Upload
doxuyen
View
222
Download
2
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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.
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
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
Review of Statewide Uniform Child Support Guideline 2010
A REPORT TO THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE
2011
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
Review of Statewide Uniform Child Support Guideline 2010
A REPORT TO
THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE
2011
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
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................... I
CHAPTER I: Introduction .............................................................................................. 1
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
CHAPTER 4: Low-Income Parents and Child Support Guidelines .......................... 64
CHAPTER 5: Medical Support Provisions ................................................................. 87
CHAPTER 6: Input From Stakeholders .................................................................... 107
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
Executive Summary
Background
.
Review of Statewide Uniform Child Support Guidelinewww.courtinfo.ca.gov/programs/cfcc/resources/publications/articles.htm#childsupport
Data and Analytical Methodology
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
CHAPTER I
Introduction
Purpose of the Study
The California Guideline and Federal Regulations
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%
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
Guideline Deviation Criteria
Proceedings for Establishing or ModifyingChild Support Orders
supra
.
Activities of the 2010 Guideline Review
Previous Reviews by the Judicial Council
Previous Recommendations
Significant Guideline Changes in the Last Decade
Organization of This Report
supra
CHAPTER 2
Basis of Child Support Guidelines andStudies of Child-Rearing Expenditures
Child-Rearing Expenditures and State Guidelines
IRPWorking Paper
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
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,
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
K
supra
K K
supra ,
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)
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)
suprawww.bls.gov/CE
27 Review of the Statewide Uniform Child Support Guideline 2005
van der Gaag (1981).
Espenshade (1984).
Betson (1990).
K
supra Id.,
Id.Development of Guidelines for Child Support Orders
suprasupra
supra
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
USDA (Lino 2009).
44
Betson (2010).
Limitations of the Estimates.
Other Limitations of the Estimates.
suprasupra supra supra supra
Additional Assumptions and Considerations
Measuring Poverty: A New ApproachState of Oregon Child Support Guidelines Review: Updated Obligation Scales and Other
Considerations
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)
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
http://factfinder.census.govIbid.
2006 Family Law Update,
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
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
Alternative Bases of State Guidelines
How Much Is Enough in Your County
Review of Child Support Guideline: Proposed Final Report
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
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
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
CHAPTER 3
Guideline Application and Deviation: A Review of the Case Files
Sampling and Data Collection
Sampling Time Frame
Sampled Counties
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
Sample Sizes
Fresno
LosAngeles
SanDiego
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
Guideline Deviations
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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.
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
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
Orders for Additional Support
Comparative Data for Managing Program Performance: Federal Fiscal Year 2008
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
Income of the Parents and Other Case Circumstances
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Chapter Summary
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=
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
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
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
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,
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,
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
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.
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
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.
supra The Establishment of Child Support
Orders for Low-Income Noncustodial Parents,
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
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
State Comparisons—Case A:
State Comparisons—Case B:
State Comparisons—Cases C and D:
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
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.
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
Minimum Orders
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
CHAPTER 5
Medical Support Provisions
Child Support Report, www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pubs/2010/csr/csr1001.pdf.
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
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
Child Support Report www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pubs/2010/csr/csr1001.pdf.Medical Child Support: Strategies Implemented by States
http://statehealthfacts.org
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
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).)
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
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
Consideration of Insurance Premiums in Guidelines
Final ReportId.
Report of the 2006 Nebraska Child Support Advisory Commission: Recommendations
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)
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
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
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 .
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).)
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
supra.California Health Care Almanac Children’s Health Coverage Facts and Figures
K
Chapter Summary
supra .supra
K
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;
(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)
(DCSS referral)
(DCSSreferral)
(DCSS referral)
(DCSS referral)
(DCSS referral)
(DCSS referral)
Recruiting Stakeholders
via teleconference
via teleconference
Conducting the Focus Groups
Participant Survey
Major Themes
Comprehension
They see a judge typing numbers into it. They have no idea how it’s played out.
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.
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.
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.
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.
[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.
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
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.
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.
Findings From a Review of Case Files
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.
Conclusion 9: Health insurance is frequently ordered, and medical support is ordered in most IV-D cases.
In re Marriage of Regnery
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
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.
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.
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.
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
Recommendations
Recommendation 1: Update and/or modify the low-income adjustment in the guideline.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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).
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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).
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.
155
Exhibit A-9. Estimates of the Proportion of Spending: One Child
156
Exhibit A-10. Estimates of the Proportion of Spending: Two Children
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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).
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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.
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
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
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,
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
202
Exhibit A-6-1. Scatterplot of Linear Model
Exhibit A-6-2. Scatterplot of Log-Linear Model
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
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,
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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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).
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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;
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.
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.
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.
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)
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
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: _____________________________________
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.
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-
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
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
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
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)
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
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
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,
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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
.
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
.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
?
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’
.
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
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
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
.
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
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
.
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
?
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.
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
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-
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
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:
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.
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
: ==
====
====
====
====
====
====
====
====
====
====
====
===
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:
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.
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
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
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:
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
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
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
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.
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:
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
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
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.
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
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
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
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.
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.