Child support in the United States
Encyclopedia
The law governing child support in the United States varies state-by-state and Native American
tribe-by-tribe; each individual state and federally recognized tribe
is responsible for developing its own guidelines for determining child support.
In the US, child support
is the ongoing obligation for a periodic payment made directly or indirectly by an ("obligor" or paying parent or payer) to an ("obligee" or receiving party or recipient) for the financial care and support of children of a relationship or a possibly terminated marriage
. Typically the obligor is a non-custodial
parent. Typically the obligee is a custodial parent, caregiver or guardian, or a government agency. In the U.S., there is no gender requirement to child support, for example, a father may pay a mother or a mother may pay a father. In addition, where there is joint custody
, in which the child has two custodial parents and no non-custodial parents. A custodial parent may be required to pay the other custodial parent.
The United States has an over-arching Federal Government framework. The child support program is the responsibility of the Administration for Children and Families
in the Department of Health and Human Services
. Federal IV-D Regulations require uniform application of child support guidelines throughout a state, but each state can determine its own method of calculating support. At a minimum, requires each state to establish and publish a Guideline that is presumptively (but rebuttably) correct, and review the guideline, at a minimum, every four years. Most states have therefore adopted their own "Child Support Guidelines Worksheet" which local courts and state Child Support Enforcement Offices use for determining the "standard calculation" of child support in that state. Courts may choose to deviate from this standard calculation in any particular case.
on signing the Social Services Amendments of 1974 on January 4, 1975. Although generally favorable, Ford expressed concern about what he saw as excessively "injecting the Federal Government into domestic relations".
revoked the driver’s licenses of 1,372 people who collectively owed more than $13 million in child support. In Texas
non-custodial parents behind more than three months in child-support payments can have court-ordered payments deducted from their wages, can have federal income tax refund checks
, lottery
winnings, or other money that may be due from state or federal sources intercepted by child support enforcement agencies, can have licenses (including hunting and fishing licenses) suspended, and a judge may sentence a nonpaying parent to jail and enter a judgment for past due child support. Some have taken the view that such penalties are unconstitutional
. On September 4, 1998, the Supreme Court of Alaska upheld a law allowing state agencies to revoke driver's licenses of parents seriously delinquent in child support obligations. And in the case of United States of America v. Sage, U.S. Court of Appeals (2nd Cir., 1996), the court upheld the constitutionality
of a law allowing federal fines and up to two years imprisonment for a person willfully failing to pay more than $5,000 in child support over a year or more when said child resides in a different state from that of the non-custodial parent.
The U.S. law commonly known as the Bradley Amendment
was passed in 1986 to automatically trigger a non expiring lien whenever child support becomes past-due. The law overrides any state's statute of limitations; disallows any judicial discretion, even from bankruptcy judges; and requires that the payment amounts be maintained without regard for the physical capability of the person owing child support (the obligor) to make the notification or regard for their awareness of the need to make the notification. The obligee may forgive such debts.
When past-due child support is owed to a state as a result of welfare paid out, the state is free to forgive some or all of it under what's known as an offer in compromise.
Article Four
, full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other state. Courts have used this article to enforce final judgments that have been registered within a state. Normally a judgment must be final before it can be registered. The ""Restatement of Conflict (Second), under the topic of Defenses to Recognition and Enforcement, states that a judgment rendered in one state need not be recognized or enforced in a sister state insofar as the judgment remains subject to modification. A local court is free to recognize or enforce a judgment that remains subject to modification under the local law. Child support orders are considered judgments of this sort.
Under full faith and credit, the local law of the state of rendition will be applied to determine whether the judgment is modifiable and, if so, in what respects, particularly past and future financial obligations. Full faith and credit requires application of the local law of the state of rendition to determine whether the judgment is modifiable and, if so, in what respects.
approved the Uniform Desertion and Non-Support Act. The act made it a punishable offense for a husband to desert, willfully neglect or refuse to provide for the support and maintenance of his wife in destitute or necessitous circumstances, or for a parent to fail in the same duty to his child less than 16 years of age. The 1910 act sought to improve the enforcement of the duties of support, but it did not take into account payers who fled the jurisdiction. With the increasing mobility of the population, welfare departments had to support the destitute families because the extradition process was inefficient and often unsuccessful.
(URESA). The Commission stated that, “The purposes of this act are to improve and extend by reciprocal legislation the enforcement of duties of support and to make uniform the law with respect thereto.” URESA sought to enforce the provisions in two ways: criminal enforcement and civil enforcement. Criminal enforcement relied upon the obligee state demanding the extradition
of the obligor, or for the obligor to surrender. Civil enforcement relied upon the obligee to initiate proceedings in his/her state. The initiating state would determine if the obligor had a duty of support. If the initiating court upheld the claim, the initiating court would forward the case to the obligor’s state. The responding state, having personal jurisdiction over the obligor, would provide notice and a hearing for obligor. After this hearing, the responding court would enforce the support order.
The amendments sought to correct a problem created by URESA. In some cases, the responding court only had evidence from the obligor and not have any evidence from the initiating state or the obligee. The responding court, with only one side represented tended to benefit the obligor. The Commission’s solution was to amend URESA so the initiating state and the obligee would provide evidence to the responding court along with the original case file, so the responding court would have positions from both parties.
The Commission also provided a second method to obtain redress via civil enforcement. The new method permitted the obligee to register the foreign support order in a court of the obligor’s state, and present that case directly to the foreign court.
RURESA provided new protection for mothers against noncompliant fathers; however, RURESA created a new problem—multiple support orders. Since every state could both enforce and modify a support order, a new support order could be entered in each state. Thus, if the father moved from State A to State B to State C to State D, and if the mother continually registered and had the order modified, then there would be four separate and independent support orders. RURESA allowed state courts to modify the original order so long as the court applied its own procedural law and the law of the original state, unless that contravened its own public policy. The Commission intended to correct the problem of inconsistent multiple orders by only allowing the support orders to be modified based upon a single state’s law. In theory, states A, B and C could only modify a support order based upon the original state’s substantive law; thus, all the support orders should be identical. In practice, however, this rule created ambiguities concerning whether child support guidelines are procedural or substantive, and if substantive, whether application of that substantive law contravened some public policy. The multiple order issue remained a problem.
(UIFSA) to correct the problem of multiple orders. UIFSA corrected this problem by providing that only one state would possess the power to make or modify child support at any one time ("continuing exclusive jurisdiction"). The state with continuous exclusive jurisdiction would use its own child support guidelines. Thus, if the child or either one of the parents remained in the original state, then that state retained jurisdiction and only that state could modify the support order. Only if both parents and the child left the state could another state assume child support jurisdiction (although any state could enforce the original state's order, regardless of residence of parent or child).
In 1996, NCCUSL revised UIFSA and the United States Congress passed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), which required that all states adopt the 1996 version of UIFSA. In 2001, NCCUSL adopted additional amendments to UIFSA. As of 2011, only a few states had adopted the 2001 amendments.
UIFSA contains five main parts: General Provisions, Establishing a Support Order, Enforcing a Support Order, Modifying a Support Order, and Parentage.
In 2008 UIFSA joined the Hague Convention which insures a uniform policy amongst countries and a way to organize child support issues globally. Critically, orders will be "recognized and enforced in other countries".
issue can confront courts.
For simplicity, this article uses the model where the mother becomes the parent with custody of the children and the father makes child support payments, with the understanding that this model has become less typical. For example, a man and a woman marry in West Virginia. During the marriage, the husband and the wife have children. In West Virginia, the husband and the wife divorce. West Virginia issues a divorce decree that gives the wife custody of the children and orders the husband to pay child support. Subsequently, the wife moves to Connecticut with the children. Due to a change in circumstances, the husband, who may or may not still reside in West Virginia, seeks a modification of West Virginia’s divorce decree. The conflict was over which state's guidelines are to apply.
The Commission, which Congress created in 1988 to recommend `how to improve the interstate establishment and enforcement of child support awards,' favored a system under which the modifying jurisdiction's law would apply. Some witnesses testified that the law most advantageous to the child should govern, others testified that the law where the obligor resides should govern, and still others testified that the law where the child resides should govern. The Commission ultimately recommended `that the procedural and substantive law of the forum state should govern in establishment and modification proceedings,' citing the `ease and efficiency of application of local law by decision-makers' as an important consideration. The official UIFSA commentary [to UIFSA section 303] echoes this concern for efficiency.
The Court held that Idaho no longer had jurisdiction because: no party remained in Idaho; a nonresident was seeking modification, and the respondent was subject to California's jurisdiction. The court cited two reasons. First, due to UIFSA, California had obtained jurisdiction. Second, the marital settlement agreement did not change the result, because due to the special nature of child support, parents were bound by public policy outside their own agreements; Idaho had adopted UIFSA; under the Restatement Second of Conflict of Laws, California had a materially greater interest than Idaho.
The Court refused to address the argument that Oregon guidelines should apply because the father failed to explicitly raise this issue at trial and had thus waived his right to appeal the issue. Further, even if the father had preserved his right to appeal, the father presented no evidence on the subject.
In a footnote, the court spoke of the Commission created by Congress in 1988 to recommend ‘how to improve the interstate establishment and enforcement of child support awards.’ In that footnote, it noted:
The second scenario is that the mother moves to Connecticut, and the father moves to a third state (state B), leaving neither party domiciled in the original state. If the order is registered in either Connecticut or in B and that state’s court issues a new order, then the original state loses jurisdiction. In the state where a new order is issued, Connecticut or state B would obtain the power to modify the order. This situation produces a race to the courthouse. The mother wants to register the order in the state with guidelines more favorable to her and the father seeks the opposite.
Under UIFSA, whatever scenario is applied, the rule is clear. However, because Connecticut continues to have the RURESA registration method on the books, a party could register in Connecticut without invoking UIFSA, which creates the problems that UIFSA was meant to correct.
46b-71 controls, providing the courts with a conflict of laws rule concerning the enforcement of a foreign matrimonial judgment within Connecticut. It states:
The statute allows courts to modify a foreign judgment using local procedures, applying the substantive law of the foreign jurisdiction, unless that application of the substantive law would contravene Connecticut public policy.
In Burton v. Burton, the Connecticut Supreme Court
recognized that 46b-71 governed. In addition, the Court held that the related laws were "substantive" so the foreign law would control. The Connecticut courts have not resolved whether the courts apply local or foreign child support guidelines under RURESA. 46b-71 and Burton frame the issue. If a Connecticut court characterizes the child support guidelines as procedural, then the court applies the local child support guidelines; if the courts characterize the child support guidelines as substantive, then the courts must apply the foreign state’s child support guidelines, with the usual caveat. The Connecticut Supreme Court
addressed the issue of whether the trial court correctly applied the substantive law of the foreign jurisdiction but not whether the foreign state’s guidelines are "substantive".
In Evans v. Evans, the Connecticut Appellant Court
indirectly addressed the issues and held that it would not disturb an order of the trial court absent an abuse of discretion. The trial court held, among other factors, that it was not bound by the New York's guidelines, although it did consider them. The Appellant Court failed to state explicitly which guidelines the court should apply.
The Connecticut Superior Court
s differ as to when the courts must determine if that substantive law includes that state’s child support guidelines. In a recent Superior Court decision, Judge Munro stated that “[t]he court will allow the parties to argue at the subsequent hearing on the merits whether, in applying Ohio substantive law, the court looks to the Connecticut Child Support Guidelines or the Ohio Child Support Guidelines, or some other criteria. ”
In a footnote, Trial Referee Cutsumpas states that “[t]he court is mindful that it would be more practical to have the child support issue determined in the State of Connecticut where the children and obligee mother reside rather than in the State of New York where only the obligor father resides… However, absent written consent of the parties, UIFSA dictates jurisdiction which in this case is the State of New York. ”
The father requested to modify the order under Maryland law. The Master found that even though under Massachusetts guidelines, the mother would receive more money that the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act applied. Maryland's rules produced a payment about half of the original payment, but the Master recommended the original amount remain in effect to maintain the child’s standard of living.
The Massachusetts Legislature's parties to a contract may agree to the law which will govern their transaction; however, that general rule has limitations. Neither contract nor Massachusetts law specifically dictated that the Massachusetts Child Support Guidelines were to apply. The court then held that the agreement did not create not an open-ended obligation for the father to pay child support based upon the Massachusetts guidelines if neither party had ties to Massachusetts. In addition, the court looked to the child’s best interest, which could have been be undermined by the contractual terms.
The US Department of Health and Human Services estimates that 68% of child support cases had arrears owed in 2003, a 15% increase from 53% in 1999. It is claimed that some of these arrearage cases are due to administrative practices such as imputing income to parents where it does not exist and issuing default orders of support.
According to one study reasons given for non-payment of support were as follows:
According to another study, 76% of the $14.4 billion in child support arrears in California was by parents who lacked the ability to pay. The "deadbeat" parents had a median annual income of $6349, arrears of $9447 and an ongoing support of $300 per month because 71% of the orders were set by default.
(TANF), is required to assign child support to the Department of Welfare to receive assistance. The custodial parent must also pursue child support. Any payment is diverted to the welfare program as partial reimbursement. Typically the amount of child support equals or exceeds the assistance grant, allowing the family to leave the cash assistance program (potentially remaining eligible for food stamps, etc.) Other provisions of PRWORA require and assist the custodial parent to find employment (such as buying new work clothes). Child support enforcement programs in all 50 states are primarily federally funded. States whose enforcement is not in PRWORA compliance risk a 5% penalty.
Despite concerns that this provision generates government revenue, HHS reported that in fiscal year 2003, 90% of child support collections went directly to families. In 47 states the percent of payments going to families was 86% or more and in seven states exceeded 95%. Half of unpaid child support is owed to the government. Sherri Z. Heller, Ed.D, Commissioner of U.S. Office of Child Support Enforcement stated, "We need to be more aggressive about leveraging older debt owed to the government as an incentive to obtain more reliable payments of current support to families." Towards this end, the Social Security Administration
provides up to $4.1 billion in financial incentives to states that create support and arrearage orders, and then collect.
California’s Fair market rent
(FMR) for a two-bedroom apartment is $1,149. In order to afford rent and utilities, without paying more than 30% of income on housing, a household must earn $3,829 monthly or $45,950 annually. Assuming a standard work schedule, housing alone requires a wage of $22.09, far above California's $8.00 minimum. Adding child support essentially doubles the necessary income. If the obligor has no other child support debts, earns California minimum wage working 40 hours a week, has no benefits, and the custodial spouse does not work, the expected payment is closer to $320.
The availability of federal funding child support programs and the mandate that states contribute matching funds, has led corporations to market their services to state and local agencies. Services range from consulting to payment processing to enforcement of support orders. The private-sector presence in a human services field entices program directors away from public service.
State courts typically maintain a child support division—essentially an accounting department recording amounts owed and paid. Given that county clerks responsible for record keeping are not accountants, inaccuracies concerning child support payments are allegedly common. In many counties, such as Illinois’ Cook
and Kane
counties, the division audit themselves. However other jurisidictions adopt different methods—for example, in 2003 independent auditors reviewed and audited the Child Support Enforcement Agency of Hawaii
. Texas has also conducted an independent audit. Clark County, Nevada
's, district attorney
office was independently audited in 2003 regarding child support payment collections. In 2003, Maryland recommended outside audits on its five child support enforcement operations.
While county reports are the official records, states also have their reports.
s in enforcement proceedings. As of 2011 court challenges were pending in Pennsylvania and New Hampshire.
On March 23, 2011, the United States Supreme Court heard Turner v. Rogers
, a case concerning whether South Carolina had a legal obligation to provide appointed counsel to Turner, who was jailed for child support non-payment.
The right to a jury trial is abridged in criminal non-support cases when the defendant is charged with misdemeanor
non-support. The judge can incarcerate the obligor for contempt of court
for some time, presumably till the balance is brought current, similar to debtors' prisons of prior eras. Jail
complicates child support payments, which is why some states suspend sentences
and impose a probation
ary period during which payments must be made and/or employment searches conducted, with jail reserved for uncooperative offenders.
Some jurisdictions, such as California limit the amount of time allowed to challenge paternity or allow women to claim paternity in nearly anonymous conditions.
Even if paternity fraud was proven through DNA
testing, the alleged father may still be liable for child support. In most jurisdictions the courts have declared the male who acts as the child's father to be the father through the equitable operation of an estoppel
. Once the child has been declared to be someone's offspring and has lived with the man for a period of time, the court may burden the putative father with all of the obligations of parenthood, effectively freeing the biological father from obligations, even if the biological father gains custody of the child. This was the case for a Michigander who was forced to pay child support for a child to a child's biological father.
Even if paternity is proven false and the alleged father was not even aware of the child's existence, once the court determines a man is the child's father and the deadline for challenging paternity—as little as 30 days—has passed, a man can still be liable for child support. This happened to a man in Florida who was named as the father of a "daughter" that he never knew about until she was 11 years old. Despite DNA results that show that he had not fathered the child and despite an affidavit from the girl's mother saying he's "not the father", Florida demanded that he support the girl, and pay more than $10,000 already "owed". He spent a night in jail.
Census
Guidelines and legislation
Indigenous peoples of the Americas
The indigenous peoples of the Americas are the pre-Columbian inhabitants of North and South America, their descendants and other ethnic groups who are identified with those peoples. Indigenous peoples are known in Canada as Aboriginal peoples, and in the United States as Native Americans...
tribe-by-tribe; each individual state and federally recognized tribe
Native Americans in the United States
Native Americans in the United States are the indigenous peoples in North America within the boundaries of the present-day continental United States, parts of Alaska, and the island state of Hawaii. They are composed of numerous, distinct tribes, states, and ethnic groups, many of which survive as...
is responsible for developing its own guidelines for determining child support.
In the US, child support
Child support
In family law and public policy, child support is an ongoing, periodic payment made by a parent for the financial benefit of a child following the end of a marriage or other relationship...
is the ongoing obligation for a periodic payment made directly or indirectly by an ("obligor" or paying parent or payer) to an ("obligee" or receiving party or recipient) for the financial care and support of children of a relationship or a possibly terminated marriage
Marriage
Marriage is a social union or legal contract between people that creates kinship. It is an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged in a variety of ways, depending on the culture or subculture in which it is found...
. Typically the obligor is a non-custodial
Child custody
Child custody and guardianship are legal terms which are used to describe the legal and practical relationship between a parent and his or her child, such as the right of the parent to make decisions for the child, and the parent's duty to care for the child.Following ratification of the United...
parent. Typically the obligee is a custodial parent, caregiver or guardian, or a government agency. In the U.S., there is no gender requirement to child support, for example, a father may pay a mother or a mother may pay a father. In addition, where there is joint custody
Joint custody
Joint custody is a court order whereby custody of a child is awarded to both parties. In joint custody both parents are custodial parents and neither parent is a non-custodial parent, or, in other words, the child has two custodial parents. In the United States, many states recognize two forms of...
, in which the child has two custodial parents and no non-custodial parents. A custodial parent may be required to pay the other custodial parent.
The United States has an over-arching Federal Government framework. The child support program is the responsibility of the Administration for Children and Families
Administration for Children and Families
The Administration for Children and Families is a division of the United States Department of Health and Human Services . It is headed by the Assistant Secretary for Children and Families. It has a $58.8 billion budget for 65 programs that target children, youth and families...
in the Department of Health and Human Services
United States Department of Health and Human Services
The United States Department of Health and Human Services is a Cabinet department of the United States government with the goal of protecting the health of all Americans and providing essential human services. Its motto is "Improving the health, safety, and well-being of America"...
. Federal IV-D Regulations require uniform application of child support guidelines throughout a state, but each state can determine its own method of calculating support. At a minimum, requires each state to establish and publish a Guideline that is presumptively (but rebuttably) correct, and review the guideline, at a minimum, every four years. Most states have therefore adopted their own "Child Support Guidelines Worksheet" which local courts and state Child Support Enforcement Offices use for determining the "standard calculation" of child support in that state. Courts may choose to deviate from this standard calculation in any particular case.
Support models
States follow one of three basic models, or formulas, for calculating a child support obligation: (1) the Incomes Shares model, (2) the Percentage of Income model, or (3) the Melson Formula model.- The Income Shares Model asserts that minorMinor (law)In law, a minor is a person under a certain age — the age of majority — which legally demarcates childhood from adulthood; the age depends upon jurisdiction and application, but is typically 18...
offspring should receive the same amount of parental support as if the parents lived together. This model calculates support as the approximate share of each parent's income that would have been devoted to the child in a shared household. Calculations vary by state but essentially add both parents' income. The amount needed to support each child is then determined using basic parameters and then adjusted according to the specific case and varies by state. Finally, the support obligation is pro-rated between the parents depending on their share of the total income. In other words, if a child’s custodial parent makes $2,000 a month and the noncustodial parent brings in $3,000, the noncustodial parent assumes 60% of the support obligation.
- The Percentage of Income model calculates support as a percentage of the noncustodial parent's income. This model assumes that the custodial parent’s support is spent entirely on the child. The support amount is adjusted as in the prior model. (Note: The District of Columbia and Massachusetts apply a formula that is a hybrid, of the Income Shares and the Percentage of Income models.)
- The Melson Formula is a more complex version of the Income Shares model. One of its special features is a Standard of Living Adjustment (SOLA), which automatically enables the child to share in a parent or parents’ increased income. This is a six-step process which considers the children’s primary support needs, child care and extraordinary medical expenses, and the SOLA. These amounts are added together, and then the courts look at each parent’s minimal self-support needs and percentage of total net income to determine the support obligation.
Executive branch concerns
President Gerald R. Ford issued a Signing StatementSigning statement
A signing statement is a written pronouncement issued by the President of the United States upon the signing of a bill into law. They are usually printed along with the bill in United States Code Congressional and Administrative News ....
on signing the Social Services Amendments of 1974 on January 4, 1975. Although generally favorable, Ford expressed concern about what he saw as excessively "injecting the Federal Government into domestic relations".
State by state provisions
| State | Guidelines | Enforcement |
|---|---|---|
| Alabama | Child Support Guidelines | Division of Child Support Enforcement |
| Alaska | Civil Rule 90.3 | Division of Child Support Enforcement |
| Arizona | Child Support Guidelines is based on the Income Shares Income Shares An Income Shares formula is used by many states to establish the child support amount of each child rather than what it actually costs to raise a child. Income Shares tables calculating child support are not based directly on actual spending on children but rather on indirect estimates of child costs... model. |
Division of Child Support Enforcement |
| Arkansas | Administrative Order of the Supreme Court No. 10 | Division of Child Support Enforcement |
| California | Family Code §§ 4050-4076 is based on the Income Shares Income Shares An Income Shares formula is used by many states to establish the child support amount of each child rather than what it actually costs to raise a child. Income Shares tables calculating child support are not based directly on actual spending on children but rather on indirect estimates of child costs... model The Judicial Council of California Judicial Council of California The Judicial Council of California is the rule-making arm of the California court system. It was created by an amendment to article VI of the California Constitution in 1926... is required to conduct the California Child Support Guideline Review California Child Support Guideline Review Each US state is responsible for developing a child support enforcement program that complies with federal requirements, including a Guidelines method of calculating child support. At a minimum, 45 C.F.R... at least every four years. |
Department of Child Support Services (DCSS) provides public child support enforcement |
| Colorado | Rev. Stat. §§ 14-10-115 et seq., based on the Income Shares Income Shares An Income Shares formula is used by many states to establish the child support amount of each child rather than what it actually costs to raise a child. Income Shares tables calculating child support are not based directly on actual spending on children but rather on indirect estimates of child costs... model |
Division of Child Support Enforcement |
| Connecticut | Child Support Guidelines Booklet | Bureau of Child Support Enforcement |
| Delaware | Child Support Guidelines | Division of Child Support Enforcement |
| District of Columbia | Code Ann. § 16-916.1, based on the Income Shares Income Shares An Income Shares formula is used by many states to establish the child support amount of each child rather than what it actually costs to raise a child. Income Shares tables calculating child support are not based directly on actual spending on children but rather on indirect estimates of child costs... model |
Child Support Enforcement Division |
| Florida | Child Support Guidelines, based on the Income Shares Income Shares An Income Shares formula is used by many states to establish the child support amount of each child rather than what it actually costs to raise a child. Income Shares tables calculating child support are not based directly on actual spending on children but rather on indirect estimates of child costs... model |
Child Support Enforcement Program |
| Georgia | Child Support Guidelines | Office of Child Support Services |
| Hawaii | Child Support Guidelines | Child Support Enforcement Agency |
| Idaho | R. Civ. Pro. 6(c)(6) | Child Support Services |
| Illinois | Child Support Guidelines | Child Support Enforcement |
| Indiana | Child Support Guidelines, based on the Income Shares Income Shares An Income Shares formula is used by many states to establish the child support amount of each child rather than what it actually costs to raise a child. Income Shares tables calculating child support are not based directly on actual spending on children but rather on indirect estimates of child costs... model |
Child Support Enforcement |
| Iowa | Child Support Guidelines, based on the Income Shares Income Shares An Income Shares formula is used by many states to establish the child support amount of each child rather than what it actually costs to raise a child. Income Shares tables calculating child support are not based directly on actual spending on children but rather on indirect estimates of child costs... model |
Department of Human Services |
| Kansas | Child Support Guidelines | Child Support Enforcement |
| Kentucky | Rev. Stat. §§ 403-210 to -213, based on the Income Shares Income Shares An Income Shares formula is used by many states to establish the child support amount of each child rather than what it actually costs to raise a child. Income Shares tables calculating child support are not based directly on actual spending on children but rather on indirect estimates of child costs... model |
Division of Child Support Enforcement |
| Louisiana | Rev. Stat. 9:315.1 et seq., based on the Income Shares Income Shares An Income Shares formula is used by many states to establish the child support amount of each child rather than what it actually costs to raise a child. Income Shares tables calculating child support are not based directly on actual spending on children but rather on indirect estimates of child costs... model |
Support Enforcement Services, Office of Family Support |
| Maine | Revised Statute Ann. tit. 19-A, §§ 2001-2010, based on the Income Shares Income Shares An Income Shares formula is used by many states to establish the child support amount of each child rather than what it actually costs to raise a child. Income Shares tables calculating child support are not based directly on actual spending on children but rather on indirect estimates of child costs... model |
Division of Support Enforcement & Recovery |
| Maryland | Family Law Code Ann. §§ 12-201 et seq., based on the Income Shares Income Shares An Income Shares formula is used by many states to establish the child support amount of each child rather than what it actually costs to raise a child. Income Shares tables calculating child support are not based directly on actual spending on children but rather on indirect estimates of child costs... model |
Child Support Enforcement Administration |
| Massachusetts | Child Support Guidelines, based on the Income Shares Income Shares An Income Shares formula is used by many states to establish the child support amount of each child rather than what it actually costs to raise a child. Income Shares tables calculating child support are not based directly on actual spending on children but rather on indirect estimates of child costs... model |
Dep't of Revenue, Child Support Enforcement Division |
| Michigan | child Support Formula, based on the Income Shares Income Shares An Income Shares formula is used by many states to establish the child support amount of each child rather than what it actually costs to raise a child. Income Shares tables calculating child support are not based directly on actual spending on children but rather on indirect estimates of child costs... model |
Family Independence Agency |
| Minnesota | Stat. Ann. §§ 518.551 et seq. | Child Support Enforcement Division Minnesota Worksheets |
| Mississippi | Code §§ 43-19-101 et seq. | Division of Child Support Enforcement |
| Missouri | Child Support Guidelines, based on the Income Shares Income Shares An Income Shares formula is used by many states to establish the child support amount of each child rather than what it actually costs to raise a child. Income Shares tables calculating child support are not based directly on actual spending on children but rather on indirect estimates of child costs... model |
Child Support Enforcement |
| Montana | Child Support Guidelines | Division of Child Support Enforcement |
| Nebraska | Child Support Guidelines, based on the Income Shares Income Shares An Income Shares formula is used by many states to establish the child support amount of each child rather than what it actually costs to raise a child. Income Shares tables calculating child support are not based directly on actual spending on children but rather on indirect estimates of child costs... model |
Child Support Enforcement Office |
| Nevada | Revised Statute §§ 125B.070 to -.080 | Office of Child Support Enforcement |
| New Hampshire | Revised Statute §§ 458-C:1 to -:7, based on the Income Shares Income Shares An Income Shares formula is used by many states to establish the child support amount of each child rather than what it actually costs to raise a child. Income Shares tables calculating child support are not based directly on actual spending on children but rather on indirect estimates of child costs... model |
Division of Child Support Services |
| New Jersey | Rules of Court Appendix IX, based on the Income Shares Income Shares An Income Shares formula is used by many states to establish the child support amount of each child rather than what it actually costs to raise a child. Income Shares tables calculating child support are not based directly on actual spending on children but rather on indirect estimates of child costs... model |
Office of Child Support Enforcement |
| New Mexico | Statute §§ 40-4-11.1 to -11.6, based on the Income Shares Income Shares An Income Shares formula is used by many states to establish the child support amount of each child rather than what it actually costs to raise a child. Income Shares tables calculating child support are not based directly on actual spending on children but rather on indirect estimates of child costs... model |
Child Support Enforcement Division |
| New York | Domestic Relations Law. § 240(1-b), and articles 4, 5, 5A, and 5B of the Family Court Act, based on the Income Shares Income Shares An Income Shares formula is used by many states to establish the child support amount of each child rather than what it actually costs to raise a child. Income Shares tables calculating child support are not based directly on actual spending on children but rather on indirect estimates of child costs... model |
Division of Child Support Enforcement |
| North Carolina | Child Support Guidelines, based on the Income Shares Income Shares An Income Shares formula is used by many states to establish the child support amount of each child rather than what it actually costs to raise a child. Income Shares tables calculating child support are not based directly on actual spending on children but rather on indirect estimates of child costs... model |
Child Support Enforcement |
| North Dakota | Child Support Guidelines | Child Support Enforcement Agency |
| Ohio | Rev. Code §§ 3119.01 et seq., based on the Income Shares Income Shares An Income Shares formula is used by many states to establish the child support amount of each child rather than what it actually costs to raise a child. Income Shares tables calculating child support are not based directly on actual spending on children but rather on indirect estimates of child costs... model |
Office of Child Support |
| Oklahoma | State title 43, §§ 118 to 120 | Department of Human Services |
| Oregon | Child Support Guidelines, based on the Income Shares Income Shares An Income Shares formula is used by many states to establish the child support amount of each child rather than what it actually costs to raise a child. Income Shares tables calculating child support are not based directly on actual spending on children but rather on indirect estimates of child costs... model |
Division of Child Support |
| Pennsylvania | Revisede Civil Procedures 1910.16-1 to -5 | Child Support Program |
| Rhode Island | Child Services Guidelines Administrative Order | Dep't of Human Services |
| South Carolina | Social Services Regulation 114-4710 to -4750 | Child Support Enforcement Division |
| South Dakota | Code Laws §§ 25-7-6.1 et seq. | Office of Child Support Enforcement |
| Tennessee | Child Support Guidelines | Child Support Services |
| Texas | Family Code §§ 154.001 et seq. | Attorney General Child Support Services |
| Utah | Code §§ 78B-12-202 et seq., based on the Income Shares Income Shares An Income Shares formula is used by many states to establish the child support amount of each child rather than what it actually costs to raise a child. Income Shares tables calculating child support are not based directly on actual spending on children but rather on indirect estimates of child costs... model |
Office of Recovery Services |
| Vermont | Stat. title 15, §§ 653-657 | Office of Child Support |
| Virginia | Code §§ 20-108.1, 20-108.2 | Department of Social Services, Division of Child Support |
| Washington | Revenue Code §§ 26.19.001 et seq. | Division of Child Support |
| West Virginia | Child Support Guidelines, based on the Income Shares Income Shares An Income Shares formula is used by many states to establish the child support amount of each child rather than what it actually costs to raise a child. Income Shares tables calculating child support are not based directly on actual spending on children but rather on indirect estimates of child costs... model |
Bureau for Child Support Enforcement |
| Wisconsin | Child Support Guidelines | Bureau of Child Support |
| Wyoming | Child Support Guidelines | Child Support Enforcement |
Penalties
In 2000, the state of TennesseeTennessee
Tennessee is a U.S. state located in the Southeastern United States. It has a population of 6,346,105, making it the nation's 17th-largest state by population, and covers , making it the 36th-largest by total land area...
revoked the driver’s licenses of 1,372 people who collectively owed more than $13 million in child support. In Texas
Texas
Texas is the second largest U.S. state by both area and population, and the largest state by area in the contiguous United States.The name, based on the Caddo word "Tejas" meaning "friends" or "allies", was applied by the Spanish to the Caddo themselves and to the region of their settlement in...
non-custodial parents behind more than three months in child-support payments can have court-ordered payments deducted from their wages, can have federal income tax refund checks
Tax refund interception
A tax refund interception is the act of an agency responsible for sending tax refunds using all or part of a refund to fulfill an obligation of the taxpayer rather than sending the money to the taxpayer him/herself...
, lottery
Texas Lottery
The Texas Lottery is the government-operated lottery available throughout Texas. It is operated by the Texas Lottery Commission, headquartered in downtown Austin.-History:...
winnings, or other money that may be due from state or federal sources intercepted by child support enforcement agencies, can have licenses (including hunting and fishing licenses) suspended, and a judge may sentence a nonpaying parent to jail and enter a judgment for past due child support. Some have taken the view that such penalties are unconstitutional
Constitutionality
Constitutionality is the condition of acting in accordance with an applicable constitution. Acts that are not in accordance with the rules laid down in the constitution are deemed to be ultra vires.-See also:*ultra vires*Company law*Constitutional law...
. On September 4, 1998, the Supreme Court of Alaska upheld a law allowing state agencies to revoke driver's licenses of parents seriously delinquent in child support obligations. And in the case of United States of America v. Sage, U.S. Court of Appeals (2nd Cir., 1996), the court upheld the constitutionality
Constitutionality
Constitutionality is the condition of acting in accordance with an applicable constitution. Acts that are not in accordance with the rules laid down in the constitution are deemed to be ultra vires.-See also:*ultra vires*Company law*Constitutional law...
of a law allowing federal fines and up to two years imprisonment for a person willfully failing to pay more than $5,000 in child support over a year or more when said child resides in a different state from that of the non-custodial parent.
The U.S. law commonly known as the Bradley Amendment
Bradley Amendment
In United States law, the Bradley Amendment requires state courts to prohibit retroactive reduction of child support obligations...
was passed in 1986 to automatically trigger a non expiring lien whenever child support becomes past-due. The law overrides any state's statute of limitations; disallows any judicial discretion, even from bankruptcy judges; and requires that the payment amounts be maintained without regard for the physical capability of the person owing child support (the obligor) to make the notification or regard for their awareness of the need to make the notification. The obligee may forgive such debts.
When past-due child support is owed to a state as a result of welfare paid out, the state is free to forgive some or all of it under what's known as an offer in compromise.
Final judgment
Under the United States ConstitutionUnited States Constitution
The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the United States of America. It is the framework for the organization of the United States government and for the relationship of the federal government with the states, citizens, and all people within the United States.The first three...
Article Four
Article Four of the United States Constitution
Article Four of the United States Constitution relates to the states. The article outlines the duties states have to each other, as well as those the federal government has to the states...
, full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other state. Courts have used this article to enforce final judgments that have been registered within a state. Normally a judgment must be final before it can be registered. The ""Restatement of Conflict (Second), under the topic of Defenses to Recognition and Enforcement, states that a judgment rendered in one state need not be recognized or enforced in a sister state insofar as the judgment remains subject to modification. A local court is free to recognize or enforce a judgment that remains subject to modification under the local law. Child support orders are considered judgments of this sort.
Under full faith and credit, the local law of the state of rendition will be applied to determine whether the judgment is modifiable and, if so, in what respects, particularly past and future financial obligations. Full faith and credit requires application of the local law of the state of rendition to determine whether the judgment is modifiable and, if so, in what respects.
Uniform Desertion and Non-Support Act
In 1910, the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State LawsNational Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws
The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws is a non-profit, unincorporated association commonly referred to as the U.S. Uniform Law Commission. It consists of commissioners appointed by each state, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the United States...
approved the Uniform Desertion and Non-Support Act. The act made it a punishable offense for a husband to desert, willfully neglect or refuse to provide for the support and maintenance of his wife in destitute or necessitous circumstances, or for a parent to fail in the same duty to his child less than 16 years of age. The 1910 act sought to improve the enforcement of the duties of support, but it did not take into account payers who fled the jurisdiction. With the increasing mobility of the population, welfare departments had to support the destitute families because the extradition process was inefficient and often unsuccessful.
Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA)
In 1950, The National Conference of Commissions on Uniform State Laws published the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support ActUniform reciprocal enforcement of support act
The Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act concerns interstate cooperation in the collection of spousal and child support. It lays out the procedure for enforcement in cases in which the person owing alimony or child support is in one state and the person to whom the support is owed is in...
(URESA). The Commission stated that, “The purposes of this act are to improve and extend by reciprocal legislation the enforcement of duties of support and to make uniform the law with respect thereto.” URESA sought to enforce the provisions in two ways: criminal enforcement and civil enforcement. Criminal enforcement relied upon the obligee state demanding the extradition
Extradition
Extradition is the official process whereby one nation or state surrenders a suspected or convicted criminal to another nation or state. Between nation states, extradition is regulated by treaties...
of the obligor, or for the obligor to surrender. Civil enforcement relied upon the obligee to initiate proceedings in his/her state. The initiating state would determine if the obligor had a duty of support. If the initiating court upheld the claim, the initiating court would forward the case to the obligor’s state. The responding state, having personal jurisdiction over the obligor, would provide notice and a hearing for obligor. After this hearing, the responding court would enforce the support order.
Revised Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (RURESA)
In 1958, the Uniform Laws Commission again amended URESA, which later became known as the Revised Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (RURESA). The amendments involved two important changes to URESA.The amendments sought to correct a problem created by URESA. In some cases, the responding court only had evidence from the obligor and not have any evidence from the initiating state or the obligee. The responding court, with only one side represented tended to benefit the obligor. The Commission’s solution was to amend URESA so the initiating state and the obligee would provide evidence to the responding court along with the original case file, so the responding court would have positions from both parties.
The Commission also provided a second method to obtain redress via civil enforcement. The new method permitted the obligee to register the foreign support order in a court of the obligor’s state, and present that case directly to the foreign court.
RURESA provided new protection for mothers against noncompliant fathers; however, RURESA created a new problem—multiple support orders. Since every state could both enforce and modify a support order, a new support order could be entered in each state. Thus, if the father moved from State A to State B to State C to State D, and if the mother continually registered and had the order modified, then there would be four separate and independent support orders. RURESA allowed state courts to modify the original order so long as the court applied its own procedural law and the law of the original state, unless that contravened its own public policy. The Commission intended to correct the problem of inconsistent multiple orders by only allowing the support orders to be modified based upon a single state’s law. In theory, states A, B and C could only modify a support order based upon the original state’s substantive law; thus, all the support orders should be identical. In practice, however, this rule created ambiguities concerning whether child support guidelines are procedural or substantive, and if substantive, whether application of that substantive law contravened some public policy. The multiple order issue remained a problem.
Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA)
In 1992, NCCUSL completely revised and replaced URESA and RURESA with the Uniform Interstate Family Support ActUniform Interstate Family Support Act
The Uniform Interstate Family Support Act is one of the uniform acts drafted by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws in the United States. First developed in 1992 the NCCUSL revised the act in 1996 and again in 2001 with additional amendments in 2008...
(UIFSA) to correct the problem of multiple orders. UIFSA corrected this problem by providing that only one state would possess the power to make or modify child support at any one time ("continuing exclusive jurisdiction"). The state with continuous exclusive jurisdiction would use its own child support guidelines. Thus, if the child or either one of the parents remained in the original state, then that state retained jurisdiction and only that state could modify the support order. Only if both parents and the child left the state could another state assume child support jurisdiction (although any state could enforce the original state's order, regardless of residence of parent or child).
In 1996, NCCUSL revised UIFSA and the United States Congress passed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), which required that all states adopt the 1996 version of UIFSA. In 2001, NCCUSL adopted additional amendments to UIFSA. As of 2011, only a few states had adopted the 2001 amendments.
UIFSA contains five main parts: General Provisions, Establishing a Support Order, Enforcing a Support Order, Modifying a Support Order, and Parentage.
In 2008 UIFSA joined the Hague Convention which insures a uniform policy amongst countries and a way to organize child support issues globally. Critically, orders will be "recognized and enforced in other countries".
Statutory conflicts
Every state’s guidelines are unique, so every state awards different monetary amounts. Between two states, the difference in award’s amounts may be nominal when taken on a weekly basis. Over long periods, however, these weekly differences accumulate to material sums. A conflict of lawsConflict of laws
Conflict of laws is a set of procedural rules that determines which legal system and which jurisdiction's applies to a given dispute...
issue can confront courts.
For simplicity, this article uses the model where the mother becomes the parent with custody of the children and the father makes child support payments, with the understanding that this model has become less typical. For example, a man and a woman marry in West Virginia. During the marriage, the husband and the wife have children. In West Virginia, the husband and the wife divorce. West Virginia issues a divorce decree that gives the wife custody of the children and orders the husband to pay child support. Subsequently, the wife moves to Connecticut with the children. Due to a change in circumstances, the husband, who may or may not still reside in West Virginia, seeks a modification of West Virginia’s divorce decree. The conflict was over which state's guidelines are to apply.
The Commission, which Congress created in 1988 to recommend `how to improve the interstate establishment and enforcement of child support awards,' favored a system under which the modifying jurisdiction's law would apply. Some witnesses testified that the law most advantageous to the child should govern, others testified that the law where the obligor resides should govern, and still others testified that the law where the child resides should govern. The Commission ultimately recommended `that the procedural and substantive law of the forum state should govern in establishment and modification proceedings,' citing the `ease and efficiency of application of local law by decision-makers' as an important consideration. The official UIFSA commentary [to UIFSA section 303] echoes this concern for efficiency.
California
In 2004, the California Court of Appeals ruled on a case in which the couple obtained a divorce decree in Idaho, where they lived with their six children. The father moved to California, and the mother and children moved to Oregon. The divorce decree was registered in California. The County sought to modify child support and that California had jurisdiction.The Court held that Idaho no longer had jurisdiction because: no party remained in Idaho; a nonresident was seeking modification, and the respondent was subject to California's jurisdiction. The court cited two reasons. First, due to UIFSA, California had obtained jurisdiction. Second, the marital settlement agreement did not change the result, because due to the special nature of child support, parents were bound by public policy outside their own agreements; Idaho had adopted UIFSA; under the Restatement Second of Conflict of Laws, California had a materially greater interest than Idaho.
The Court refused to address the argument that Oregon guidelines should apply because the father failed to explicitly raise this issue at trial and had thus waived his right to appeal the issue. Further, even if the father had preserved his right to appeal, the father presented no evidence on the subject.
In a footnote, the court spoke of the Commission created by Congress in 1988 to recommend ‘how to improve the interstate establishment and enforcement of child support awards.’ In that footnote, it noted:
Connecticut 's anomaly
The Connecticut Legislature anomalously created two registration methods. Connecticut adopted URESA and adopted the RURESA registration method. Subsequently, Connecticut adopted UIFSA and repealed URESA, but did not repeal the RURESA registration method. Both methods allow for a foreign order to be registered in Connecticut. The UIFSA registration method limits jurisdiction to only one state, while the RURESA registration does not.Connecticut’s UIFSA
The UIFSA registration method allows the following scenarios: (1) one party remains in the original state, and the other party moves to Connecticut or (2) the mother and father both leave the original state. If either the mother or father remain in the original state, the original state retains continuous exclusive jurisdiction.The second scenario is that the mother moves to Connecticut, and the father moves to a third state (state B), leaving neither party domiciled in the original state. If the order is registered in either Connecticut or in B and that state’s court issues a new order, then the original state loses jurisdiction. In the state where a new order is issued, Connecticut or state B would obtain the power to modify the order. This situation produces a race to the courthouse. The mother wants to register the order in the state with guidelines more favorable to her and the father seeks the opposite.
Under UIFSA, whatever scenario is applied, the rule is clear. However, because Connecticut continues to have the RURESA registration method on the books, a party could register in Connecticut without invoking UIFSA, which creates the problems that UIFSA was meant to correct.
Connecticut’s RURESA
Under RURESA Connecticut General StatuteConnecticut General Statute
The Connecticut General Statutes are official General Statutes of Connecticut, revised to 2009, contains the Constitution of the United States, the Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of the State of Connecticut, including the thirty amendments adopted since...
46b-71 controls, providing the courts with a conflict of laws rule concerning the enforcement of a foreign matrimonial judgment within Connecticut. It states:
The statute allows courts to modify a foreign judgment using local procedures, applying the substantive law of the foreign jurisdiction, unless that application of the substantive law would contravene Connecticut public policy.
In Burton v. Burton, the Connecticut Supreme Court
Connecticut Supreme Court
The Connecticut Supreme Court, formerly known as the Connecticut Supreme Court of Errors, is the highest court in the U.S. state of Connecticut. It consists of a Chief Justice and six Associate Justices. The seven justices sit in Hartford, across the street from the Connecticut State Capitol...
recognized that 46b-71 governed. In addition, the Court held that the related laws were "substantive" so the foreign law would control. The Connecticut courts have not resolved whether the courts apply local or foreign child support guidelines under RURESA. 46b-71 and Burton frame the issue. If a Connecticut court characterizes the child support guidelines as procedural, then the court applies the local child support guidelines; if the courts characterize the child support guidelines as substantive, then the courts must apply the foreign state’s child support guidelines, with the usual caveat. The Connecticut Supreme Court
Connecticut Supreme Court
The Connecticut Supreme Court, formerly known as the Connecticut Supreme Court of Errors, is the highest court in the U.S. state of Connecticut. It consists of a Chief Justice and six Associate Justices. The seven justices sit in Hartford, across the street from the Connecticut State Capitol...
addressed the issue of whether the trial court correctly applied the substantive law of the foreign jurisdiction but not whether the foreign state’s guidelines are "substantive".
In Evans v. Evans, the Connecticut Appellant Court
Connecticut Appellant Court
The Connecticut Appellate Court is the court of first appeals for all cases arising from the Connecticut Superior Courts. Its creation in 1983 required Connecticut's voters and legislature to amend the state's constitution. The court heard its first cases on October 4, 1983.The Connecticut...
indirectly addressed the issues and held that it would not disturb an order of the trial court absent an abuse of discretion. The trial court held, among other factors, that it was not bound by the New York's guidelines, although it did consider them. The Appellant Court failed to state explicitly which guidelines the court should apply.
The Connecticut Superior Court
Connecticut Superior Court
The Connecticut Superior Court is the Connecticut state trial court of general jurisdiction. It hears all matters other than those heard by the Connecticut Probate Courts...
s differ as to when the courts must determine if that substantive law includes that state’s child support guidelines. In a recent Superior Court decision, Judge Munro stated that “[t]he court will allow the parties to argue at the subsequent hearing on the merits whether, in applying Ohio substantive law, the court looks to the Connecticut Child Support Guidelines or the Ohio Child Support Guidelines, or some other criteria. ”
In a footnote, Trial Referee Cutsumpas states that “[t]he court is mindful that it would be more practical to have the child support issue determined in the State of Connecticut where the children and obligee mother reside rather than in the State of New York where only the obligor father resides… However, absent written consent of the parties, UIFSA dictates jurisdiction which in this case is the State of New York. ”
District of Columbia
In 1993, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals held that the child's domicile governs which guidelines should apply. In this case the parents married in the District and family moved to Maryland. The divorced father returned to the District, and the mother and the children remained in Maryland. The court granted the father's request that Maryland's guidelines apply following precedent while stating that the" governmental interest analysis test" would lead to the same result.Maryland
In 2002, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals ruled on a case in which the parties were married in Massachusetts, had a child and separated. They obtained a divorce decree that merged the separation agreement. The agreement provided that the father would pay child support governed by Massachusetts law, and that the child support payment would be adjusted annually. After the divorce, the father relocated to Virginia, while the custodial mother settled in Maryland.The father requested to modify the order under Maryland law. The Master found that even though under Massachusetts guidelines, the mother would receive more money that the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act applied. Maryland's rules produced a payment about half of the original payment, but the Master recommended the original amount remain in effect to maintain the child’s standard of living.
The Massachusetts Legislature's parties to a contract may agree to the law which will govern their transaction; however, that general rule has limitations. Neither contract nor Massachusetts law specifically dictated that the Massachusetts Child Support Guidelines were to apply. The court then held that the agreement did not create not an open-ended obligation for the father to pay child support based upon the Massachusetts guidelines if neither party had ties to Massachusetts. In addition, the court looked to the child’s best interest, which could have been be undermined by the contractual terms.
Deadbeat parents
Non-custodial parents who avoid their child support obligations are sometimes termed dead-beat parents. Parents who share an equal role in parenting are far more likely to comply, with child support compliance going up above 90% when the payer states he believes he has a relatively equal role in parenting.The US Department of Health and Human Services estimates that 68% of child support cases had arrears owed in 2003, a 15% increase from 53% in 1999. It is claimed that some of these arrearage cases are due to administrative practices such as imputing income to parents where it does not exist and issuing default orders of support.
According to one study reasons given for non-payment of support were as follows:
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Inability to pay | 38% |
| Protesting lack of visitation | 23% |
| Lack of accountability | 14% |
| Prefer to give up a child | 13% |
| Denied paternity | 12% |
According to another study, 76% of the $14.4 billion in child support arrears in California was by parents who lacked the ability to pay. The "deadbeat" parents had a median annual income of $6349, arrears of $9447 and an ongoing support of $300 per month because 71% of the orders were set by default.
Child support and welfare
Since the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA), a major impetus to collection of child support is the Welfare law. A custodial parent receiving public assistance, e.g., via Temporary Assistance for Needy FamiliesTemporary Assistance for Needy Families
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families is one of the United States of America's federal assistance programs. It began on July 2, 1997, and succeeded the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program, providing cash assistance to indigent American families with dependent children through the...
(TANF), is required to assign child support to the Department of Welfare to receive assistance. The custodial parent must also pursue child support. Any payment is diverted to the welfare program as partial reimbursement. Typically the amount of child support equals or exceeds the assistance grant, allowing the family to leave the cash assistance program (potentially remaining eligible for food stamps, etc.) Other provisions of PRWORA require and assist the custodial parent to find employment (such as buying new work clothes). Child support enforcement programs in all 50 states are primarily federally funded. States whose enforcement is not in PRWORA compliance risk a 5% penalty.
Despite concerns that this provision generates government revenue, HHS reported that in fiscal year 2003, 90% of child support collections went directly to families. In 47 states the percent of payments going to families was 86% or more and in seven states exceeded 95%. Half of unpaid child support is owed to the government. Sherri Z. Heller, Ed.D, Commissioner of U.S. Office of Child Support Enforcement stated, "We need to be more aggressive about leveraging older debt owed to the government as an incentive to obtain more reliable payments of current support to families." Towards this end, the Social Security Administration
Social Security Administration
The United States Social Security Administration is an independent agency of the United States federal government that administers Social Security, a social insurance program consisting of retirement, disability, and survivors' benefits...
provides up to $4.1 billion in financial incentives to states that create support and arrearage orders, and then collect.
Housing and common wages
Some states (such as California) automatically garnish up to 50% of pre-tax income to pay child support arrears. This can present a hardship in states whose cost of living is high. The Out of Reach report produced by the National Low Income Housing Coalition sets 30% of household income as an affordable level for housing costs. After a loss of 50% of takehome income, the suggested expenditure on rent also decreases 50%.California’s Fair market rent
Fair market rent
Fair Market Rent is a term in real estate that indicates the amount of money that a given property would command, if it were open for leasing at the moment...
(FMR) for a two-bedroom apartment is $1,149. In order to afford rent and utilities, without paying more than 30% of income on housing, a household must earn $3,829 monthly or $45,950 annually. Assuming a standard work schedule, housing alone requires a wage of $22.09, far above California's $8.00 minimum. Adding child support essentially doubles the necessary income. If the obligor has no other child support debts, earns California minimum wage working 40 hours a week, has no benefits, and the custodial spouse does not work, the expected payment is closer to $320.
Conflicts of interest
Requiring non-custodial parents to pay child-support creates jobs to sustain the divorce industry, because the amount of child support a state collects generates federal funds to the state. Family court judges earn $90–160,000 per year while each judge requires a staff. The industry headcount of "60,000 professionals includes line/managerial/executive child support staff; state and local agencies; judges; court masters; hearing officers; government and private attorneys; social workers; advocates; corporations that "partner" with government to provide child support services and private collection agencies."The availability of federal funding child support programs and the mandate that states contribute matching funds, has led corporations to market their services to state and local agencies. Services range from consulting to payment processing to enforcement of support orders. The private-sector presence in a human services field entices program directors away from public service.
State courts typically maintain a child support division—essentially an accounting department recording amounts owed and paid. Given that county clerks responsible for record keeping are not accountants, inaccuracies concerning child support payments are allegedly common. In many counties, such as Illinois’ Cook
Cook County, Illinois
Cook County is a county in the U.S. state of Illinois, with its county seat in Chicago. It is the second most populous county in the United States after Los Angeles County. The county has 5,194,675 residents, which is 40.5 percent of all Illinois residents. Cook County's population is larger than...
and Kane
Kane County, Illinois
Kane County is a county located in the U.S. state of Illinois. According to the 2010 census, it has a population of 515,269, which is an increase of 27.5% from 404,119 in 2000. Its county seat is Geneva, and its largest city is Aurora.- Geography :...
counties, the division audit themselves. However other jurisidictions adopt different methods—for example, in 2003 independent auditors reviewed and audited the Child Support Enforcement Agency of Hawaii
Hawaii
Hawaii is the newest of the 50 U.S. states , and is the only U.S. state made up entirely of islands. It is the northernmost island group in Polynesia, occupying most of an archipelago in the central Pacific Ocean, southwest of the continental United States, southeast of Japan, and northeast of...
. Texas has also conducted an independent audit. Clark County, Nevada
Clark County, Nevada
-Demographics:As of the census of 2000, there were 1,375,765 people, 512,253 households, and 339,693 families residing within the MSA. The racial makeup of the MSA was 71.6% White , 9.1% Black, 5.7% Asian, 0.8% American Indian and 12.8% of other or mixed race. 22.0% were Hispanic of any race...
's, district attorney
District attorney
In many jurisdictions in the United States, a District Attorney is an elected or appointed government official who represents the government in the prosecution of criminal offenses. The district attorney is the highest officeholder in the jurisdiction's legal department and supervises a staff of...
office was independently audited in 2003 regarding child support payment collections. In 2003, Maryland recommended outside audits on its five child support enforcement operations.
While county reports are the official records, states also have their reports.
Imprisonment
Most courts addressing the issue of imprisonment for child support deficiencies since the United States Supreme Court's ruling in Lassiter vs Department of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18 (1981) have held that appointed counsel is required if the obligor's liberty is at stake. In March, 2006, the Supreme Court of New Jersey, upheld this principle in the case of Anne Pasqua, et al. v. Hon. Gerald Council, et al. As of August 2006, at least four states (New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and South Carolina) do not consistently appoint attorneyLawyer
A lawyer, according to Black's Law Dictionary, is "a person learned in the law; as an attorney, counsel or solicitor; a person who is practicing law." Law is the system of rules of conduct established by the sovereign government of a society to correct wrongs, maintain the stability of political...
s in enforcement proceedings. As of 2011 court challenges were pending in Pennsylvania and New Hampshire.
On March 23, 2011, the United States Supreme Court heard Turner v. Rogers
Turner v. Rogers
Turner v. Rogers, is a case decided by the United States Supreme Court on June 20, 2011, that held that a state must provide safeguards to reduce the risk of erroneous deprivation of liberty in civil contempt cases such as child support cases...
, a case concerning whether South Carolina had a legal obligation to provide appointed counsel to Turner, who was jailed for child support non-payment.
The right to a jury trial is abridged in criminal non-support cases when the defendant is charged with misdemeanor
Misdemeanor
A misdemeanor is a "lesser" criminal act in many common law legal systems. Misdemeanors are generally punished much less severely than felonies, but theoretically more so than administrative infractions and regulatory offences...
non-support. The judge can incarcerate the obligor for contempt of court
Contempt of court
Contempt of court is a court order which, in the context of a court trial or hearing, declares a person or organization to have disobeyed or been disrespectful of the court's authority...
for some time, presumably till the balance is brought current, similar to debtors' prisons of prior eras. Jail
Jail
A jail is a short-term detention facility in the United States and Canada.Jail may also refer to:In entertainment:*Jail , a 1966 Malayalam movie*Jail , a 2009 Bollywood movie...
complicates child support payments, which is why some states suspend sentences
Suspended sentence
A suspended sentence is a legal term for a judge's delaying of a defendant's serving of a sentence after they have been found guilty, in order to allow the defendant to perform a period of probation...
and impose a probation
Probation
Probation literally means testing of behaviour or abilities. In a legal sense, an offender on probation is ordered to follow certain conditions set forth by the court, often under the supervision of a probation officer...
ary period during which payments must be made and/or employment searches conducted, with jail reserved for uncooperative offenders.
Paternity fraud, not-adopted, non-biological children
Paternity questions complicate the issue of child support, either because of incorrect information or fraudulent intent. Paternity fraud affects three individuals: the defrauded man, the child deprived of a relationship with his/her biological father, and the biological father who loses his relationship with his child.Some jurisdictions, such as California limit the amount of time allowed to challenge paternity or allow women to claim paternity in nearly anonymous conditions.
Even if paternity fraud was proven through DNA
DNA
Deoxyribonucleic acid is a nucleic acid that contains the genetic instructions used in the development and functioning of all known living organisms . The DNA segments that carry this genetic information are called genes, but other DNA sequences have structural purposes, or are involved in...
testing, the alleged father may still be liable for child support. In most jurisdictions the courts have declared the male who acts as the child's father to be the father through the equitable operation of an estoppel
Estoppel
Estoppel in its broadest sense is a legal term referring to a series of legal and equitable doctrines that preclude "a person from denying or asserting anything to the contrary of that which has, in contemplation of law, been established as the truth, either by the acts of judicial or legislative...
. Once the child has been declared to be someone's offspring and has lived with the man for a period of time, the court may burden the putative father with all of the obligations of parenthood, effectively freeing the biological father from obligations, even if the biological father gains custody of the child. This was the case for a Michigander who was forced to pay child support for a child to a child's biological father.
Even if paternity is proven false and the alleged father was not even aware of the child's existence, once the court determines a man is the child's father and the deadline for challenging paternity—as little as 30 days—has passed, a man can still be liable for child support. This happened to a man in Florida who was named as the father of a "daughter" that he never knew about until she was 11 years old. Despite DNA results that show that he had not fathered the child and despite an affidavit from the girl's mother saying he's "not the father", Florida demanded that he support the girl, and pay more than $10,000 already "owed". He spent a night in jail.
See also
- Bradley AmendmentBradley AmendmentIn United States law, the Bradley Amendment requires state courts to prohibit retroactive reduction of child support obligations...
- California Child Support Guideline ReviewCalifornia Child Support Guideline ReviewEach US state is responsible for developing a child support enforcement program that complies with federal requirements, including a Guidelines method of calculating child support. At a minimum, 45 C.F.R...
- Child SupportChild supportIn family law and public policy, child support is an ongoing, periodic payment made by a parent for the financial benefit of a child following the end of a marriage or other relationship...
- Deadbeat dadDeadbeat dadDeadbeat parent is a term referring to obligor parents of either gender that have freely chosen not to be a financially supportive parent in their children's lives...
- Glenn SacksGlenn SacksGlenn Sacks is an American men's and fathers' issues columnist and media spokesperson. He is the first columnist specializing in men's and fathers' issues to be published regularly in Top 100 American newspapers...
- Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction And Enforcement ActUniform Child Custody Jurisdiction And Enforcement ActThe Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction And Enforcement Act is a Uniform Act drafted by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws in 1997. The UCCJEA has since been adopted by 49 U.S. States, the District of Columbia, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The Act became effective...
- Tax refund interceptionTax refund interceptionA tax refund interception is the act of an agency responsible for sending tax refunds using all or part of a refund to fulfill an obligation of the taxpayer rather than sending the money to the taxpayer him/herself...
External links
Government sites- Up to $4.1 billion available to States that create support and arrearage orders, and then collect (cf. 6B, 6C, & 6D). Social Security Administration's Incentive
- While 40% of children whose fathers live outside the home have no contact with their children, the other 60% had contact an average of 69 days in the last year. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
- CSE Government Program Reports
- Congressional Research Service (CRS) Reports regarding child support
- Office of Child Support Enforcement by state
- "Today, a child support violator can be prosecuted under Federal law" - child support enforcement
Census
- 84% of child support providers are men, $24 billion of child support reported as paid in 2002 U.S. Census Bureau
- Custodial parents reported aggregate of $37 billion of child support due in 2003, $25 billion received U.S. Census Bureau
- U.S. Child Support Statistics - U.S. Census Bureau
Guidelines and legislation
- Child Support Guidelines
- Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act
- Fathers & Families A Massachusetts-based advocate for shared parentingShared parentingShared parenting refers to a collaborative arrangement in child custody or divorce determinations in which the care of the children is equal or more than substantially shared between the biological parents.- Nature and History :...
. - More than 70% of child support collections come through the wage withholding process. As such, employers are an important element of any child support initiative. American Payroll Association
- Hawai'i at bottom in child-support ranking
- Accurately Evaluating State Child Support Program Performance
- National Child Support Enforcement Association
- National Conference of State Legislators - Driver License Suspensions for Child Support
- Shared Parenting Ballot Initiative - California
- daily resources about,child support and fathers rights.