About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

27 Clearinghouse Rev. 734 (1993-1994)
Child Support Guidelines: A Primer

handle is hein.journals/clear27 and id is 734 raw text is: Child Support Guidelines: A Primer by Nancy S. Erickson* I. Introduction to the Concept of Guidelines A. The Need for Guidelines M any concerns led Congress to conclude that all states should have child support guidelines. First, and probably most important, AFDC rolls were skyrocketing, and most of the children receiv- ing such benefits were not being supported adequately, if at all, by the absent parents. Second, child support orders were generally woefully in- adequate in amount, even Congress sou when the noncustodial par- the custodial parent's ent was capable of paying too little and the nc more. Inadequacies in child incentive to dr support orders (as well as or- ders for spousal support and property division) were widely publicized. For example, one study showed that, in California in the early 1980s, the standard of living of the average custodial mother and children dropped 73 percent after divorce, while the standard of living of the average noncustodial father increased by 42 percent.1 Leaving the determination of child support orders to judges who were guided only by vague statutory stand- ards led to orders that were not only inadequate but also inconsistent, so that two noncustodial parents with the same number of children, the same income, and the same general circumstances might be ordered to pay amounts that were vastly different. This was perceived by the public to be inequitable and led to disrespect for the courts and their orders.2 An additional problem that the guidelines sought to remedy was the inability, without numerical guidelines, ght t inc ncu ag th of either parent to know approximately how much the court might order. Without this knowledge, negotiations could go on for lengthy periods of time, with the legal bill increasing each hour. There was little incentive for a party who could afford attorney fees to settle. The party with the least income and resources-more often, the custodial parent-was damaged by this delay. If she could not afford to pay legal fees, she frequently agreed to a very low child support award in order to obtain support quickly, and without having to pay legal fees. This harmed both the custodial parent family unit and the public to decrease purse, which often had to make entive to settle for up the difference between the istodial parent's little that the absent parent paid he case on. and the AFDC standard of pay- ment. Congress sought to de- crease the custodial parent's incentive to settle for too little and the noncustodial parent's incentive to drag the case on. Women's organizations were also concerned about the impact of low and unpredictable child support orders on low-income mothers who wanted custody. Such a mother could be easily intimidated by threats of a custody battle if she would not agree to a low amount of child support offered by the father. Even if the father did not really want, and probably would not obtain, custody, the mother could be intimidated because she could not afford the legal fees involved in a custody case. For example, if the mother had no idea of what a court might order, an offer of $250 per month, with a threat to challenge cus- tody if she did not accept, might coerce her to accept. If, however, she knew that the court would probably order a guideline amount of $500, she would have much less reason to settle for a lower amount of child support.3 * Nancy S. Erickson is a staff attorney at the National Center on Women & Family Law, Inc., 799 Broadway, Room 402, New York, NY 10003, (212) 674-8200. 1 LENORE WEITZMAN, THE DIVORCE REVOLUTION 337-39 (1985) (data from California). See also DAVID CHAMBERS, MAKING FATHERS PAY 42-50 (1979) (findings based on Michigan data), and Heather Wishik, Economics of Divorce: An Exploratory Study, 20 FAM. L. Q. 79, 96-98 (1986) (findings based on Vermont data). 2 Judith Reichler & Court Lefcourt, New Legislation: The Child-Support Standards Act, N.Y.L.J., June 30, 1989, at 1. 3 Cf. THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT, COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, REPORT OF THE GENDER BIAS STUDY 25 (1989) (reporting that women are more likely than men to bargain away child support in order to obtain custody). Clearinghouse Review m November1993 734

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most