Posted on 03/21/2002 3:23:32 PM PST by Starmaker
A Georgia court has declared the state’s child support guidelines unconstitutional.The decision bans the use of a presumptively correct formula that produces arbitrarily high awards, a universal practice in the United States since 1990. The consequences of a nationwide ban could extend well beyond allowing courts to set child support awards at reasonable levels.
The judgment states three requirements for constitutionally acceptable child support decisions. Both parents have an equal obligation to support their children in accordance with their relative means to do so; regardless of their gender and custodial status. The amount awarded as “child support” must be limited to address only the need for financial support of dependent children. Child support awards must be rationally related to the relevant facts and circumstances of each case.
Child support law existed in the thirteen colonies and has existed in the states since the beginning of the nation´s history. Not surprisingly, the requirements presented in the Georgia judgment are reminiscent of traditional law that developed through more than two hundred years of case precedent. Federal reforms effectively blocked the application of established legal principles by extending the use of politically controlled formulae, known as child support guidelines, to non-welfare cases. State courts have been required to apply their state´s formula in every child support case and presume that results are correct.
Despite a federal requirement for states to review their guidelines to assure that their use results in a just and appropriate award in every case, no state has ever validated the logic of their guidelines. According to child support collection entrepreneur Robert Williams who is the primary designer of most state guidelines, the objective was to increase the average amount of an award by two and a half times. It is this practice in particular, arbitrarily increasing awards by using a presumptively correct formula that the Georgia court found unconstitutional.
Since the federal reforms took effect, mathematical studies performed by the Project for the Improvement of Child Support Litigation Technology (PICSLT) have confirmed the necessity of the three principles in defining the logic for properly determining child support awards. The overpayment resulting from the use of guidelines has become known as hidden alimony.
On the other side of the issue is a strange coalition of special interest groups that profit from the current system. These include state enforcement agencies, private collection businesses, and women´s groups that have sought higher financial benefits for divorce. Billions of dollars in federal funding have driven the system, creating a vast network of political friends.
It was the reforms themselves that were largely responsible for bringing the child support collection industry into existence. Private collection agencies, such as the one owned by Robert Williams, keep approximately 15 percent of all the money they collect. The government enforcement system is also rewarded by an increase in federal funding in proportion to the amount collected. During the 1990s, these financial benefits led to a unique form of mutual support and power sharing between government and private agencies under the rubric of privatization.
The coalition exerted enormous influence on government policy and managed a persuasive propaganda campaign against a group they labelled “deadbeat dads.” Promoters projected substantial drops in welfare rolls by “forcing fathers to pay.” Taxpayers were promised significant savings. But the promise was not substantiated by credible feasibility studies and the savings did not materialize. Significant reductions in welfare dependency were only experienced along with a general drop in unemployment.
The reforms drove many fathers into debt and poverty, at times resulting in jail sentences for non-payment. The new system decreased their ability to spend time with their children, increased demands on temporarily unemployed fathers who sought reductions, forced low income fathers to work in the cash economy to survive, and even forced payments from some men who had never met the mother. Billions of dollars have been collected that cannot be dispersed. The Georgia court, rightly so, determined that the child support system subjects parents, especially fathers, to unnecessary government interference.
Certain administrative procedures for setting and enforcing child support awards have also been declared unconstitutional in Michigan and Minnesota. Child support enforcement agencies exercise powers reserved for the judiciary. States have done little to reform their systems and it may take further action to compel states to operate constitutionally.
The fate of the child support system is largely in the hands of attorneys, who need to make greater efforts to exercise the constitutional role of the judicial branch. At least twenty billion dollars has been paid in court costs and attorneys´ fees in the process of arbitrarily increasing award amounts over ten years. That is approximately the total amount of child support legally due each year. Lawyers are now set to experience another windfall if guidelines are determined unconstitutional throughout the country as millions of non-custodial parents return to the courts to have their orders reduced to reasonable levels.
The projected reduction in debt would take much of the wind from the sails of the child support collection industry, possibly eliminating financial influences that have distorted welfare reform efforts for more than two decades. This in turn could significantly reduce federal interest in operating a child support enforcement system that manages non-welfare cases.
If courts are to continue to use child support guidelines, greater emphasis needs to be placed on credible engineering research and development. Designs need to be validated to the extent possible before they are put into use and bad ideas need to be rejected before they harm the public. The application of a presumptively correct formula for determining child support awards is a profound deviation from established constitutional process that demands careful and constant scrutiny.
Lets hope that what the court in Ga continues across the USA, however I will not hold my breath that Ca will ever change.
Luckily I could afford a lawyer to keep them from getting back money frfom "85" till the present, it would have been around $80,000.00. Many men are not so fortunate as I.
I've been thru my own version of Hades - but nothing like that. Will you get to see her graduate?
BTW, he is now married to the meanest woman on earth and has 2 MORE kids with her. Why he stays with her is a mystery to everyone.
Read the term "dependent children". This is a term of art describing the subject matter of these laws, and the limits of this agency's authority to interfere with domestic relations.
Federal reforms effectively blocked the application of established legal principles by extending the use of politically controlled formulae, known as child support guidelines, to non-welfare cases.
The "non-welfare cases" do not extend to every case involving chlidren. The intention, which can be documented by committe reports etc was to classify those removed from the welfare roles because of the income received as child support. Dependency and continued absence are still requisite conditions for application of this program.
The Georgia court, rightly so, determined that the child support system subjects parents, especially fathers, to unnecessary government interference.
This is true, and in spite of the mixed bag of reasons, the court conditioned such intreference on compelling state interest, avoiding or reducing an expenditure of public assistance.
Child support enforcement agencies exercise powers reserved for the judiciary. States have done little to reform their systems and it may take further action to compel states to operate constitutionally.
In an effort to "fix" the system in Minnesota, the legislature gave administrative powers to the judiciary. Nice try, but still in violation of the separation of powers. Simply limiting the program to the proper class, and using the guidelines for recovery of past assistance provided (as they were intended), would be a more appropriate remedy.
The application of a presumptively correct formula for determining child support awards is a profound deviation from established constitutional process that demands careful and constant scrutiny.
A debt owed to the state for providing public assistance when another parent had the ability to so provide, where such obligation is limited by the guidelines and the public assistance grant, is reasonably calculated by a presumptive guideline. The problem is in the application of these guidelines in establishing ongoing support obligations, when the public interest is only tied to the public assistance grant and/or an accumulated arrearage ("arrears" being another bothersome term of art to describe the grant money expended when another parent had the ability to contribute.) I could go on, and I will, if anyone is interested.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.