re

latin

g to

com

men

tary

on

the

child

supp

ort g

uide

lines

hav

e be

en e

dite

d as

alle

gatio

ns re

gard

ing

indi

vidu

al c

ase

proc

essi

ng a

re

beyo

nd th

e sc

ope

of th

is st

udy.

C

omm

enta

tor

Com

men

ts

pare

nt sh

ould

be

give

n th

e st

anda

rd p

over

ty le

vel a

s a d

educ

tion

to th

eir i

ncom

e (n

o m

atte

r wha

t the

sour

ce o

f the

in

com

e is

incl

udin

g go

vern

men

t ben

efits

/wel

fare

. Ta

ke w

hate

ver c

ombi

ned

inco

me

is le

ft an

d fig

ure

out t

he

perc

enta

ge o

f the

ava

ilabl

e in

com

e to

bas

e th

e su

ppor

t am

ount

. If

ther

e is

no

avai

labl

e in

com

e - t

he su

ppor

t ord

er sh

ould

be

zero

. N

eith

er p

aren

t sho

uld

have

"im

pute

d" in

com

e. A

per

son

has a

righ

t to

mak

e a

choi

ce to

not

wor

k or

to w

ork

at

wha

teve

r job

they

cho

ose.

We

are

a fr

ee so

ciet

y. A

per

son

also

mak

es th

e ch

oice

to n

ot fu

nctio

n as

a fa

mily

uni

t.

Soci

ety

shou

ld n

ot h

ave

to p

ay fo

r tha

t cho

ice.

W

e sh

ould

not

rew

ard

peop

le fo

r hav

ing

mor

e ch

ildre

n th

an th

ey c

an a

ffor

d to

supp

ort.

The

old

est c

hild

shou

ld b

e gi

ven

the

high

est f

indi

ngs -

not

the

youn

gest

. A

noth

er si

mpl

ified

way

to c

olle

ct su

ppor

t whi

ch w

ould

elim

inat

e th

e co

nsta

nt n

eed

for m

odifi

catio

ns a

nd e

ase

the

burd

en o

f tax

paye

r fun

ded

child

supp

ort a

genc

ies i

s to

crea

te a

chi

ld su

ppor

t tax

with

hold

ing

(bas

ed o

n w

elfa

re

reim

burs

emen

t tab

les i

f the

inco

me

exce

eds t

he p

over

ty le

vel).

If a

cou

rt or

der t

o w

ithho

ld th

e su

ppor

t tax

is se

rved

- t

he d

educ

tion

is m

ade.

If

the

cust

odia

l par

ent w

ants

mor

e th

an th

e m

inim

um ta

x -a

supp

lem

enta

l ord

er c

an b

e so

ught

by

the

cust

odia

l pa

rent

- no

t a g

over

nmen

tal a

genc

y.

This

app

roac

h w

ould

save

taxp

ayer

s mon

ey a

s it w

ould

redu

ce th

e in

volv

emen

t of t

he c

hild

supp

ort a

genc

ies a

nd

requ

ire le

ss re

sour

ce to

run

the

prog

ram

that

is a

lread

y "b

loat

ed" b

y du

plic

ated

adm

inis

trativ

e co

sts.

N

ot o

nly

shou

ld th

e ca

lcul

ator

be

tota

lly re

vam

ped

- so

shou

ld th

e en

tire

child

supp

ort p

rogr

am.

Chi

ld su

ppor

t sho

uld

be c

olle

cted

and

dis

burs

ed d

irect

ly to

the

fam

ily.

If th

e fa

mily

is a

ided

the

supp

ort s

houl

d be

cl

aim

ed a

s inc

ome.

Inc

ome

repo

rting

is a

lread

y a

proc

ess t

hat i

s in

plac

e.

The

child

supp

ort a

ccou

ntin

g is

ridi

culo

usly

com

plex

and

ther

e is

no

need

for c

hild

supp

ort t

o pa

ss th

roug

h a

third

pa

rty.

Aga

in th

is w

ould

save

the

taxp

ayer

s mill

ions

of d

olla

rs re

duci

ng th

e ch

ild su

ppor

t age

ncy

cost

s. 40

. M

embe

r of t

he P

ublic

I a

m w

ritin

g in

resp

onse

to a

n in

vita

tion

to c

omm

ent f

or th

e pu

blic

on

the

late

st “

Revi

ew o

f Sta

tew

ide

Uni

form

C

hild

Sup

port

Gui

delin

e 20

10”,

dat

ed N

ovem

ber 2

010 …

I hav

e a

Bac

helo

rs d

egre

e in

Mat

hem

atic

s fro

m S

an Jo

se

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

and

hav

e be

en a

resi

dent

of C

alifo

rnia

sinc

e 19

82.

I wou

ld li

ke to

brin

g yo

ur a

ttent

ion

to o

ne v

ery

Page 288: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

APP

EN

DIX

D

Rev

iew

of S

tate

wid

e U

nifo

rm C

hild

Sup

port

Gui

delin

e A

ll co

mm

ents

are

ver

batim

unl

ess i

ndic

ated

by

an e

llips

is (…

).

26

5

Ref

eren

ces t

o in

divi

dual

s’ n

ames

and

issu

es n

ot re

latin

g to

com

men

tary

on

the

child

supp

ort g

uide

lines

hav

e be

en e

dite

d as

alle

gatio

ns re

gard

ing

indi

vidu

al c

ase

proc

essi

ng a

re

beyo

nd th

e sc

ope

of th

is st

udy.

C

omm

enta

tor

Com

men

ts

sign

ifica

nt, n

on-d

ispu

tabl

e ca

lcul

atio

n er

ror (

i.e. 2

+2 =

5) o

f the

cur

rent

Sta

tew

ide

Uni

form

Chi

ld S

uppo

rt G

uide

line,

bas

ed o

n Fa

mily

cod

e se

ctio

n 40

55(a

) and

use

d in

Cal

iforn

ia si

nce

1992

.

Bes

ides

cal

cula

ting

the

child

supp

ort p

aym

ent d

ue, t

he fo

rmul

a co

mpu

tes a

few

inte

rmed

iate

resu

lts, w

hich

can

be

look

ed a

t ind

epen

dent

ly.

The

mos

t im

porta

nt o

f the

se is

the

perc

enta

ge o

f net

dis

posa

ble

inco

me

(as d

efin

ed in

the

fam

ily c

ode)

allo

cate

d to

the

child

ren.

One

wou

ld p

resu

me

the

inco

me

allo

cate

d to

the

child

ren

to a

lway

s be

low

er

than

100

% (t

he p

aren

ts su

rely

mus

t nee

d so

me

inco

me

to su

rviv

e). I

n fa

ct, i

n a

num

ber o

f cas

es th

e pe

rcen

tage

of

inco

me

allo

cate

d to

the

child

ren

by th

e cu

rren

t Chi

ld S

uppo

rt G

uide

line

is a

bove

100

%.

Kee

p in

min

d th

at th

is

allo

catio

n of

inco

me

to th

e ch

ildre

n is

bef

ore

any

addi

tiona

l allo

catio

n fo

r edu

catio

nal,

un-re

imbu

rsed

hea

lth, a

nd

child

car

e ex

pens

es (a

s per

mitt

ed b

y la

w).

Sin

ce th

is a

lloca

tion

of in

com

e to

the

child

ren

is th

en u

sed

to c

alcu

late

th

e ac

tual

chi

ld su

ppor

t pay

men

t, it

is fa

ir to

con

clud

e th

at th

e va

lidity

of t

he c

hild

supp

ort p

aym

ent a

mou

nt in

thes

e ca

ses i

s in

ques

tion.

Th

e pe

rcen

tage

of i

ncom

e al

loca

ted

to th

e ch

ildre

n is

bas

ed o

n th

e fo

llow

ing

inpu

ts to

the

f orm

ula:

1.

K-fr

actio

n (a

s def

ined

in st

udy)

is c

ompu

ted

usin

g th

e Pa

rent

s’ c

ombi

ned

disp

osab

le n

et in

com

e, a

s fo

llow

s:

Tota

l Net

Dis

posa

ble

Inco

me

per m

onth

K

-frac

tion

$0-$

800

0.20

+ T

N/1

6,00

0 $8

01-$

6,66

6 0.

25

$6,6

67-$

10,0

00

0.10

+ 1

,000

/TN

O

ver $

10,0

00

0.12

+ 8

00/T

N

2.

A

tim

esha

re m

ultip

lier,

whi

ch p

rogr

essi

vely

incr

ease

s the

inco

me,

allo

cate

d to

the

child

ren

in sh

ared

cu

stod

y ar

rang

emen

ts. T

his t

imes

hare

fact

or is

repr

esen

ted

as fo

llow

s in

the

guid

elin

e:

If H

% ≤

50%

the

times

hare

fact

or is

1 +

H%

If

H%

> 5

0% th

e tim

esha

re fa

ctor

is 2

– H

%

Thes

e tw

o in

puts

are

incl

uded

in th

e co

mpu

tatio

n fo

r K =

‘k-fa

ctor

’ * ti

mes

hare

mul

tiplie

r. T

he le

gisl

atio

n id

entif

ies t

his v

alue

K a

s the

‘am

ount

of b

oth

pare

nts'

inco

me

allo

cate

d fo

r chi

ld su

ppor

t’. T

his s

tate

men

t is

inco

rrec

t. T

he v

alue

K o

nly

repr

esen

ts th

e pe

rcen

tage

of i

ncom

e al

loca

ted

for t

he fi

rst c

hild

. To

find

out

the

actu

al

inco

me

allo

cate

d fo

r all

the

child

ren

incl

uded

in th

e ch

ild su

ppor

t cal

cula

tion,

we

have

to m

ultip

ly K

by

the

num

ber

of c

hild

ren

mul

tiplie

r. T

his i

s des

crib

ed n

ext.

Page 289: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

APP

EN

DIX

D

Rev

iew

of S

tate

wid

e U

nifo

rm C

hild

Sup

port

Gui

delin

e A

ll co

mm

ents

are

ver

batim

unl

ess i

ndic

ated

by

an e

llips

is (…

).

26

6

Ref

eren

ces t

o in

divi

dual

s’ n

ames

and

issu

es n

ot re

latin

g to

com

men

tary

on

the

child

supp

ort g

uide

lines

hav

e be

en e

dite

d as

alle

gatio

ns re

gard

ing

indi

vidu

al c

ase

proc

essi

ng a

re

beyo

nd th

e sc

ope

of th

is st

udy.

C

omm

enta

tor

Com

men

ts

3.

N

umbe

r of c

hild

ren

mul

tiplie

r: Th

is m

ultip

lier i

ncre

ases

the

final

chi

ld su

ppor

t pay

men

t as w

ell a

s the

in

com

e al

loca

ted

to th

e ch

ildre

n.

N

umbe

r of c

hild

ren

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 10

M

ultip

lier

1 1.

6 2.

0 2.

3 2.

5 2.

6 5 2.

7 5 2.

81 3 2.

84 4 2.

8 6 Fo

r exa

mpl

e:

In a

fam

ily w

ith te

n ch

ildre

n w

here

the

com

bine

d ne

t dis

posa

ble

inco

me

is $

5,00

0 an

d th

e pa

rent

s sha

re e

qual

cu

stod

y (T

N=$

5,00

0, H

% =

50%

, and

10

child

ren)

, the

act

ual c

ompu

tatio

n is

as f

ollo

ws:

P

erce

nt o

f inc

ome

allo

cate

d to

chi

ldre

n =

k-fr

actio

n *

times

hare

fact

or *

No.

Chi

ldre

n m

ultip

lier

= 0

.25

* 1.

5 *

2.86

= 1

.072

5 =

107.

25%

In

this

scen

ario

eac

h ch

ild is

allo

cate

d 10

.725

% o

f inc

ome

for a

com

bine

d 10

7.25

%, n

o in

com

e re

mai

ns a

vaila

ble

for t

he p

aren

ts.

This

is c

lear

ly a

n in

disp

utab

le m

ath

erro

r in

the

guid

elin

e.

I und

erst

and

that

the

curr

ent g

uide

line

has b

een

a so

urce

of c

ontro

vers

y an

d di

sagr

eem

ents

ove

r the

yea

rs, b

ut

hope

fully

all

parti

es in

volv

ed c

an a

gree

that

allo

catin

g 10

0% o

r mor

e of

the

disp

osab

le in

com

e to

the

child

ren

alon

e, a

nd le

avin

g no

inco

me

for t

he p

aren

ts to

sust

ain

them

selv

es m

ust b

e co

nsid

ered

a se

rious

bre

ach

of

mat

hem

atic

al ru

les a

nd c

omm

on se

nse.

The

gui

delin

e ca

n be

show

n to

bre

ach

the

100%

thre

shol

d w

hen

appl

ied

to

fam

ilies

with

7 o

r mor

e ch

ildre

n. H

owev

er, i

t pro

duce

s que

stio

nabl

e re

sults

eve

n w

hen

appl

ied

to sm

alle

r fam

ilies

, as

show

n be

low

. A

ny fi

x to

the

guid

elin

es is

like

ly to

aff

ect m

ost u

sers

of i

t, in

clud

ing

smal

ler f

amili

es, s

o th

e po

tent

ial i

mpa

ct o

f the

se e

rror

s is q

uite

bro

ad.

A re

late

d po

licy

deci

sion

, whi

ch a

lso

need

s res

olut

ion,

is to

det

erm

ine

wha

t per

cent

age

of in

com

e is

reas

onab

le to

al

loca

te to

the

child

ren.

Cle

arly

allo

catin

g 10

0% o

r mor

e is

wro

ng, b

ut c

an it

eve

r be

just

ifiab

le to

allo

cate

99%

, 98

%, o

r eve

n 93

% o

f dis

posa

ble

inco

me

to th

e ch

ildre

n an

d le

ave

only

7%

to th

e pa

rent

s. T

he c

urre

nt g

uide

line

mak

es th

ese

kind

s of q

uest

iona

ble

allo

catio

ns e

ven

mor

e fr

eque

ntly

. I h

ave

no d

oubt

that

som

e of

the

obje

ctio

ns

and

issu

es w

ith th

e gu

idel

ine

iden

tifie

d in

the

revi

ew a

re ro

oted

in th

ese

disp

ariti

es o

f inc

ome

allo

catio

n,

parti

cula

rly w

hen

ther

e is

a sh

ared

cus

tody

arr

ange

men

t and

a la

rge

diff

eren

ce in

inco

me

betw

een

the

pare

nts.

For e

xam

ple:

Page 290: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

APP

EN

DIX

D

Rev

iew

of S

tate

wid

e U

nifo

rm C

hild

Sup

port

Gui

delin

e A

ll co

mm

ents

are

ver

batim

unl

ess i

ndic

ated

by

an e

llips

is (…

).

26

7

Ref

eren

ces t

o in

divi

dual

s’ n

ames

and

issu

es n

ot re

latin

g to

com

men

tary

on

the

child

supp

ort g

uide

lines

hav

e be

en e

dite

d as

alle

gatio

ns re

gard

ing

indi

vidu

al c

ase

proc

essi

ng a

re

beyo

nd th

e sc

ope

of th

is st

udy.

C

omm

enta

tor

Com

men

ts

In a

fam

ily w

ith fi

ve c

hild

ren

whe

re th

e co

mbi

ned

net d

ispo

sabl

e in

com

e is

$6,

000

and

the

pare

nts s

hare

equ

al

cust

ody

(TN

=$6,

000,

H%

= 5

0%, a

nd 5

chi

ldre

n), t

he a

ctua

l com

puta

tion

is a

s fol

low

s:

Per

cent

of i

ncom

e al

loca

ted

to c

hild

ren

= k-

frac

tion

* tim

esha

re fa

ctor

* N

o. C

hild

ren

mul

tiplie

r =

0.2

5 *

1.5

* 2.

5 =

0.93

75 =

93.

75%

In

this

scen

ario

eac

h ch

ild is

allo

cate

d 18

.75%

of i

ncom

e, w

here

as e

ach

pare

nt is

allo

cate

d on

ly

3.12

5%.

For e

xam

ple:

In

a fa

mily

with

four

chi

ldre

n w

here

the

com

bine

d ne

t dis

posa

ble

inco

me

is $

1,50

0 an

d th

e pa

rent

s sha

re e

qual

cu

stod

y (T

N=$

1,50

0, H

% =

50%

, and

4 c

hild

ren)

, the

act

ual c

ompu

tatio

n is

as f

ollo

ws:

P

erce

nt o

f inc

ome

allo

cate

d to

chi

ldre

n =

k-fr

actio

n *

times

hare

fact

or *

No.

Chi

ldre

n m

ultip

lier

= 0

.25

* 1.

5 *

2.3

= 0.

8625

= 8

6.25

%

In th

is sc

enar

io e

ach

child

is a

lloca

ted

21.5

625%

of i

ncom

e, w

here

as e

ach

pare

nt is

allo

cate

d on

ly

6.87

5%.

I wou

ld a

ppre

ciat

e yo

ur in

clus

ion

of th

e ab

ove

lette

r in

its e

ntire

ty (l

ess m

y ad

dres

s), t

o th

e pu

blic

feed

back

sect

ion

of th

e st

udy.

I w

ould

be

even

mor

e ap

prec

iativ

e if

som

eone

fixe

d th

e m

ath

prob

lem

in th

e gu

idel

ine,

so th

at I

coul

d on

ce a

gain

tell

my

child

ren

with

con

fiden

ce th

at o

ur Ju

dici

al a

nd L

egis

lativ

e br

anch

es o

f Gov

ernm

ent a

re fa

ir an

d ba

lanc

ed in

thei

r adm

inis

tratio

n of

our

law

s. 41

. M

embe

r of t

he P

ublic

Th

e co

rrup

t sys

tem

cre

ated

and

cal

led

fam

ily la

w sh

ould

be

aban

done

d - A

ll ST

ATE

S A

RE

ON

WEL

FAR

E be

caus

e yo

u ha

d sa

nctio

ned

inde

pend

ent l

icen

se h

olde

rs st

oppi

ng th

em fr

om w

orki

ng ru

inin

g fa

mily

's th

roug

hout

th

e na

tion.

End

fam

ily la

w a

nd le

t Am

eric

ans g

o ba

ck to

wor

k, g

over

nmen

t inv

olve

men

t int

o fa

mily

live

s is s

impl

y C

omm

unis

m

42.

Mem

ber o

f the

Pub

lic

I do

not a

gree

with

the

Chi

ld S

uppo

rt G

uide

line,

alth

ough

I am

at t

he e

nd o

f rai

sing

my

child

ren,

my

expe

rienc

e w

ith C

hild

Sup

port

incl

uded

a fa

ther

who

mis

repr

esen

ted

his i

ncom

e, q

uit h

is jo

b vo

lunt

arily

, the

n pe

titio

ned

the

cour

ts to

low

er h

is c

hild

supp

ort,

beca

use

he w

as st

artin

g hi

s ow

n bu

sines

s, w

hich

wou

ld w

ithin

1 to

2 y

ears

wou

ld

incr

ease

his

inco

me,

whi

ch th

e ch

ildre

n w

ould

then

ben

efit

from

, and

he

wou

ld b

e ab

le to

teac

h th

em th

e bu

sines

s to

ens

ure

thei

r fut

ure

finan

cial

ly.

Dur

ing

this

tim

e, a

fter t

he ju

dgm

ent t

o in

deed

redu

ce c

hild

supp

ort,

I fou

nd o

ut

that

the

fath

er w

as e

ngag

ed to

be

mar

ried,

and

was

mov

ing

1,00

0 m

iles a

way

. A

t firs

t, hi

s wife

pai

d ch

ild su

ppor

t, bu

t the

n th

ey d

ivor

ced

and

he se

es h

is c

hild

ren

3 to

4 ti

mes

a y

ear,

inst

ead

of th

e co

urt o

rder

of e

very

oth

er

Page 291: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

APP

EN

DIX

D

Rev

iew

of S

tate

wid

e U

nifo

rm C

hild

Sup

port

Gui

delin

e A

ll co

mm

ents

are

ver

batim

unl

ess i

ndic

ated

by

an e

llips

is (…

).

26

8

Ref

eren

ces t

o in

divi

dual

s’ n

ames

and

issu

es n

ot re

latin

g to

com

men

tary

on

the

child

supp

ort g

uide

lines

hav

e be

en e

dite

d as

alle

gatio

ns re

gard

ing

indi

vidu

al c

ase

proc

essi

ng a

re

beyo

nd th

e sc

ope

of th

is st

udy.

C

omm

enta

tor

Com

men

ts

wee

kend

, and

onc

e du

ring

the

wee

k. M

y pr

opos

al is

that

ther

e is

no

follo

w-u

p in

a c

ase

such

as t

his.

The

judg

e (w

ho w

as re

tired

but

cal

led

in to

sub)

slep

t thr

ough

hal

f of t

he p

roce

edin

gs!

This

left

me

to ra

ise

two

child

ren

on a

n on

-aga

in, o

ff-a

gain

supp

ort s

yste

m, a

nd b

ecau

se h

is se

cond

wife

was

qui

te

wea

lthy,

he

was

abl

e to

take

them

to E

urop

e, sk

iing

in C

olor

ado,

Haw

aiia

n va

catio

ns, a

nd y

et m

y ch

ild su

ppor

t was

ne

ver i

ncre

ased

dur

ing

our d

ivor

ce, w

hich

beg

an in

199

6. I

do

not h

ave

the

inco

me

to re

turn

to c

ourt

sinc

e al

l of

my

wag

es w

ent t

o m

aint

aini

ng a

hou

seho

ld.

I bel

ieve

that

chi

ld su

ppor

t sho

uld

be re

view

ed e

very

2 to

3 y

ears

, at

min

imum

. M

y ex

-hus

band

was

phy

sica

lly v

iole

nt w

ith m

e du

ring

our m

arria

ge, a

nd w

as a

rres

ted

for b

atte

ry, a

nd I

am a

frai

d to

con

fron

t him

on

my

own.

So

(as I

am

sure

he

hope

d) I

left

wel

l-eno

ugh

alon

e. B

ut th

is is

not

the

idea

l an

d w

ith fo

llow

-up,

afte

r a c

hang

e of

supp

ort,

mig

ht a

void

wha

t our

fam

ily e

xper

ienc

ed.

43.

Mem

ber o

f the

Pub

lic

Pla

intif

f wis

hes t

o de

term

ine

her r

ight

s giv

en th

e cu

rren

t con

trove

rsy

and

a de

term

inat

ion

of w

heth

er sh

e is

ent

itled

to

a q

uara

ntin

e of

one

-hal

f of

her h

usba

nd’s

ear

ning

s prio

r to

any

child

supp

ort c

alcu

latio

n be

ing

mad

e, a

s wel

l as a

de

term

inat

ion

as to

her

righ

ts to

50%

of h

is in

com

e fo

r 200

8, o

r at a

min

imum

38%

, as a

war

ded

to h

er a

s tem

pora

ry

alim

ony

from

the

Stat

e of

Hus

band

’s, u

ntil

as su

ch ti

me

the

mar

ital s

ituat

ion

of P

lain

tiff i

s fin

aliz

ed, d

isso

lved

or i

n th

e ev

ent s

he c

hoos

es to

rem

ain

mar

ri ed.

Th

e co

ntro

vers

y be

twee

n th

e pa

rties

can

not b

e re

solv

ed w

ithou

t jud

icia

l int

erve

ntio

n an

d th

ere

is n

o kn

own

lega

l au

thor

ity th

at a

ddre

sses

the

issu

es in

this

par

ticul

ar c

ase.

The

Fam

ily C

ode

addr

esse

s a su

bseq

uent

spou

se b

ut n

ot

an e

xist

ing

spou

se w

ho is

dep

ende

nt o

n he

r hus

band

’s in

com

e fo

r her

sole

mea

ns o

f sup

port.

An

exem

ptio

n is

giv

en

to a

step

-par

ent’s

ear

ning

s and

pla

intif

f ass

erts

that

this

is a

cas

e w

here

in a

dev

iatio

n fr

om g

uide

line

is a

ppro

pria

te

beca

use

plai

ntiff

is n

ot a

par

ty to

the

situ

atio

n no

r the

par

ent w

ho in

curr

ed th

e de

bt.

Dec

lara

tory

relie

f is n

eces

sary

in th

is c

ase

to d

eter

min

e w

heth

er d

efen

dant

s mus

t con

side

r a n

on-e

arni

ng, n

on-

pare

nt sp

ouse

s one

-hal

f com

mun

ity p

rope

rty in

tere

st in

the

wor

king

(par

ent)

spou

ses e

arni

ngs,

whe

n pe

rfor

min

g ch

ild su

ppor

t cal

cula

tions

for a

ch i

ld n

ot o

f the

mar

riage

Inju

nctiv

e re

lief i

s app

ropr

iate

to p

reve

nt D

efen

dant

s fro

m c

ontin

uing

to g

arni

sh P

lain

tiff’

s Hus

band

s inc

ome

until

a

dete

rmin

atio

n of

Pla

intif

f’s r

ight

s with

resp

ect t

o hi

s inc

ome

at 5

0% b

ased

on

com

mun

ity p

rope

rty la

ws.

The

cont

rove

rsy

cann

ot b

e re

solv

ed th

roug

h th

e ad

min

istra

tive

mea

ns p

rovi

ded

by d

efen

dant

s bec

ause

all

adm

inis

trativ

e re

med

ies a

re fu

tile

or e

xhau

sted

bec

ause

they

are

not

des

igne

d to

pro

vide

ass

ista

nce

to a

non

-ea

rnin

g, n

on-p

aren

t spo

uses

who

se c

omm

unity

pro

perty

righ

ts a

re b

eing

igno

red.

Pla

intif

f atte

mpt

ed to

reso

lve

this

is

sue

by te

leph

onin

g D

efen

dant

s and

upo

n re

view

they

cla

imed

she

had

no e

xem

ptio

ns.

Stat

ute

allo

ws f

or

devi

atio

n fr

om g

uide

line

in c

alcu

latin

g ch

ild su

ppor

t whe

n th

ere

are

unus

ual c

ircum

stan

c es e

xist

ing.

P

lain

tiff i

s see

king

a d

eter

min

atio

n of

her

righ

ts u

nder

Cal

iforn

ia C

omm

unity

Pro

perty

Law

, Cod

es o

f Civ

il

Page 292: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

APP

EN

DIX

D

Rev

iew

of S

tate

wid

e U

nifo

rm C

hild

Sup

port

Gui

delin

e A

ll co

mm

ents

are

ver

batim

unl

ess i

ndic

ated

by

an e

llips

is (…

).

26

9

Ref

eren

ces t

o in

divi

dual

s’ n

ames

and

issu

es n

ot re

latin

g to

com

men

tary

on

the

child

supp

ort g

uide

lines

hav

e be

en e

dite

d as

alle

gatio

ns re

gard

ing

indi

vidu

al c

ase

proc

essi

ng a

re

beyo

nd th

e sc

ope

of th

is st

udy.

C

omm

enta

tor

Com

men

ts

Proc

edur

e, a

nd F

amily

Cod

e w

ith re

spec

t to

her o

ne-h

alf i

nter

est i

n he

r hus

band

’s e

arni

ngs a

s cal

cula

ted

by

Def

enda

nts w

hen

dete

rmin

ing

child

supp

ort.

Und

er C

alifo

rnia

Fam

ily C

ode

sect

ion

751

a sp

ouse

has

an

exis

ting,

equ

al a

nd p

rese

nt in

tere

st in

all

com

mun

ity

prop

erty

acq

uire

d du

ring

mar

riage

and

ear

ning

s of a

spou

se a

re c

onsi

dere

d co

mm

unity

pro

perty

. Fu

rther

mor

e,

Fam

ily C

ode

sect

ion

915(

a) st

ates

a c

hild

supp

ort o

blig

atio

n of

a m

arrie

d pe

rson

that

doe

s not

aris

e ou

t of t

he

mar

riage

shal

l be

treat

ed a

s a d

ebt i

ncur

red

befo

re m

arria

ge.

Hen

ce, P

lain

tiff’

s int

eres

ts in

her

spou

se’s

ear

ning

s ou

ght t

o be

pro

tect

ed, s

imila

r to

thos

e of

a st

eppa

rent

’s e

arni

ngs,

sinc

e sh

e ha

s no

othe

r mea

ns o

f sup

port

(ear

ning

s)

and

has n

ever

wor

ked

durin

g th

eir e

ntire

25

year

mar

riage

. U

nder

Cal

iforn

ia C

ode

of C

ivil

Proc

edur

e se

ctio

n 70

3.02

0 a

spou

se m

ay c

laim

exe

mpt

ions

to m

oney

judg

men

ts

plac

ed o

n he

r com

mun

ity p

rope

rty a

nd C

ode

of C

ivil

Proc

edur

e se

ctio

n 70

3.07

0 cl

early

stat

es th

at th

is e

xem

ptio

n pr

ivile

ge a

pplie

s to

any

child

supp

ort j

udgm

ent.

Ther

efor

e, p

lain

tiff i

s ent

itled

to a

det

erm

inat

ion

of h

er ri

ghts

as t

o th

e af

fect

of h

er h

usba

nd’s

chi

ld su

ppor

t obl

igat

ion

as it

eff

ects

her

pro

perty

inte

rest

s and

righ

ts in

his

ear

ning

s.

Ther

e ex

ists

a ju

stic

iabl

e co

ntro

vers

y as

to w

heth

er a

ny a

dmin

istra

tive

proc

esse

s are

ava

ilabl

e to

a n

on-e

arni

ng,

non -

pare

nt sp

ouse

, ser

ved

by d

efen

dant

s tha

t cou

ld a

ctua

lly p

rovi

de a

via

ble

rem

edy

to th

e al

lege

d w

rong

s set

forth

ab

ove.

Pla

intif

f alle

ges,

as a

mat

ter o

f fac

t, th

at th

e cu

rren

t adm

inis

trativ

e re

med

ies a

nd p

roce

dure

s off

ered

by

defe

ndan

ts d

o no

t pro

vide

any

pot

entia

l rem

edy

for p

lain

tiff.

Act

ual r

elie

f is u

nava

ilabl

e an

d in

adeq

uate

bec

ause

de

fend

ants

hav

e no

mea

ns o

f tak

ing

into

con

side

ratio

n a

non-

earn

ing,

non

-par

ent s

pous

e’s o

ne-h

alf c

omm

unity

pr

oper

ty in

tere

st in

the

pare

nt sp

ouse

’s e

arni

ngs,

unle

ss so

ord

ered

by

the

cour

t. 44

. M

embe

r of t

he P

ublic

I t

hink

it is

stup

id to

hav

e ru

les t

hat y

ou le

t men

just

get

ove

r on

my

x ow

es th

ousa

nds a

nd a

ll yo

u do

is m

ake

him

pa

y a

toke

n am

ount

to g

et h

is li

cens

e ba

ck th

ey w

ill n

ever

pay

unl

ess y

ou re

ally

mak

e th

em.

Page 293: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE
Page 294: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

271

Page 295: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

272

Page 296: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

273

Page 297: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

274

Page 298: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

275

Page 299: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

276

Page 300: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

277

Page 301: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

278

Page 302: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

279

Page 303: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

280

Page 304: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

281

Page 305: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

282

Page 306: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

283

Page 307: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

284

Page 308: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

285

Page 309: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

286

Page 310: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

287

Page 311: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

288

Page 312: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

289

Page 313: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

290

Page 314: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

291

Page 315: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

292

Page 316: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

293

Page 317: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

294

Page 318: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

295

Page 319: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

296

Page 320: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

297

Page 321: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

298

Page 322: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

299

Page 323: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

300

Page 324: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

301

Page 325: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

302

Page 326: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

303

Page 327: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

304

Page 328: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

305

Page 329: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

306

Page 330: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

307

APPENDIX E

Project Staff Biographies

Jane Venohr, Center for Policy Research (CPR) Economist and Research Associate. Jane Venohr was the guideline review project manager. Dr. Venohr is one of the nation’s leading experts on child support guidelines and has worked with more than 30 states to develop and review their child support guidelines in the last 20 years. Since joining CPR in 2007, Venohr has led child support guidelines projects for 18 states, directs the Texas Niños Sanos evaluation, and has conducted numerous research projects on child support and child care for state and federal government agencies and foundations. Dr. Venohr holds a PhD in economics from the University of Colorado. Jessica Pearson, CPR Director. Jessica Pearson was the assistant project manager for this guideline review. Dr. Pearson is a nationally recognized expert on child support issues. She was the lead researcher for the national evaluation of the Access and Visitation Demonstration Projects and the Responsible Fatherhood Demonstration Projects. She has worked closely with many state and local child support agencies on the design and successful implementation and evaluation of major demonstration projects dealing with hospital-based paternity, incarcerated noncustodial parents, child support arrears, victims of domestic violence, responsible fatherhood, and numerous enforcement remedies and interventions aimed at improving child support collections. Dr. Pearson has been published extensively on child support topics and is a regular presenter at national conferences for the child support and judicial communities. Dr. Pearson holds a PhD in sociology from Princeton University. Nancy Thoennes, CPR Associate Director. Nancy Thoennes analyzed case file data. Dr. Thoennes has been the coprincipal investigator for virtually every child support project CPR has conducted, with the exception of the guidelines projects. One of her most substantial data analysis activities was the analysis of The Violence Against Women Survey, which involved telephone interviews with national probability samples of 8,000 women and 8,000 men to gather information on the extent, nature, and consequences of various forms of violence, including partner violence, sexual assault, and the first national study on stalking. Dr. Thoennes holds a PhD in sociology from the University of Denver.

Rasa Kaunelis, CPR Research Associate. Rasa Kaunelis managed and analyzed case file data for this guideline review. She also managed and analyzed the data for the Arizona child support guidelines review. She is currently working with the child support workforce agency, and court in Arapahoe County, Colorado, to collect information on unemployed noncustodial parents who are referred to an innovative seek-work program. She is also monitoring data collection in a multisite investigation of the effects of outreach to pregnant and new parents about paternity and child support. Ms. Kaunelis was a key researcher on a study for the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy on methods of outreach to young men about unplanned

Page 331: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

308

pregnancy. She has worked with child support agencies; Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) programs; workforce agencies; and courts in multiple settings. Ms. Kaunelis holds an MPA from the University of Colorado. Carly Everett, CPR Research Associate. Carly Everett conducted extensive qualitative research and literature searches and assisted with calculating child support amounts under various case scenarios, focus groups, and writing the report for this guideline review. Ms. Everett joined CPR in January[2010?]. Prior to that time, she was an attorney in Indianapolis, Indiana, practicing in a variety of areas, including mental health, family, medical malpractice, competitive business, bankruptcy, labor and employment, and tax. Ms. Everett also conducts nationwide, extensive research regarding effective practices in streamlining child support modification procedures. She additionally provides back-up, general assistance for many of CPR’s projects, including prisoner reentry programs and medical support programs. Ms. Everett holds a JD from Indiana University and is on track to obtain an MPA. from University of Colorado in May 2011. David Betson, Economist. David Betson conducted original research on child-rearing costs (e.g., the cost of raising children in California) for this guideline review (see Appendix A). Dr. Betson’s measurements of child-rearing expenditures form the basis of almost 30 state child support guidelines, which is more than any other measurement. He conducted his original research on child-rearing expenditures for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in 1990 using five different estimation techniques. His 1990 research fulfilled a congressional mandate and was aimed to assist states with the development and review of state child support guidelines. Dr. Betson is also a member of the National Academy of Science and is affiliated with the Institute for Research on Poverty at the University of Wisconsin. Some of Dr. Betson’s most recent research concerns the impact of the WIC program on baby formula prices. He holds a PhD in economics from the University of Wisconsin and is an associate professor of economics and the former director of the Hesburgh Program in Public Service at the University of Notre Dame. Paul Legler, Research Associate. Paul Legler assisted with the focus groups, the literature review on low-income families, and other analysis. Most of Mr. Legler’s work over the past eight years has focused on developing more sensible child support policies for low-income parents. Currently, Mr. Legler is the project director for a demonstration project in Hennepin County, Minnesota, that will provide parenting education, access, and visitation services, employment assistance, and other assistance to parents with new orders. Some of Mr. Legler’s other child support projects include the Memphis Initiative to Promote Parental Responsibility and Healthy Marriages (Tennessee 2006); Breaking Down Barriers to Voluntary Paternity Establishment (Minnesota 2005); Strengthening Families, which assisted custodial and noncustodial parents with family issues at the time of TANF applications (Hawaii 2006–2007); and Low-Income Fathers Pilot Demonstration Project (Louisiana 2004–2005). Mr. Legler is the author of Low-Income Fathers and Child Support: Starting off on the Right Track, published through the Annie E. Casey Foundation. Mr. Legler holds a JD from the University of Minnesota

Page 332: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

309

and an MPA from Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government. He currently is the president of Innovative Social Policy, LLC. Kelli Kreycik, CPR Office Manager. Kelli Kreycik assisted with data entry and project management. Ms. Kreycik holds a BS degree from the University of California, Berkeley. David Youngstrom, CPR Research Assistant. David Youngstrom assisted with data entry for the guideline’s case file review. Mr. Youngstrom has worked with CPR since 2009, performing various tasks including assisting with data entry and phone interviews with noncustodial fathers in Tennessee and Arapahoe County, Colorado. He also works with Greenprint Denver to promote energy efficiency and green living. Mr. Youngstrom previously worked as the national account manager for the Ingram Book Company and Baker & Taylor, the two largest book wholesalers in the country. Nick Anderson, CPR Research Assistant. Nick Anderson assisted with the guideline review by calculating child support amounts for several states under various case scenarios. He also assisted with data entry. Mr. Anderson holds a BS degree from the University of Colorado. Marsi Buckmelter, Editor. Marsi Buckmelter holds a BA in English and an MS in technical communication, both from the University of Colorado.

Page 333: Telephone 415-865-4200 TDD 415-865- · PDF file455 Golden Gate Avenue . San Francisco, California 94102-3688 Telephone 415-865-4200 . Fax 415-865-4205 . TDD 415-865-4272 TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE

310

APPENDIX F

Acknowledgments

This report was prepared under the direction and oversight of the Judicial Council’s Family and Juvenile Law Advisory Committee. At the time the report was prepared, the committee was co-chaired by Hon. Kimberly J. Nystrom-Geist and Hon. Dean Stout, and its members were Hon. Sue Alexander, Hon. Lorna A. Alksne, Hon. Craig E. Arthur, Hon. Patricia Bamattre-Manoukian, Ms. Judy Lynn Bogen, Hon. Jerilyn L. Borack, Mr. L. David Casey, Ms. Emberly Cross, Mr. Frank Dougherty, Hon. Sherrill A. Ellsworth, Mr. Matthew R. Golde, Hon. Barry P. Goode, Ms. Vickie Scott Grove, Ms. Leslie Heimow, Hon. Margaret Henry, Ms. Kathleen L. Hrepich, Hon. Susan D. Huguenor, Hon. Mark A. Juhas, Ms. Patricia Kaplan, Ms. Darlene Azevedo Kelly, Ms. Patricia Lee, Hon. Thomas Trent Lewis, Hon. Cindee F. Mayfield, Hon. Michael Nash, Hon. Michael J. Naughton, Mr. Jerry Powers, Ms. Charlene Reid, Hon. Frances Rothschild, Hon. Marjorie S. Steinberg, Hon. Patrick E. Tondreau, Hon. Terry T. Truong, Ms. Claire Williams, Ms. Lauren Zorfas, and Hon. Arnold D. Rosenfield (Ret.). Staff from the Administrative Office of the Courts assisted in the execution of this project and preparation of this report: Jamie Lau (Project Manager), Irene Balajadia, Stacie Clarke, Charlene Depner, Marita Desuasido, Paul Fontaine, Mimi Ly, Anna Maves, Linda McBain, Ruth McCreight, Amy Nuñez, Diane Nunn, Stephen Saddler, Jill Whelchel, and Michael Wright. The report was edited by Fran Haselsteiner. The California Department of Child Support Services consulted with local child support agency representatives and advocates to obtain broad input in the development of additional research questions which were shared with the AOC and integrated into the study. Thank you to the focus group participants from various advocacy groups and to the child support commissioners from the 11 study counties for their insight and help with interpreting the preliminary case file review findings. Lastly, the case file review was an essential part of this study. It could not have taken place without the invaluable assistance from the court executive officers and their staff in the 11 study counties who arranged the reviews locally, and from our contracted case file reviewers Richard Altimus, Linda Cianciolo, Melbourne Gwin, Jr., and Wendy Dier who spent many hours reviewing case files.