WPC  itfM`@`)` |M`u]{. 63wOH4M{X oyk*%\$<̐r*hy9L __QewEc+mI8aEÛd6:)E_? cQtOn`R܈-~4ښ${F⬕w{%|f<^?u>Gnv K{ 0La{,V p@P.;^.m\H ş#@Cc,6%YiOaJF5uV2 oty2]l㧿qs^R^<<]rig-Yvp^|gTr7Z~b"ŨM[-iS`U/9D;"b!MX\mK D,Kύ0;d֑W=,1KUM* 0=t 0V U< 08 03. 0WTa 0 0 J 0U< 0=z  0 0 0 0< 0 0` 0 0 0 0^ 0ra 0]u 0 D+ 0 0(@! 0h! AQ"4b"$p$ 0'4'  ) 0<C*^*X5-295:=t{AD| HMMP-SdVK[^  aad^jCmpsv  -z CMzfgzaiz B8}zz  Z}z}f7a96M  Uj  {U*:ōU@?  *  ڙÜVh  ޣ  ݦ     ´fL%g  o   N  P^,2  ^ ~    '  3*S  } 0t 0BUGN %`f 1mf 0( AM 1m$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$w@4 m D3 B*1 D3[ B* D3 B7 B7" D-Y D5 D3 B%2A`Arial8+6Heading 1   @   <j:Default ParaXXXQ\  `$Arial NewRomanQ\  `$Arial NewRoman8eX6reference      5+ 4 <DL!5 ,    5+ 4 <DL!5  20Style1 . ,Body   X  2$>0Header  .  !>44 <DL!>2>0Footer  !>44 <DL!><jX:Page Number Q \  `$Times NewRomanQXXX?%2A`Arial?\  `$Times NewRoman05.TOC 1  !5+ 4 <DL!50 A.TOC 2   !  5+ 4 <DL!50 A.TOC 3   ll!  5+ 4 <DL!50 A.TOC 4 X  44!  5+ 4 <DL!50 A.TOC 5    !  5+ 4 <DL!50 A.TOC 6     !  5+ 4 <DL!50 A.TOC 7     !  5+ 4 <DL!50 A.TOC 8 x  T T !  5+ 4 <DL!50 A.TOC 9 @    !  5+ 4 <DL!5<XX:Footnote Tex?%2A`Arial?XXX?%2A`Arial?<:Fake Heading  @ 6$4Abstract     X    <m[:Footnote RefQ \  `$Times NewRomanQXXX?%2A`Arial?' Child Support and Spousal Maintenance: Dave Usher 0 .     ~ )  Xb,XXXX XXXb,  |"#F62x (  0 @ HETTt| !! ,    ! !X!   &     &}݌̌! X!!  , !!  ?+ 4 <DL!X? !!(2$ ,!  XXXXXkXXX  'dxd Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5(2$ ,!  XXXXXkXXX  ($(2$ ,!  XXXXXkXXX  ! C<< c * !"  Xb,XXXX XXXb,  q#XX  \ q# ! !X!       \   \ \   \    2   ݌  Ќ! X!!   ! \   \ \   \   % f &*  Xb,XXXX XXXb,  |"'F62x (  0 @ HETTt| !! ,    ! !X!   &   &}݌̌! X!!  , !!?+ 4 <DL!X? !!(2$ ,!  XXXXXkXXX   * !"  Xb,XXXX XXXb,  q#XX  \ q# ! !X!       \   \ \   \    2   ݌  Ќ! X!!   ! \   \ \   \  _Toc292226446($      ,!  Xb,XXXX XXXb,  ݛ?+ 4 <DL!X?q#XX q#q#    q#q# \ q#    1  9 \   \q#  \  ݀InreMarriageofHering,84OrApp360,733P2d956(1987).݌  ЌX Xq#X XXX    N ,!  Xb,XXXX XXXb,  ݛ?+ 4 <DL!X?q#XX q#q#    q#q# \ q#    2  9 \   \q#  \  ݀250%:RobertG.Williams,DevelopmentofGuidelinesforChildSupportOrders:FinalReport,  U.S.DepartmentofHealthandHumanServices,OfficeofChildSupportEnforcement,March1987.TheAmendmentsrequiredtheDepartmentofHealthandHumanServicestoprovidetechnicalassistancetostates.(pageII32).350%:RonaldX Xq#Ԁq#XX ԢHaskins,AndrewW.Dobelstein,John D S.Akin,andJ.BradSchwartz,EstimatesofNationalChildSupportCollectionsPotentialandthe 0 IncomeSecurityofFemaleHeadedFamilies,FinalReport,OfficeofChildSupportEnforcement,  April1,1985.݌̌X Xq#X XXX     ,!  Xb,XXXX XXXb,  ݛ?+ 4 <DL!X?q#XX q#q#    q#q# \ q#    3  9 \   \q#  \  ݀RonaldK.Henry,1990,"LitigatingtheValidityofSupportGuidelines,"TheMatrimonial  Strategist,VolumeVII,No.12,January,1990.݌̌X Xq#X XXX    / ,!  Xb,XXXX XXXb,  ݛ?+ 4 <DL!X?q#XX q#q#    q#q# \ q#    4  9 \   \q#  \  ݀InFitzgeraldv.Fitzgerald,566A2d719(D.C.App.1989),judgesnotedthatlitigantswho  questionedtheresultsofformulahadtodosowithouthavinganddefinitionfor justand appropriate.RobertW.Braid,TheMakingofaDeadbeatDad,TrialLawyer,March1993.Mr. 0 Braidnotedthattherewasnolegaldefinitionfor childsupportinNewJersey.Conversations D  withattorneysinseveralstatesandwiththeOfficeofChildSupportEnforcementhavenotrevealedasinglestatewithadefinitionfor childsupportthatdoesnotdependdirectlyonguidelineformulaeforitsinterpretation.݌̌X Xq#X XXX     ,!  Xb,XXXX XXXb,  ݛ?+ 4 <DL!X?q#XX q#q#    q#q# \ q#    5  9 \   \q#  \  ݀IntheMarriageofSmith,Or626P2d342(1981).݌  ЌX Xq#X XXX     ,!  Xb,XXXX XXXb,  ݛ?+ 4 <DL!X?q#XX q#q#    q#q# \ q#    6  9 \   \q#  \  ݀RobertG.Williams,DevelopmentofGuidelinesforChildSupportOrders:FinalReport,U.S.  DepartmentofHealthandHumanServices,OfficeofChildSupportEnforcement,March1987.TheAmendmentsrequiredtheDepartmentofHealthandHumanServicestoprovidetechnicalassistancetostates.(pageII32).݌̌X Xq#X XXX    j ,!  Xb,XXXX XXXb,  ݛ?+ 4 <DL!X?q#XX q#q#    q#q# \ q#    7  9 \   \q#  \  ݀WilliamHewitt,1982,ReportontheWashingtonStateAssociationofSuperiorCourtJudges,  UniformChildSupportGuidelines,InstituteforCourtManagement,CourtExecutive p DevelopmentProgram.݌̌X Xq#X XXX     ,!  Xb,XXXX XXXb,  ݛ?+ 4 <DL!X?q#XX q#q#    q#q# \ q#    8  9 \   \q#  \  ݀EdwardP.LazearandRobertT.Michael,AllocationofIncomeWithintheHousehold,University  ofChicagoPress,1988,page25݌̌X Xq#X XXX    r ,!  Xb,XXXX XXXb,  ݛ?+ 4 <DL!X?q#XX q#q#    q#q# \ q#    9  9 \   \q#  \  ݀DavidM.Betson,AlternativeEstimatesoftheCostofRaisingChildrenfromthe198086  ConsumerExpenditureSurvey,U.S.DepartmentofHealthandHumanServices,Officeofthe t AssistantSecretaryforPlanningandEvaluation,September1990;orLewin/ICF,Estimatesof 8 ExpendituresonChildrenandChildSupportGuidelines,U.S.DepartmentofHealthandHuman L Services,OfficeofChildSupportEnforcement,October1990;Forasummaryofhisresults,seeϢLewin/ICF,EstimatesofExpendituresonChildrenandChildSupportGuidelines,U.S.DepartmentofHealthandHumanServices,OfficeofChildSupportEnforcement,October1990,table4.5,page419.݌̌X Xq#X XXX    C ,!  Xb,XXXX XXXb,  ݛ?+ 4 <DL!X?q#XX q#q#    q#q# \ q#    10  9 \   \q#  \  ݀herehasbeensome.SeeLino,Mark,ExpendituresonaChildbyFamilies,1993Technical  Report,FamilyEconomicsResearchGroup,FamilyEconomicsReview.݌ t ЌX Xq#X XXX     ,!  Xb,XXXX XXXb,  ݛ?+ 4 <DL!X?q#XX q#q#    q#q# \ q#    11  9 \   \q#  \  ݀RobertW.Braid,TheMakingofaDeadbeatDad,TrialLawyer,March1993.݌  ЌX Xq#X XXX    # ,!  Xb,XXXX XXXb,  ݛ?+ 4 <DL!X?q#XX q#q#    q#q# \ q#    12  9 \   \q#  \  ݀P.O.P.S.v.Gardner,NinthCircuitU.S.CourtofAppealsNo.9136118,D.C.No.CV905344  ТRJB,P.O.P.S.(ParentsOpposedtoPunitiveSupport)݌̌X Xq#X XXX    Z ,!  Xb,XXXX XXXb,  ݛ?+ 4 <DL!X?q#XX q#q#    q#q# \ q#    13  9 \   \q#  \  ݀Statesoftenprovideadefinitionthatisweakerthantraditionalstatutesandrelydirectlyon  theirsupportformulaforinterpretation.Inotherwords,themeaningoftheir definitionisthattheformulaisusedtocalculatetheaward.RequestshavebeenmadeoftheU.S.OfficeofChildSupportEnforcement,andasofthedateofthissubmission,theycanprovidenoevidencethatanystatehasanindependentdefinitionorhasshowncorrespondence.݌̌X Xq#X XXX     ,!  Xb,XXXX XXXb,  ݛ?+ 4 <DL!X?q#XX q#q#    q#q# \ q#    14  9 \   \q#  \  ݀SeealsoDorisFreedandTimothyWalker, FamilyLawintheFiftyStates:AnOverview,for  commentaryontheconstitutionalrootsofthe equaldutyprinciple.FamilyLawQuarterly,Vol. p XIX,No.4(Winter1986),pp.331442,411݌̌X Xq#X XXX     ,!  Xb,XXXX XXXb,  ݛ?+ 4 <DL!X?q#XX q#q#    q#q# \ q#    15  9 \   \q#  \  ݀ Adjustedupperlimitisexplainedinthesection; AdjustedLimits.݌  ЌX Xq#X XXX   _Toc292226447  ,!  Xb,XXXX XXXb,  ݛ?+ 4 <DL!X?q#XX q#q#    q#q# \ q#    16  9 \   \q#  \  Oregon,Indiana,aretwoexamples.݌  ЌX Xq#X XXX     ,!  Xb,XXXX XXXb,  ݛ?+ 4 <DL!X?q#XX q#q#    q#q# \ q#    17  9 \   \q#  \  ݀JudithCassettyandFrankDouthitt,SupportandVisitationSchedules,Guidelinesand  Formulas,inWilliams(ibid.3,pageIII77);JudgeMelsonsguidelineswereineffectinDelaware t in1985,seeThompson,R.D.,TheDelawareChildSupportFormula,Reporttothe132nd 8 GeneralAssembly,April15,1984;RogerGay,PilotStudyontheDevelopmentandEvaluationof L StateGuidelinesforCalculationofChildSupportPayments(1990,availablefromauthor)andAn  AlternativeChildSupportGuidelineforStatestoConsiderpresentedatthe7thAnnual  ConferenceoftheChildrensRightsCouncil,HolidayInn,Bethesda,MD,April28May2,1993.݌̌X Xq#X XXX     ,!  Xb,XXXX XXXb,  ݛ?+ 4 <DL!X?q#XX q#q#    q#q# \ q#    18  9 \   \q#  \  ݀SeeforexampleHockemav.Hockema,18Or.App.273,524P.2d1238(1974)݌  ЌX Xq#X XXX     ,!  Xb,XXXX XXXb,  ݛ?+ 4 <DL!X?q#XX q#q#    q#q# \ q#    19  9 \   \q#  \  ݀Forexample;ORS109.010;109.030,1988݌  ЌX Xq#X XXX     ,!  Xb,XXXX XXXb,  ݛ?+ 4 <DL!X?q#XX q#q#    q#q# \ q#    20  9 \   \q#  \  ݀Alternatively,wecouldcalculatethesumofwelfarebenefits,includingAFDC,foodstamps,  housingsupport,andsoon,forasingleadultwithnoincomelivingalone.Thetotalis p undoubtedlyestimableeventhoughAFDCisforfamilieswithdependentchildren.݌ 0 ЌX Xq#X XXX     ,!  Xb,XXXX XXXb,  ݛ?+ 4 <DL!X?q#XX q#q#    q#q# \ q#    21  9 \   \q#  \  ݀Seesection: AdjustedLimits݌  ЌX Xq#X XXX     ,!  Xb,XXXX XXXb,  ݛ?+ 4 <DL!X?q#XX q#q#    q#q# \ q#    22  9 \   \q#  \  ݀Notethatthelevelisadjustable.Ayoungfatherlivingwithhisparentswhileattendinghigh  schoolmaynotneedasmuch.Aselfemployedparent,aparentwhoprovideshisowntools,oraparentwhoacquiresthefamilydebtduringdivorcemayneedmore.݌̌X Xq#X XXX   _Toc292226448 dTable_A d  ,!  Xb,XXXX XXXb,  ݛ?+ 4 <DL!X?q#XX q#q#    q#q# \ q#    23  9 \   \q#  \  ݀Seesection: PovertyandWelfare݌  ЌX Xq#X XXX   _Toc292226449  ,!  Xb,XXXX XXXb,  ݛ?+ 4 <DL!X?q#XX q#q#    q#q# \ q#    24  9 \   \q#  \  ݀Seesection: AdjustedLimits.݌  ЌX Xq#X XXX   Table_B , ,!  Xb,XXXX XXXb,  ݛ?+ 4 <DL!X?q#XX q#q#    q#q# \ q#    25  9 \   \q#  \  ݀Additionalfactorsthateffectthelimit,thatareoftenneglectedincurrentguidelines,are  discussedbelowinthesectionentitled AdjustedLimits.݌̌X Xq#X XXX   _Toc292226455  ,!  Xb,XXXX XXXb,  ݛ?+ 4 <DL!X?q#XX q#q#    q#q# \ q#    26  9 \   \q#  \  ݀Williams,(ibid.3)table16,pageII78.݌  ЌX Xq#X XXX    K ,!  Xb,XXXX XXXb,  ݛ?+ 4 <DL!X?q#XX q#q#    q#q# \ q#    27  9 \   \q#  \  ݀ThedistinctionbetweenagecategoriesusedbyWilliamsisnotusedherebecausethevalidity  ofthataspectofhisdesignhasbeenpreviouslyquestionedineconomicsliterature.SeeMarkϢLino,(ibid.9);andRogerF.Gay,AnAlternativeChildSupportGuidelineforStatestoConsider 0 presentedatthe7thAnnualConferenceoftheChildrensRightsCouncil,HolidayInn,Bethesda,MD,April28May2,1993.݌̌X Xq#X XXX     ,!  Xb,XXXX XXXb,  ݛ?+ 4 <DL!X?q#XX q#q#    q#q# \ q#    28  9 \   \q#  \  ݀Seesection: AdjustedLimits݌  ЌX Xq#X XXX   _Toc292226476\  `Times 0 ,!  Xb,XXXX XXXb,  ݛ?+ 4 <DL!X?q#XX q#q#    q#q# \ q#    29  9 \   \q#  \  ݀ErnstEngel,DieLebenskostenbelgischerArbeiterFamilienFrherundjetzt,International  StatisticalInstituteBulletin,no.9:174,1895.݌̌X Xq#X XXX   $(NewCenturySchlbk  ,!  Xb,XXXX XXXb,  ݛ?+ 4 <DL!X?q#XX q#q#    q#q# \ q#    30  9 \   \q#  \  ݀Seesection: UpdatingChildSupportAwards.݌  ЌX Xq#X XXX   _Toc292226481  ,!  Xb,XXXX XXXb,  ݛ?+ 4 <DL!X?q#XX q#q#    q#q# \ q#    31  9 \   \q#  \  ݀Notethat0.245isroundedoff.Theprecisenumberisusedinthecalculation.݌  ЌX Xq#X XXX     ,!  Xb,XXXX XXXb,  ݛ?+ 4 <DL!X?q#XX q#q#    q#q# \ q#    32  9 \   \q#  \  ݀Seesection: SpousalMaintenanceAwards.݌  ЌX Xq#X XXX   _Toc292226482  ,!  Xb,XXXX XXXb,  ݛ?+ 4 <DL!X?q#XX q#q#    q#q# \ q#    33  9 \   \q#  \  ݀Collectionofinsurancebenefitsisanexception.݌  ЌX Xq#X XXX     ,!  Xb,XXXX XXXb,  ݛ?+ 4 <DL!X?q#XX q#q#    q#q# \ q#    34  9 \   \q#  \  ݀Foramoredetailedandcomprehensivediscussion,seeRogerF.Gay,AnAlternativeChild  SupportGuidelineforStatestoConsider,preliminaryreport.presentedatthe7thAnnual t ConferenceoftheChildrensRightsCouncil,approx.30pages݌̌X Xq#X XXX    L ,!  Xb,XXXX XXXb,  ݛ?+ 4 <DL!X?q#XX q#q#    q#q# \ q#    35  9 \   \q#  \  ݀Notethatthisisarephrasingoftheequaldutyprinciple.Itmerelypresentsaratherobvious  logicalproposition.Unfortunately,itisnotyetpartofinpostFamilySupportActcaselaw.݌̌X Xq#X XXX   _Toc292226484  ,!  Xb,XXXX XXXb,  ݛ?+ 4 <DL!X?q#XX q#q#    q#q# \ q#    36  9 \   \q#  \  ݀Althoughitmighteffectacustodialparentsabilitytopayforit.݌  ЌX Xq#X XXX   _Toc292226485  ,!  Xb,XXXX XXXb,  ݛ?+ 4 <DL!X?q#XX q#q#    q#q# \ q#    37  9 \   \q#  \  ݀ibid.3݌  ЌX Xq#X XXX     ,!  Xb,XXXX XXXb,  ݛ?+ 4 <DL!X?q#XX q#q#    q#q# \ q#    38  9 \   \q#  \  ݀ThisapproachwaspreviouslytakenbyJudgeMelson,thearchitectoftheDelawareMelson  formula.݌̌X Xq#X XXX   _Toc292226486_Toc292226490  ,!  Xb,XXXX XXXb,  ݛ?+ 4 <DL!X?q#XX q#q#    q#q# \ q#    39  9 \   \q#  \  ݀Seesectiononevaluationofguidelines.Deviationisalsorequiredinindividualcaseswhenthe  presumptiveresultwouldbeunjustorinappropriate.Inordertodeviate,judgesmustbeabletoidentifyspecificreasonsfordeviation.Therefore,theFamilySupportActcannotbeimplementedwithouttheabilitytoascertainfairnessinindividualcases.݌̌X Xq#X XXX     ,!  Xb,XXXX XXXb,  ݛ?+ 4 <DL!X?q#XX q#q#    q#q# \ q#    40  9 \   \q#  \  ݀LenoreJ.Weitzman,TheDivorceRevolution,UnexpectedConsequencesforWomenand  ChildreninAmerica,TheFreePress,NewYork,1985;andDavidBetson,ErikEvenhouse,and t SiobhanReilly,Tradeoffsimplicitinchildsupportguidelines,JournalofPolicyAnalysisand 8 Management,volumeII,Winter1992,p120.݌̌X Xq#X XXX     ,!  Xb,XXXX XXXb,  ݛ?+ 4 <DL!X?q#XX q#q#    q#q# \ q#    41  9 \   \q#  \  ݀ThisistheassumptionappliedbyWilliams(ibid.3)relyingonestimatesfoundinthefollowing:  ТEspenshade,ThomasJ.,InvestinginChildren,NewEstimatesofParentalExpenditures,TheUrbanInstitutePress,Washington,D.C.,1984.݌̌X Xq#X XXX    \ ,!  Xb,XXXX XXXb,  ݛ?+ 4 <DL!X?q#XX q#q#    q#q# \ q#    42  9 \   \q#  \  ݀ThisisapparentfromdirectanalysisofdataintheConsumerExpenditureSurvey,Bureauof  LaborStatistics(anysurveyforanyyear),andispointedoutindiscussionbyLazearandMichael(citation7).݌̌X Xq#X XXX     ,!  Xb,XXXX XXXb,  ݛ?+ 4 <DL!X?q#XX q#q#    q#q# \ q#    43  9 \   \q#  \  ݀...suchasfood,clothing,shelter,transportation,entertainment,andmedicalexpenses,݌  ЌX Xq#X XXX     ,!  Xb,XXXX XXXb,  ݛ?+ 4 <DL!X?q#XX q#q#    q#q# \ q#    44  9 \   \q#  \  ݀ibid.34,WeitzmanandBetsonusethesameapproachtoestimatingpreandpostdivorce  standardoflivingdifferences.Betsonspaperprovidesashortlist,includingitemssuchasvisitationandtaxconsequencesthatarenotincludedinhisstandardoflivinganalysis.ForacriticalreviewofWeitzmansanalysis,seethefollowing.Abraham,JedH.,1989,TheDivorce D RevolutionRevisited:ACounterRevolutionaryCritique,NorthernIllinoisUniversityLawReview,  Vol.9,No.2,p.47.݌̌X Xq#X XXX     ,!  Xb,XXXX XXXb,  ݛ?+ 4 <DL!X?q#XX q#q#    q#q# \ q#    45  9 \   \q#  \  ݀3.U.S.BureauoftheCensus,ChildSupportandAlimony:19xx,CurrentPopulationReports,  SpecialStudies,SeriesP23.Foundinanyyear.݌̌X Xq#X XXX   _Toc292226491  ,!  Xb,XXXX XXXb,  ݛ?+ 4 <DL!X?q#XX q#q#    q#q# \ q#    46  9 \   \q#  \  ݀P.L.100485,Oct.13,1988,Sec.103,b݌  ЌX Xq#X XXX     ,!  Xb,XXXX XXXb,  ݛ?+ 4 <DL!X?q#XX q#q#    q#q# \ q#    47  9 \   \q#  \  ݀ibid.,Sec.103,a݌  ЌX Xq#X XXX     ,!  Xb,XXXX XXXb,  ݛ?+ 4 <DL!X?q#XX q#q#    q#q# \ q#    48  9 \   \q#  \  ݀ibid.5,Fitzgeraldv.Fitzgerald݌  ЌX Xq#X XXX     ,!  Xb,XXXX XXXb,  ݛ?+ 4 <DL!X?q#XX q#q#    q#q# \ q#    49  9 \   \q#  \  ݀Additionalcommentaryondesignrequirementsforchildsupportguidelinesisgivenbythe  authorofthispaperintheProceedingsoftheSeventhAnnualConferenceoftheChildrensRightsCouncil(Washington,DC,1993)andinseveralreportsavailablefromtheauthor.݌̌X Xq#X XXX   _Toc292226492 D ,!  Xb,XXXX XXXb,  ݛ?+ 4 <DL!X?q#XX q#q#    q#q# \ q#    50  9 \   \q#  \  ݀RogerF.Gay,RationalBasisistheKeyFocusinEmerging'ThirdGeneration'ChildSupport  Technology,SeventhAnnualConferenceoftheChildrensRightsCouncil,HolidayInnBethesda, t 1993andChildSupportGuidelines:ResolvingtheDilemma,ASummaryReportonDesignof 8 FederallyMandatedChildSupportSchedules,IntelligentSystemsResearchCorporation,1990݌ L ЌX Xq#X XXX   _Toc292226493  ,!  Xb,XXXX XXXb,  ݛ?+ 4 <DL!X?q#XX q#q#    q#q# \ q#    51  9 \   \q#  \  ݀IrwinGarfinkel,1979,WelfareReform:ANewandOldView,TheJournalofTheInstitutefor  SocioeconomicStudies,VolumeIV,Number4,Winter,1979;andX Xq#Ԁq#XX RonaldX Xq#Ԁq#XX ԢHaskins,AndrewW. t ТDobelstein,JohnS.Akin,andJ.BradSchwartz,EstimatesofNationalChildSupportCollections ` PotentialandtheIncomeSecurityofFemaleHeadedFamilies,FinalReport,OfficeofChild $t SupportEnforcement,April1,1985.݌̌X Xq#X XXX    F ,!  Xb,XXXX XXXb,  ݛ?+ 4 <DL!X?q#XX q#q#    q#q# \ q#    52  9 \   \q#  \  ݀YoramWeissandRobertWillis,Transfersamongdivorcedcouples:evidenceand  interpretation,JournalofLaborEconomics,volumeII,October1993,p62979.݌ t ЌX Xq#X XXX     ,!  Xb,XXXX XXXb,  ݛ?+ 4 <DL!X?q#XX q#q#    q#q# \ q#    53  9 \   \q#  \  ݀DataandanalysisispublishedinWrittenstatementofRogerF.Gayonthesubjectofthe  ChangesinthePovertyRateandDistributionofIncome,submittedfortherecordtothe t SubcommitteeonHumanResources,CommitteeonWaysandMeans,U.S.HouseofRepresentatives,September10,1992.݌̌X Xq#X XXX    " ,!  Xb,XXXX XXXb,  ݛ?+ 4 <DL!X?q#XX q#q#    q#q# \ q#    54  9 \   \q#  \  ݀Thisapproachisstillverypopularamongadvocatesforacrosstheboardincreasesinawards.  Forexamples,seeChildSupportEnforcement,HearingbeforetheSubcommitteeonHuman p ResourcesoftheCommitteeonWaysandMeans,OneHundredThirdCongress,June10,1993;testimonyfromCenterforLawandSocialPolicy,U.S.CommissiononInterstateChildSupport,ChildrensDefenseFund,NationalWomensLawCenter,UnitedStatesCatholicConference,WomensLegalDefenseFund,AssociationforChildrenforEnforcementofSupport,Inc.(ACES),U.S.DepartmentofHealthandHumanServicesOfficeofPlanningandEvaluation.݌̌X Xq#X XXX   _Toc292226494  ,!  Xb,XXXX XXXb,  ݛ?+ 4 <DL!X?q#XX q#q#    q#q# \ q#    55  9 \   \q#  \  ݀LenoreJ.Weitzman,TheDivorceRevolution,UnexpectedConsequencesforWomenand  ChildreninAmerica,TheFreePress,NewYork,1985;andDavidBetson,ErikEvenhouse,and t SiobhanReilly,Tradeoffsimplicitinchildsupportguidelines,JournalofPolicyAnalysisand 8 Management,volumeII,Winter1992,p120.݌̌X Xq#X XXX   _Toc292226495_Toc292226496  ,!  Xb,XXXX XXXb,  ݛ?+ 4 <DL!X?q#XX q#q#    q#q# \ q#    56  9 \   \q#  \  ݀Oregonstatute,1989ORS107.105݌  ЌX Xq#X XXX     ,!  Xb,XXXX XXXb,  ݛ?+ 4 <DL!X?q#XX q#q#    q#q# \ q#    57  9 \   \q#  \  ݀ibid.3݌  ЌX Xq#X XXX     ,!  Xb,XXXX XXXb,  ݛ?+ 4 <DL!X?q#XX q#q#    q#q# \ q#    58  9 \   \q#  \  ݀FormulaforaccountingforvisitationeffectscanbefoundinanarticlebyMauriceR.Franks,  HowtoCalculateChildSupport,Case&Comment,JanuaryFebruary,1981.Thepartial p exemptioncanbehandledinthewayFrankshandlesnontimedivisibleexpenses.Seethesectioninhispaperentitled; HowtoHandletheExtraordinaryexpense.݌̌X Xq#X XXX   _Toc292226499  ,!  Xb,XXXX XXXb,  ݛ?+ 4 <DL!X?q#XX q#q#    q#q# \ q#    59  9 \   \q#  \  ݀ibid.,PilotStudyontheDevelopmentandEvaluationofStateGuidelinesforCalculationof  ChildSupportPayments݌ t ЌX Xq#X XXX   _Toc292226500(2 |$ ,!  XXXXXkXXX    0  #|xv(f,$  XXXXXkXXXx9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX$35;AGMU]e1I.A.1.a)(1)(a)(i)(a) Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5($A<< c   # e37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a) mVnEoVp{qVr[sEtVuUv"ect Text (6.$U'dxd&p d Pd'dxd&p Pd d'dxd3+0 d d d3+0 d d dE'dxdEEEEE'dxd'dxd d ,!  Xb,XXXX XXXb,  ݛ      July20,1994$u݌  Ќ  u  I    XX  NewEquationsforId݌  Ќ      CalculatingChildSupportandSpousalMaintenance݌̌      WithDiscussiononChildSupportGuidelines݌  Ќ    1  q# RogerGay1L݌   Ќ      IndependentResearchConsultantX Xq#݌ x  Ќ   P8  @     6@  Abstract݌  P Ќ  6 @ ( x  X  X  Childsupportformulaeusedinallstatesprovidearigidmathematical  @  approachforcalculatingawards.But,dotheseformulaeprovideahiddenmarginofspousalmaintenance?Anewequationfordistinguishingbetweenchildsupportandspousalmaintenanceispresentedinthispaper.Analysisshowsthattherearenaturallimitstotheeffectivenessofchildsupporttransferpaymentsforimprovingtheeconomicwellbeingofchildren.Thisisanimportantbreakthroughforthosewhodesignandevaluatechildsupportguidelines,forattorneysengagedinfamilylaw,andindiscussionofchildsupportaspartofwelfarereform.Adjustmenttothetheoreticalupperlimittoaccountforindividualcircumstancesandatheoreticallowerlimitarealsodiscussed.Applicationoftheequaldutyprincipleleadstotheconclusionthattheadjustedupperlimitistheawardlevelthatisjustandappropriate.Higherorlowerawardsresultindisproportionatesharingofthefinancialcostofraisingchildren.Additionalequationsaregivenforcalculatingchildsupportandspousalmaintenancetoreachastandardoflivingtargetforanentirehousehold.X݌̌  X   @      6@TableofContents ݌  Ќ  6  !X   m   v&1%XX vIntroduction!!G!. 2 m ݌  Ќ X!    !X   n   AbilitytoPayversesIncome!!G!.hh*7 n ݌  Ќ X!    !X   ^   ConceptualApproach:IterativeSolution!!G!.39 ^ ݌ d Ќ X!    !X   Q  SimplifyingtheMathematics:TheExactEquation,!,!F!.;10 Q݌ <  Ќ X!    !X   M  DifferentiatingChildSupportandSpousalMaintenance,!,!F!.A12 M݌ !d Ќ X!    !X   Q  AdjustingforChangesin ChildsPart,!,!F!.113 Q݌ !< Ќ X!    !X   Q  PovertyandWelfare,!,!F!.| | 14 Q݌ " Ќ X!    !X   1  AdjustedLimits,!,!F!. 15 1j݌ # Ќ X!    !X      MinimumChildSupport,!,!F!.X X !17  F݌ x$  Ќ X!    !X     AccountingforFixedExpenses,!,!F!.)17 (݌ P% ! Ќ X!    !X     UpdatingChildSupportAwards,!,!F!.)18 ݌ (&x!" Ќ X!    !X     Awardsthatare JustandAppropriate,!,!F!.PP219 ݌ 'P"# Ќ X!    !X     EvaluatingChildSupportGuidelines,!,!F!.xx/21 ݌ '(#$ Ќ X!    !X     SimplifyingChildSupportGuidelines,!,!F!.022 ݌ ($% Ќ X!    !X     PromotingInvestmentinChildren,!,!F!.,22 ݌ )$& Ќ X!    !X     GenderrelatedInequality,!,!F!.%24 ݌ `*%' Ќ X!    !X   p  ݢSpousalMaintenanceAwards,!,!F!.pp&24 p݌ 8+&( Ќ X!    !X   Y  Discussion,!,!F!.X X 27 Y݌ ,`') Ќ X!    !X   0  Conclusion,!,!F!.p p 28 0i݌ ,8(* Ќ X!    !X     Acknowledgments,!,!F!. 29v#X X1%& #v 6 @݌  -)+  $  $% $  ь X!  6x @    3  6@% ( Introduction%(=  Ԍ x Ќ  6h X    Althoughtheprohibitionagainstspousalmaintenanceinachildsupport h awardiswellestablished,methodsfordistinguishingbetweenthetwoarenot.PriortotheFamilySupportActof1988,allstatesawardedchildsupportinordertoassistacustodialparentinprovidingforthecostofraisingchildrenwhileinherorhiscare.CaselawemergeddevelopingexplicitprohibitionagainstϢspousalmaintenanceaspartofachildsupportaward.InOregon,forexample,theSupremeCourtwrotethat themoneyisforthesupportandwelfareofthechildren,notfortheenrichmentofthecustodialparent.q#XX  \ q#  " Xb,X , \X Xh Xb,  Ѣ* )  1      ףChildsupportguideline  ,  advisorycommitteeshavealsorecognizedtheprohibitionagainsttheinclusionofspousalmaintenanceonothergrounds.Inits1986reporttothelegislature,theWashingtonStateChildSupportGuidelinecommitteeacknowledgedthatusingchildsupporttoequalizeincomebetweenhouseholdswasillegal,becauseϢspousalmaintenancecouldbeawardedseparatelywhenappropriate. ݌̌ X  ,|d X  %  Childsupportguidelinedevelopershavehadnoobjectivetechniqueforplacingupperlimitsonawardstandards.Ithasrecentlybecomefashionabletoassumethathigherchildsupportawardswouldresultinmorespendingonchildren,andthereforeanyamountwouldqualify.Accordingtoinitialestimates,usingnewchildsupportawardformulawouldincreasechildsupportawardsnationwideby250350percent.q#XX  \ q#  ' Xb,X , \X Xh Xb,  ݢ+< )  2      ףLegalcommentatorshavecriticizedthe more  isbetterphilosophy,q#XX  \ q#  ) Xb,X , \X Xh Xb,  ,  )  3      ׀andithascausedmuchfrustrationamongpayers.But,  neitherproponentsnoropponentshavehadascientificmethodofshowinghowmuchofacalculatedawardislegallydefinableaschildsupport.q#XX  \ q#  * Xb,X , \X Xh Xb,  -  )  4      %%݌  Ќ X  x X  N,  Anotherruleoftraditionalchildsupportlawisthattoapracticalextent,childrenshouldbeshieldedfromthereductioninstandardoflivingthatusuallyaccompaniesdivorce.q#XX  \ q#  ^-  Xb,X , \X Xh Xb,  ݢ. )  5      ףThetheorypresentedinthispaperisbasedonthefact P thatpaymentofchildsupportaddsincometothecustodialparenthousehold.Therefore,custodialparentsreceivingchildsupportwillpotentiallyspendasignificantlyhigheramountonchildrenthanthemarginalratetheywouldspendontheirown.Thereisanaturallimittothiseffect,whichisfoundbycalculatingthemaximumstandardoflivingincreasethatcanbeobtainedfromchildsupportpaymentsalone.Therefore,thetheorypresentedinthispaperwillsometimesbereferredtoasthelimittheoryofchildsupport.Inthesectionentitled; Adjusted    Limits,variationsbasedontheresultingmodelarediscussed.Thecalculationfortheamountofspousalmaintenancecontainedinachildsupportawardthatisabovethelimitisexplainedinthesectionentitled; DifferentiatingChildSupportandSpousalMaintenance.N,,݌̌ X  (x`  X  a2  Theinitialquestionthatledtothemodelpresentedinthispaperwas;Howmuchspousalmaintenanceiscontainedinchildsupportawardsdeterminedbycurrentchildsupportmodels.Toanswerthatquestionrequiredthedevelopmentofamathematicaldefinitionforchildsupportandalimonybasedontraditionaldoctrine.Itisnecessarytousetraditionaldoctrineforbasicdefinitionsbecausestatelegislatureshavenotprovidednewdefinitionsfor childsupportand spousalmaintenancetocorrespondwithapplicationofthecurrentgenerationofchildsupportguidelines.Rigidapplicationofguidelineshasreplacedfundamentaldefinitions,leavingjudgesandlitigantswithoutguidingprinciplestodeterminewhethercalculatedamountsarejustandappropriate.a22݌̌ X  (x` X  6  Ananalyticpreoccupationintheguidelinedebatehasbeenwhethertousesingleparentorintactfamilydataasabasisfordeterminingthe costofchildren.Theissueisofseriousconcern.Estimatesofbothrangewidelyandthereisnorealscientificorpoliticalconsensus.Theauthorofthefirstmajorreportondevelopmentofchildsupportguidelinestobepublishedincompliance withtheChildSupportEnforcementAmendmentsof1984chosethehighest ! estimatesofintactfamilyspendingavailableatthetime.q#XX  \ q#  8  Xb,X , \X Xh Xb,  / )  6      ׀Thatchoicehadan   enormousimpactonthecurrentgenerationofchildsupportguidelines.6B6݌̌ X  P X  L:  ThegreatmajorityofguidelinescurrentlyinusehaveappliedtheIncomeSharesorPercentageofIncomeformulae.Bothapproachesrelyheavilyoneconomic costofraisingchildrenstudiesasthefundamentalbasisandjustificationfortheirdesign.Yetitistheweakestpointinourcollectiveknowledgeofthechildsupportissue.Areportonanearly1980sproposalfortheWashingtonStatechildsupportguidelines,writtenfortheWashingtonStateJudgesAssociationsaidthefollowing.q#XX  \ q#  < Xb,X , \X Xh Xb,  ݢ0 )  7      ףL::݌  ( Ќ X  X ,   X  >    ...asimplemethodologywhichexplicitlyrelieson"useropinion"   willbemoreeffectiveinmovingpracticesmoreuniformlytowardafairstandardthandoesrelianceonopaqueandhighlyderivativeexpertinterpretationsofexistingbutfundamentallyofftargetprimaryeconomicdata.>V>݌ <  Ќ X  X ,@(x X  @    Thetechniquesusedtoderivethe costofraisingchildrenunderlyingmostchildsupportguidelinestodayarenotnew.Complaintshaveappearedregularly.UniversityofChicagoeconomists,EdwardLazearandRobertMichaelhavearguedthatthetaskofpredictingconsumptionbyindividualmembersofhouseholdsisextremelydifficultduetowidevariationinspendingbehavior.Theyalsohadthistosayabouttheunderlyingmethodologyofmany costofraisingchildrenstudiesandtheirapplicationinpublicpolicy.q#XX  \ q#  B Xb,X , \X Xh Xb,  ݢ1 )  8      ף@[@݌ x Ќ X  X ,,|d X  D    ...thepresumptionthatunderliesthefocusofmuchofthe ,| empiricalresearchandpolicydebateonincomedistributionseemsbornofignoranceandissupportedbyneithertheorynorfact.Thissituation canbeimproved.DRD݌ @ Ќ X  X ,x X  E    Thefractionofhouseholdexpenditurethatisactuallyusedtosupport childrenisahotlydebatedtopic.Estimatesofspendingonchildreninintactfamiliesrangefromunder10toover30percentforonechild.q#XX  \ q#  F Xb,X , \X Xh Xb,  ݢ2 )  9      ףLessworkhas P beendoneonestimatesofspendingonchildrenbysingleparents.q#XX  \ q#  LHq Xb,X , \X Xh Xb,  ݢ3 )  10      ףAssuming < researchonspendinginsingleparenthomesimproves,futurenumericestimatesandtechniquescanbeusedtorefinethenumerictablesusedinstandardchildsupportcalculationsandinbetteringourunderstandingofwhatindividualparentsactuallyspendontheirchildren.EE݌̌ X    ( X  J  Thedistinctionbetweenchildsupportandspousalmaintenanceisoneoftheimportantquestionsofconcerninthispaper.Itisnaturallyofinteresttodifferentiatebetweenincomeusedtosupportchildrenandotherhouseholdincomeduringthetimethatchildsupportisbeingpaid.Therefore,itisnecessarytoconsidercustodialparentspostdivorcespendingonchildren.Onlyminorattentionwillbepaidtointactfamilyspendinginthispaper,whentheeconomicsofremarriageisconsidered.JK݌̌ X  ,d X  MM  Somecommentatorshavethoughtitimportanttodistinguishbetweenthe costofraisingchildrenandwhatis spentonchildren.Economistsandothersmightfindthisaninterestingstartingpointfordefiningchildsupportsincethereisabasicdistinctionbetweenthemeaningofthetwoterms.Itshouldbeclearhowever,thatthecommondistinctionisnotapplicableinchildsupportdecisions.Parentsareboththeproducersandconsumers.Whattheyspendontheirchildrenisequaltotheircost.Toapplytheacademicdefinitionsof costand spendingwouldrequirethatoneparentbedesignatedforeachroleandaddingaprofitmargin.Thiswouldviolatetheequaldutyprinciple.MMM݌̌ X  @(x X  P  Whatlegalexpertshavemeant,canbeeasilyexplainedbyexample.Ifacustodialparentspends$80fortennisshoes,thenoncustodialparentmaycomplainthattennisshoescanbepurchasedfor$25.Thelowestpriceiswhat  hasbeenreferredtoasthe costoftennisshoes.Ifweconsiderthetotalcostofraisingchildreninsteadofjusttennisshoes,wecansaythatpartofthejudgesjobwastoanswerthequestionswhetherthecostistooloworwhatisactuallyspentistoohigh.Whilethenoncustodialparentmightbequotingpricesofgoodsthatarecheaperthanthosethefamilywouldnormallypurchase,thecustodialparentmightmaketemporaryadjustmentstoherspendinghabitsinanefforttoobtainahigheraward.Theproblemofdiscoveringwhatis reasonablegaverisetotheuseofstandardtablestoavoidthecomplexityofworkingthisquestionout,itembyitem,casebycase.Judgeswantedtoknowwhat normalis.PP݌̌ X   8  X  U  Butthequestionofcostdoesnotencompasstheentirequestionofchildsupport.Althoughitmayseemreasonabletodividethecostbetweenthetwoparents,newquestionsarisefromtheexistanceoftwohouseholdssupportingthechildrenofseparatedparents.Howmuchofthesecondparentsincomeisuseddirectlyinthesupportoftheirchildren?Andthereisthetrickyquestionofprovidingastandardoflivingcommensuratewiththeparentsincome.Therearespecialcircumstancesinwhichexpensessuchasmedicalbillsortransportationinvolvedinvisitationaremuchhigherthannormal.Someparentsareremarried,somearenot.Inotherwords,whenever normalisdefined,thefirstconsequentistodiscoverthatmanyfamiliesdonotfitthedefinition.Itisprobablytruethatmostcasesrequireapplicationoffundamentalprinciplesanddeviationsfrom 8  normalchildsupportmodelstodetermineanawardthatisjustandappropriate.UOU݌̌ X   X  Y  RobertW.Braid,anaccounting,financeandeconomicsprofessor,performedadetailedcostanalysisinhisowncaseinNewJersey.q#XX  \ q#  fZ Xb,X , \X Xh Xb,  4 )  11      ׀Basedona t comprehensivecostandcashflowanalysis,hecalculatedthatheshouldpayapproximately$180permonthtothemotherinadditiontosharingthedirectcostsofeducationforonechildincollege.BasedontheestablishedNewJerseyformula,hewasorderedtopay$903permonth,plushalfhisdaughterscollegeexpenses.Mr.Braidfoundthatthejudgesdecisionimpliedthatit mustcost$21,672ayearinaftertaxmoneytosupportonechildathomefulltime(excludinganymedicalexpenseandanymoneythefatherspendsonvacations,entertainmentandhobbieswiththeboy),andonechildspendingabout25%ofhertimeathomeandtherestincollege.YY݌̌ X  t% $ X  k^  Stateshavedisplacedtheirtraditionalchildsupportdefinitionswithreferencestotheapplicationofchildsupportformulae.Mr.Braidfoundnolegaldefinitionforchildsupport,andthereforehadtorelyonhisowneducatedview. L'"# Hisdefinitionhadnolegalstanding.Therefore,hewasunabletoadvanceanyargumentthatwouldimpactthejudgesdecisiontousetheestablishedformulawithoutdeviation.InWashington,thelegalpurposeofmakingachildsupportawardistoincreasetheamountawarded.q#XX  \ q#  ` Xb,X , \X Xh Xb,  ݢ5 )  12      ףNostatehasbeenabletoshow t correspondencebetweenaclearanddetailedbasicdefinitionof childsupportandtheformulatheyusetomakeanaward.q#XX  \ q#  b Xb,X , \X Xh Xb,  6 )  13      k^^݌ L  Ќ X   P8  X  c  Inthispaper,twomathematicalapproachesareusedtoderiveanequationforthelimitbetweenchildsupportandspousalmaintenance. To  < promoteunderstandingamongthewidestpossibleaudience,examplesareq#XX ԀX Xq#often  0 usedeitherinsteadoforalongwithabstract mathematics.Adjustmentsfor    individualcircumstancesarealsodiscussed.q#XX  X Xq# Oncetheequationsfortheupper   limithavebeenderived,theycanbeusedtoinvestigatetheeffectofawardsthatarebelowthislimit.Inthesectionentitled AwardsthatareJustandAppropriateitisshownthatawardsthatarehigherorlowerthantheadjustedupperlimitviolatetheequaldutyprinciple.q#XX  \ q#  g Xb,X , \X Xh Xb,  7 )  14      ׀Therefore,the adjustedupperlimit p  isseenastheawardlevelthatisjustandappropriate.q#XX  \ q#  [i Xb,X , \X Xh Xb,  q#XX  8  )  15      c=d݌ \ Ќ X  `H X  j  X Xq#Thefirstisaniterativeapproachinwhicheachiterationresultsinahigher ` standardoflivinginthecustodialparenthousehold.Eachtimethestandardoflivingisincreased,theresultingincreaseinthecustodialparentsspendingonchildrenmustagainbecompensatedbyahigherchildsupportaward.Theiterativesolutionismathematicallycumbersome,butisdevelopedinawaythatiseasytounderstand.Theexactequationismuchlesscumbersometoapply.Theterm exactequationistypicallyusedinmathematicsonlywhenthereisanalternativeiterativeapproach.The exactequationisbasedonthesametheory asitsiterativeequivalentandprovidesthesameanswer.Performingthe p 3     calculationwithoutiteratingmakestheprocessofderivingactuallimitsonchildsupportmuchsimpler.jk݌ X  P X  Bo  Consideringthequalityof childcostestimates,thoseofintactandsingleparentspendingareessentiallyonequalfooting.Theuniversalproblemofhavingnocommonsolutiontothe costquestionshouldnotcausehesitationtoapplythelimittheorypresentedinthispaper.Thedetailedquestionsthatleadtonumbersshouldbecomefocusedoncustomizingthedesignofanestimatingtechniquespecificallyinthecontextofthechildsupportquestion.Infact,adetailedunderstandingoftheultimatequestionisnecessaryinordertodeterminethemostappropriatecostestimatingtechnique.Inadditiontoitsotherapplications,thelimittheoryofferscontextualinformationusefulfordefiningthe costquestionindetail.Ultimately,thequestionwearetryingtoanswerisnot;What,onaverage,dochildrengenerally cost?Theultimatequestionis;Howmuchshouldeachchildsupportawardbe?Boo݌̌ X  (x`  @    {s  % 9 AbilitytoPayversesIncome%9s{ss sԌ (x Ќ  @!qY X  t  Theequationsforfindingthelimitbetweenchildandspousalsupportwill !q beexplainedbyexampleinthefollowingtwosections.First,wemustdecidehowchildsupport(onceitismathematicallydefined)shouldbedividedbetweentheparents.Althoughtheformofthelimitequationwillnotbeeffectedbythisdecision,itwilleffectthenumbersthatareusedinexamples.Themostpopularmethodistodividethetotalobligationinproportiontotheparentsrespectiveincomes.ThatisthebasisoftheIncomeSharesmodel.Amorecompletemodelofeachparentsrelativeabilitytopaywillbeexplainedandcomparisonsbetweenthetwomodelswillbemadethroughoutthepaper.Annualincomewillbeusedtocalculatetheannuallimitonchildsupportforasimplecase.tt݌̌ X  !qY X  Dx  Anevermarriedcouplelivingaparthasonechild.Thechildhaslivedcontinuouslywiththemother,andforthesakeofsimplicity,novisitationhaseverbeenexercisedandnovisitationwillbeawarded.Thechildisoneyearold,andthefatherhaspaidnochildsupport.Themotherspersonalincomehasbeentheonlysourceoffinancialsupportforoneyear.Themothersnet(aftertax)incomeis$18,000peryearandthefathersis$25,000peryear.Theamountthemotherspendsonthechildisderivedfrominformationinhersupportaffidavitas$3,600peryear,whichis20percentofherincome.Thefigurehasbeenexaminedandacceptedbybothpartiesandthejudge.Forcomparison,theIncomeSharesmethodisfirstusedtocalculateeachparentsshare.Dxx݌̌ X   E)$$    Ӏ25,000  Father'sShare=----------------------=0.58̀25,000+18,000{  Ӏ18,000Mother'sShare=----------------------=0.42̀25,000+18,000  h  $ t\  X   }    UsingtheIncomeSharesmethodforallocatingchildsupportbetweentheseparents,thefathersshareis0.58times$3,600,or$2,088.00peryear. }^}݌̌ X   L  X  R~  Itshouldnotbedisregarded,thatthephrase abilitytopayappearsintraditionalstatuesconcernedwithdividingthechildsupportobligationbetweenparents.#q#XX 8k#q#q# \ q#  { \  , \q# , \  X Xq#: )  16      ׀Thosestatutesandtheiraccompanyingcaselawhaveamuchricher   intellectualandpracticalhistorythandothehighlyefficientstatisticaltechniquesthathavereplacedthem.Amorecompletemodelof abilitytopaywouldbebetter.R~~݌̌ X  dL X    Severalanalystshavecomputedrelativeabilitytopaybysubtractingaselfsupportreservefromeachparentsincome.q#XX  \ q#   Xb,X , \X Xh Xb,  ݢ;< )  17      ףTherehasbeenatraditional P prohibitionagainstforcingaparentbelowtheselfsufficiencylevel. ...theburdenontheonepayingsupportshouldnotbesoheavyastoprecludetheabilitytosupportoneselfandone'sotherdependents.q#XX  \ q#   Xb,X , \X Xh Xb,  ݢ<  )  18      ףAslongasthedutyof  bothparentstoprovidefortheirchildrenisequal,thesamemustbetrueofthe recipient.q#XX  \ q#   Xb,X , \X Xh Xb,  ݢ=,  )  19      ף&݌  Ќ X  x X    Thisbeingonlyanexample,areasonableapproximationofthepovertylevelforoneadultof$8,000peryearwillbeusedastheselfsupportreserve.q#XX  \ q#  ڈ Xb,X , \X Xh Xb,  > )  20       d  Otherexpensescaneffectabilitytopay,buttheyareleftoutofthisexampleforsimplicity.q#XX  \ q#  l Xb,X , \X Xh Xb,  ? )  21      %݌ < Ќ X    ?+ 4 <DL!X?C $#C 򀀀17,000  d Father'sRAP=-----------------------=0.63̀17,000+10,000    Ӏ17,000Mother'sRAP=-----------------------=0.63̀17,000+10,000    ܌   X  r  Thefatherscontributiontothemothershouldbeeither58percentor63percentofthecostofraisingtheirchild,dependingonwhethertheselfsupportruleisapplied.Simplyenough,choosingthegreaternumberwouldappearconsistentwiththequestforanupperlimitonchildsupport.Thechoicehasactuallybeenmadebasedonthecommonnecessityforaselfsupportreserve.q#XX  \ q#  Q Xb,X , \X Xh Xb,  @h )  22       8 Otheradjustmentsto abilitytopaywillbediscussedthroughoutthepaper.Forthesakeofcomparison,computationsusingrelativeincomewillalsobemade.r݌̌ X  L @    S  6@% A ConceptualApproach:IterativeSolution%A֑S Ԍ  Ќ  6< X  z  Whentheselfsupportruleisappliedtobothparentsequally,thefathers  shareis0.63times$3,600,whichis$2,268.00peryear.Butpaymentofthatamountaddstothemotherstotalincome.Assumingthefractionofthemothersincomespentonthechilddoesnotdecreaseinthisrange,theadditionof$2,268.00tothemothersincomeshouldresultinanincreaseintheamountshespendsonthechildof0.20timesherincreaseinincome,or$453.60.Thefathersadditionalshareis0.63ofthemothersadditionalspending,whichis$285.77.Thegoalistocomputethefathersshareofwhatthemotherwillspend (!x onthechildoncethemaximumstandardoflivingincreasesupportablebychildsupportaloneisreached.Thefollowingtableprovidestheresultsforseveniterations,thelastofwhichincreasesthefatherssharebylessthanonecent.Theeffectofawardingchildsupportabovetheamountcalculatedbythismethodwillbediscussedinlatersections.z݌̌ X   4 *wCD ddd Xdd Xdd X!!w, jZ,jj+  1EE" $ t 810.63x0.20x$18,000.00 4EEE!\ EE 4Ѐ$2,268.00 CEE4\   8 EEE 8C0.63x0.20x2,268.00 4EEE!  EE 4Ѐ285.77 CEE4   8 EEE 8C0.63x0.20x285.77 4EEE!  EE 4Ѐ36.01 CEE4   8 EEE 8C0.63x0.20x36.01 4EEE! EE 4Ѐ4.54 CEE4  8 EEE 8C0.63x0.20x4.54 4EEE!< EE 4Ѐ0.57 CEE4<  8 EEE 8C0.63x0.20x0.57 4EEE!` EE 4Ѐ0.07 CEE4`  8 EEE 8C0.63x0.20x0.07 4EEE!4 EE 4Ѐ0.0091 EEEE44  8 EEE 8ESumTotal =EEEE*X3EEE =Ѐ$2,594.97," X 8  EEEE ,X@ X     Usingsymbolicterms,wecansummarizetheiterativeapproach.The*symbolrepresentsthemultiplicationoperation(times). H݌̌ X      ?+ 4 <DL!X?C $$C S XSFather's=DadsPart*ChildsPart*SUM{fromi=1ton}(A(ati-1))  ТA0=MotherAi=DadsPart*ChildsPart*A(ati-1)Motherismother'spersonalnetincome̢DadsPartisthefather'srelativeabilitytopay̢ChildsPartisthefractionofincomespentonthechildFather'sisthechildsupportaward  p"  SX˞ S?+ 4 <DL!X?! d  4 Thenewmethodresultsfromarationalapproachtothechildsupportawardquestion.Thestandardoflivingincreaseinthecustodialparenthouseholdthatissolelyobtainablefromchildsupporthasbeencalculatedbasedonwhatisknownofthecustodialparentsspendingbehavior.Therefore,achildsupportawardequaltotheamountcalculatedwillbebasedonareasonablyaccurateestimateofwhatthecustodialparentwillactuallyspendonchildrenwhenchildsupportisreceived.(#'5# X    Thequestionwilllaterarisewhetherbasingchildsupportonthecustodial parentsabilitytopaywillincreasedependencyonpublicfunds.Infact,thenew )$, formulaisverydirectindealingwiththat.q#XX  \ q#  3x Xb,X , \X Xh Xb,  F )  23      ׀Inthenewformula,potentialwelfare   benefitscanbeincludedinthecustodialparentsincomewhenestimatingspending.Inthatcase,thecalculationyieldsasmuchoffsettogovernmentpaymentsasthepayercanafford.Acustodialparentsinabilitytoprovidebasicsupportonherowndoesnothavetheeffectoflimitingtheoffsettopublicassistanceentitlements.݌̌ X   P8  X  ަ  ItisapparentwhyearlyversionsoftheIncomeSharesmethodmayhavefailedtoproduceadequatechildsupportawardsforlowincomemothers.Thelimitonchildsupportinthisexample,usingamorecompletedefinitionfor abilitytopayandincludingthestandardoflivingincreaseresultingfromchildsupportpayments,resultsinanawardlimitthatissignificantlyhigherthananawardcalculatedbythetraditionalapproach.ަ݌̌ X  P   X  &  Amotherwithalowerincomewouldbenefitbyalargeramountfromapplicationoftheselfsupportreserve.Ifthemothersincomeinthisexamplewasatorbelowtheadultpovertylevel,hersharewouldbe0percent.UsingtheIncomeSharesmethod,amotherwithanincomeatthepovertylevelforoneadult(using$8,000)wouldbeassignedashareof24percent.(Thefathersnetincomeinthisexampleis$25.000.)Themoneyshewouldprovideforchildsupportwouldeitherforceherbelowthepovertylevelorwouldbemadeupfrompublicfunds.&d݌̌ X  x @      6@% G SimplifyingtheMathematics:TheExactEquation%Ge4 Ԍ x Ќ  6h X    Thetotalnetincomeofthenoncustodialparent(beforethechildsupport h transferpayment)willberepresentedbythesymbol.Thetotalnetincomeofthecustodialparent(beforethechildsupporttransferpayment)willberepresentedbythesymbol.Theparentsareexpectedtospendafractionoftheiravailableincomeontheirchildren.O݌̌ X    T X     Relativeabilitytopayiscalculatedbysubtractingaselfsupportreserve()fromincome.Notehowever,thatotheritemsofexpenditurecanbeincludedinthisdefinition.q#XX  \ q#  3x Xb,X , \X Xh Xb,  H< )  24      ׀Thefractionofchildsupportthatshouldbecontributedbythe " noncustodialparent()iscalculatedbythefollowingequation. K݌̌ X    ?+ 4 <DL!X?C $$C@&!h% (h% @&!l  h%  l񀀀 Father-Reserve  ТDadsPart=------------------------------------------------------------̀(Father-Reserve)+(Mother-Reserve)   T X      Thesymbolwillbeusedtorepresenttheamountthenoncustodialparentshouldcontributetochildsupport.Inthissimpleexample,thatamountisequaltothechildsupportpayment.Thequestiontobeansweredis;Howmuchshouldbe?ܳ݌̌ X    T X  (  Afterispaid,themotherwillhave()inincome.Ofthis,shewillspendafractionofthisincome()ontheirchildren.(f݌̌ X    ?+ 4 <DL!X?C $$C!     Mother's=ChildsPart*(Mother+Father's)    L   X  3    Thechildsupportpaymentshouldbeofwhatisactuallyspentontheirchildren.3q݌̌ X    ?+ 4 <DL!X?C $$C!1``1 Father's=DadsPart*ChildsPart*(Mother+Father's)  ` T X  -    Inordertomaketheequationuseful,mustberemovedfromtherighthandside.Thiscanbeaccomplishedeasilybythefollowingtwoalgebraicsteps.-k݌̌ X    ?+ 4 <DL!X?C $$C! Father's*(1-(DadsPart*ChildsPart))=DadsPart*ChildsPart*Mother !    Ӏ*fIJ d d jZjjCD!!f,Vjj+  5EEE" p 85 TheExactEquation  PEEEE=%" 8 EEE 8P 򀀀DadsPart*ChildsPart*Mother $ Father's=-----------------------------------------------̀1-(DadsPart*ChildsPart) ?+ 4 <DL!X? Xb,XXX    C $$C#X XX Xb,۽#!!!Ԁ(( ( 5+)" 8  EEEE 5  X    Puttingnumbersfromthefirstexampleintotheexactequationyieldsthesameanswerastheiterativemethod.>݌̌ X    Ӏ 0.63*0.20*$18,000 L# Father's=--------------------------------=$2,594.97̀1-(0.63*0.20)  4%  &@"(&x! X      Ӝo݌  &@"  Ќ X  ݛop 4 pItisinterestingtonotewhathappensifweusetheIncomeSharesdefinitionfor.  nm  )%# mn0.58*0.20*$18,000 t Father's=--------------------------------=$2,361.991-(0.58*0.20)  \   hP  X      Asdiscussedabove,alowerincomemotherwouldbenefitevenmorefromuseofamorecompletemodelof abilitytopay.WhatmayseemcontradictoryisthatcurrentIncomeSharesguidelinesoftenproduceresultsthatareabovethelimit.Theupperlimitbetweenchildsupportandspousalmaintenancehasbeendefinedbythetotalamountactuallyspentonchildren.Currentguidelinesuse economicestimatesindicatingwhatdeveloperswouldliketoseespent.Arbitrarilyhighestimatesofspendingarenotrequiredtoproduceguidelinesthat improvetheadequacyofchildsupportawards.Inappropriateawardsresultfromincreasingthe costfactorarbitrarily.Amuchbetterapproachistoimprovetherelationshipbetweenthecalculationandthereallifecircumstancesofthefamily.q#XX  \ q#   ics Xb,X , \X Xh Xb,  K )  25      ݌ P Ќ X  T< @    {  6@% L DifferentiatingChildSupportandSpousalMaintenance%L{ Ԍ T Ќ  6D,| X    Inordertoidentifythespousalmaintenancecomponentinachildsupport D awardcalculation,itisnecessarytocalculatethelimitandcompareittotheresultoftheawardcalculation.Anythinghigherthanthelimitcontainsanapriori  hiddenspousalmaintenanceaward.Intheexampleabove,themotherspends20percentofherincomeononechild.Thepurelyadultcomponentoftheoverpaymentwouldbe80percentofanyamountthatexceedsthelimit.Themothershouldbecontributing37percentofthecostofraisingtheirchild.Therefore,theamountofspousalmaintenancecontainedinanyoverpaymentistheadultcomponentplus37percentofthechildsportionoftheoverpayment.݌̌ X    (Adult_Percent+(MomsPart*ChildsPart))*(Award-Father's)  ,!| "8 "p X      Inordertopresentanexamplecalculation,amodernIncomeSharesapproachdevelopedbyRobertWilliamswillbeusedtocalculateanaward.q#XX  \ q#  ics Xb,X , \X Xh Xb,  M )  26       #$ TheWilliamsmodelwasusedtodevelopguidelinesinmoststatesthatnowuse $  theIncomeSharesmethod.q#XX  \ q#  :ics Xb,X , \X Xh Xb,  ݢN )  27      ףWhentheparentscombinedincomeis$43,000as  inourexampleabove,thestandard(nonageadjusted)Williamscalculationassignsapproximately21percentoftheparentscombinednetincomeaschildsupport.Ofthis,thefatherssharewouldbe58percent.݌̌ X    Father's=0.58x0.21x$43,000=$5,237.40peryear.  L   X@  X      Thelimitforachildsupportawardintheexampleis$2,594.97peryear.Assumingthemothercontinuestospend20percentofherincomeonthechild,thespousalmaintenanceportionincludedinthisstandardIncomeSharesresultis80percentofthedifference,plusthemothersportionofanyincreaseinspendingontheirchild.Thespousalmaintenanceportioncalculatedasfollows.C݌̌ X    (0.80+(0.37*0.20))*($5,237.40-$2,594.97)=$2,309.48    L   X      InorderforthemothertoreachtheIncomeSharesderivedamounts,shewouldhavetospendatotalof21percentoftheircombinedincomeononechild,whichis$9,030peryear.Afterreceivingchildsupportpayments,thiswouldamountto39percentofhertotalincomeof$23,237.40.Atthelimit,bothparentstogethercontribute$4,119.00tothesupportofthechild.Sheshouldbecontributing37percentofthetotal,whichis$1,524.03peryear.Inthisexample,theadultsupportcomponentinWilliamsIncomeSharesawardwouldbegreaterthanthemothersshareoffinancialsupportforthechild.݌̌ X  t X    Thespousalmaintenanceportionoftheawardwouldbehigherifthefatherhadbeenawardedregularvisitationorjointphysicalcustody.WilliamsIncomeSharesmethodrestrictscreditforvisitationperiodsandjointphysicalcustodialarrangementsinsuchawaythatnocreditisgiveninmanycasesevenwhentimewiththenoncustodialparentissignificant.Othercircumstancescanalsoeffecttheamountofspousalmaintenanceinanaward.q#XX  \ q#  ics Xb,X , \X Xh Xb,  O@ )  28      ݌ ` Ќ X   L @      6@% P q` HԌ    Ќ  qr rAdjustingforChangesin QXXXX ChildsPartX XXQXr r%P   6- X    Ithassofarbeenassumedthatthefractionofacustodialparentsincomespentonchildren(QXXXX ChildsPartX XXQX)isnoteffectedbytheincreaseinstandardofliving  thatresultsfromthereceiptofchildsupportpayments.Thiscontradictstheobservationsofacenturyofeconomics.q#XX  \ q#    Xb,X , \X Xh Xb,  ݢR )  29      ףWhenonlysmallchangesinincome q  areanticipated,thedifferencemaynotbesignificant.Whenthechildsupportawardishigh,theerrormaybeunacceptable.݌̌ X   M5  X    Theproperlimitcanbeobtainedbyreplacingwithanewvaluethatcorrespondstothehigherstandardofliving.Butthiscreatesamathematicalproblem.Thecorrectvalueoftheawardmustbeknowninordertofindthecorrespondingneededforitscalculation.Onemethodofobtainingtheresultisbyuseofsuccessiveapproximationwiththehelpofstandardtables.Anotherisfindinganexactequationusingaformulaforpredictingchangesintherecipientsspending.AnequationforSX//XXX ChildsPartX X/XSX/(inadditiontotheexact   equationforthechildsupportaward)wouldbequitehelpfulinanycase.EitherofthefollowingtwoequationscanbehelpfulintestingwhetherachildsupportawardcorrespondstothepropertargetvalueforSX//XXX ChildsPartX X/XSX/.Notehowever,that Y whenacustodialparenthasahistoryofreceivingchildsupport,currentspendingshouldmoreaccuratelyreflectanticipatedspending.q#XX  \ q#  #  Xb,X , \X Xh Xb,  T )  30      ݌ A Ќ X  Ӏ Mother's+Father's i ТChildsPart=-------------------------------̀Mother+Father's  ӀFather's̢ChildsPart=---------------------------------------------- @  @  @  @ DadsPart*(Mother+Father's)  ! 7y!  @      6@% U PovertyandWelfare%Um UԌ y! Ќ  6i#" X  .  AccordingtotheU.S.povertyguidelines,thepovertylevelforoneadultin i# March1993was$7,471.Foroneadultandonechildlivingtogetheritwas$9,897.Thedifferenceof$2,426toincludeachildisjustover24.5percentof A%  povertylevelincome.Taketheexampleofacustodialmotherwithincomeequaltothepovertylevelforoneadult,andafatherwhoseincomeisatleastpovertylevelforoneadultandonechildlivingtogether.Applyingthepovertylevelselfsupportreservetobothincomesmeansthatthemothersrelativeabilitytopayiszeroandthefathersisequalto100percentofthetotalchildsupportamount.Ifweapplytheformula,theupperlimitisthesameastheamountneededtobringthemothershouseholdtothepovertylevel.q#XX  \ q#    Xb,X , \X Xh Xb,  V )  31      .l݌ 8  Ќ X    1.0*0.245*$7,471  ` Father's=-----------------------------=$2,426̀1-(1.0*0.245)   H   <  X      WhateffectwouldtheapplicationofthisformulahaveonpublicassistanceprogramssuchasAFDC?Letusassumethatachildsupportassuranceprogramisineffectthatguaranteesfamilieswithchildren,includingsingleparenthouseholds,alevelofincomeequaltothepovertylevel.Thechildportionisexpectedtobespentonchildren.Whenthemothersincomeisbelowthatneededtosupportoneadult,theformulacanstillbeappliedwithouttakingintoconsiderationsupplementaladultincome.Wecanassumeinthiscasethattotalcontributionsfromourimaginarysystemwouldresultin$2,426spendingononechildinasingleparenthousehold.݌̌ X  P X    Consideramotherwith$3,639inincomeplusapotentialchildsupport  assurancepaymenttoguaranteethat$2,426isavailablefortheirchild.Herpersonalincomeshouldstillbeusedinthecalculationbecausewewanttoknowhowmuchtheparentscanpayontheirownandwhathershareofexpensesshouldbe.Butweexpecthertotalspendingonthechildtobeattheguaranteedlevel.Therefore,themoneytobespentonthechildshouldequal40percentofherpersonalincome.($2,426dividedbythesumof$3,639andthe$2,426inguaranteedincome)݌̌ X    1.0*0.40*$3,639 !d Father's=-----------------------------=$2,426̀1-(1.0*0.40)  "L $ #@ X  V  Thefathersshareisbasedonwhatwillbespentontheirchild,notjustwhatthemothercanaffordonherown.Fromapublicpolicyperspective,aperfectlyrationaltargetisreached.Theparentspayasmuchaspossibletooffsettheassuredbenefit.Whenparentscanaffordtosupporttheirchildren,the |'"# publicdoesnt.Butthatisnotalwaystheendofthestory.Definingtheupperlimitonchildsupportdoesnotdetertheawardofspousalmaintenance,whenappropriate,inordertofurtherincreasethestandardoflivinginthecustodialparenthome.q#XX  \ q#   Xb,X , \X Xh Xb,  ݢW )  32      ףV݌ t Ќ X  ( x` X  ]  Oneadditionalpointondealingwithlowcustodialparentincomeisinorder.Whenthemotherspersonalincomeiszero,thedenominatorinthelimitequationisalsozero.Alltheincomegiventothemotherinchildsupportassistanceisexpectedtobespentonchildren.(Childspartis1.0.)The  < numeratorintheequationwouldalsobezero,simplybecausethemothersincomeis.Usingmathematicalterminology,weneedtofindthelimitforthecalculationasthemothersincomeapproacheszero.Itshouldbeobvioushowever,thattheexactsolutionwillbeequalto100percentofexpectedspending.Theanswerinthisexampleisstill$2,426.]݌̌ X  < t  @      6@% X AdjustedLimits%X Ԍ <  Ќ  6,|d X    Itisobviousthatthehighestpossiblefinancialtransferforchildsupport ,| shouldoccurwhentheentirecostofchildrenisbornedirectlybyacustodialparent.Visitation,jointphysicalcustodyarrangements,andotherfactorssuchastaxadvantagesreducethenaturalchildsupportawardbyeffectingthedistributionofdirectpaymentsandabilitytopay.Nonstandardexpensessuchasextraordinarymedicalbillsandprofessionaldaycarethatarenotincludedinstandardtablesandformulaebornebythecustodialparentcanincreasethenaturallimitonchildsupport.݌̌ X  T X    However,increasingexpenditureonsomethingscanhavetheeffectofdecreasingexpenditureonothers,becauseusuallytheparentsresourcesdonotadjustthemselvestocompensateforneed.q#XX  \ q#   Xb,X , \X Xh Xb,  Y< )  33      ׀Therefore,itisnotnecessarily ,| truethatincreasesandreductionsshouldequal100percentoftheamountofallnonstandardexpenses.Thenaturallimitcanbeadjustedbyaccountingfornonstandardexpensespaiddirectlybyeachparentandthenadjustingtheabilityofeachtopayforstandardexpenses.Aquestionarisesastowhethernonstandardexpensesshouldbesubtractedfromincomebeforethestandardcalculation.Thecalculationsshouldbemadesothatallsignificantexpensesareaccountedforwhenmakingthefinalorder.Eachtypeofexpenseultimatelycomesoutofthesame sugarbowl.݌ %  Ќ X  x X    Usinglimittheoryasbackground,threesomewhatcomplicatedsituationsarediscussedbelow.Theyhavebeenchosenbecausetheyhaveoftenbeenraisedindiscussions,andreportedlyhavebeentreatedinagreatvarietyofwaysbydifferentjudges.q#XX  \ q#    Xb,X , \X Xh Xb,  Z )  34      ݌ < Ќ X   @( x X  7  Amothermightremarryandchosetoremainathomeifsupportedfinanciallybyhernewspouse.Themothersincomewouldbezero.Thenewsituationmaydisqualifyherfrompublicassistance,eventhoughsheisunabletoprovideanychildsupport.Thiswouldprecludeusingthegovernmentassuredbenefitapproachtakeninthesection, PovertyandWelfare.Thepracticaleffectisthatthenewfamilyhasappointedthenewspouseastheguarantorofchildsupport.Ifwesimplyconsiderthewifesincometohavebecomezero,thenthepayerssharebecomes100percent(assumingthepayerhassufficientincome).Generallyspeaking,thisisnotanequitableresult.7u݌̌ X  T<  X  p   Twotechnicalsolutionsarepossible.Eitherthenewspouse(perhapsincombinationwithpotentialgovernmententitlements)istreatedastheguarantorofbasicsupportorthecalculationisbasedontheactualexpenditureonchildrenbythecustodialparenthousehold.Ineithercase,itislogicallyconsistenttoalsocountthenewspousesincomewhencomputingrelativeabilitytopay,eitheratthebasicsupportlevelorthelevelofactualspendingonchildren.Failuretodosocancreateimpossiblesituations.Forexample,thelevelofspendinginthenewcustodialhomecouldbemuchmorethanthepayercanafford.Anyawardthatisdisproportionatetothepayersrelativeabilitytopayisinequitable.q#XX  \ q#    Xb,X , \X Xh Xb,  [ )  35      p  ݌ d Ќ X  hP X    Acomplicatedsituationexistswhenacustodialparenthouseschildrenfrommorethanoneotherparent.Theupperlimitonchildsupportshouldbecalculatedinthesamewaythatitiswithonlyoneotherparent.Whencomputingthecustodialparentsrelativeabilitytopay,theaverageincomeofthepayingparentsshouldbeused.Paymentsbyindividualpayersshouldbebasedontheirrelativeabilitytopay(comparedtoeachotherandthecustodialparent)andnumberofchildrentheysupport.Thisdoesnotmeanthateachpayershouldpayinproportiontothenumberofchildren.Whenmakingthiscalculation,thediminishingcostofmultiplechildrenshouldbeappliedusingastandardtable. x# Forexample,ifthestandardforthecostoftwochildrenis1.5timesthecostofone,thenthepaymentbythepayerwhohastwochildreninthecustodialparentshomeshouldbeweightedbyjust1.5insteadof2.9݌̌ X  <t X  7  Apayersabilitytopayisalsoeffectedbyestablishinganewfamily.Accountingforareductioninabilitytopayisasimplematter.Areductioninthepayersabilitytopayreducesthefractionofchildsupportthatshouldbepaidtothecustodialparent.Equationscanbedevelopedwhichfindthecorrespondingbalancefordividingassetsbetweenhouseholds.Thefirststeptowardcompletingthistaskistodefineanunambiguouspolicythatanalystscanusetoderivetheequations.Howequalarechildrenindifferentfamilies?Iftheyarenotequal,inwhatwayaretheynotequal?Childsupportisaquantitativequestion.Howunequalarethey?7u݌̌ X  P   X  \  Thishasbeenadifficultpoliticalquestion.Themanwhohasmarriedamotherreceivingchildsupportmightsaythatthefirstfamilyismoreimportant.Themanwhoispayingsupportmightbelievethatallhischildrenareequal.Thereisanimportantdifferenceincomparingthelimittheorytocurrentguidelinecalculations.Thecurrentmethodsoperatebytakingaportionofthepayersbuyingpower,withoutregardtotheactualneedsofthechildrenoftherecipienthousehold.Theunderlyingrealityofthepoliticalquestionismuchdifferentifchildsupportcalculationsaremadeaccordingtochildrensneeds,andbasingeachparentsshareontheirrelativeabilitytopay.\݌̌ X  d @      6@% \ MinimumChildSupport%\& Ԍ d Ќ  6T X    Theemphasisinthispaperhasbeentodefineascientificmethodfor T establishingmaximumlevelsofchildsupport.Thisisatimelycontribution,sincerecentpoliticalreformshaveledtodramaticincreases.Ascientificmethodfortestingthereformshasbeenneeded.Butthisisnottosaythatthehighestnumbersobtainable,illustratedbythesimpleexampleinthispaper,areappropriateineverycase.݌̌ X  "!, X    Spendingissometimesinelastic.Inmanycases,thereceiptofchildsupportpaymentswillnotresultinachangeindaycarearrangementsforexample.Insituationswhereitdoes,therewillstilloftenbeafixedcostforthenewarrangement.Additionalincomeresultingfromahigherstandardoflivingwillnoteffectitscost.q#XX  \ q#  6 Xb,X , \X Xh Xb,  ] )  36      ׀Thetheoreticallowerlimitisreachedwheneverallcosts T&!  arefixed.Thecorrespondingminimumlimitisobtainedbyignoringthestandard @'"! oflivingincreaseinthecalculations.Subjecttoadjustmentsdiscussedabove,thelowerlimitisstillofwhatisactuallyspentonchildren.Anillustrationisgiveninthefollowingsection.4݌̌ X  <t @    ["  6@% ^ AccountingforFixedExpenses%^"["" "Ԍ < Ќ  6, |d  X  x#  Therehasbeendebateonthesubjectoffixedcosts.Whatportionofany , | additionalmoneywillbespentonchildren?Oneviewisthatwheneveronecostisfixed,additionalmoneywillbeusedtoincreasespendingonsomethingelse.q#XX  \ q#  $ Xb,X , \X Xh Xb,  _ )  37        T Thisviewhasbeenprevailinginthedesignofchildsupportguidelines.Thepracticalresultisthatthepayersshareofnonstandardexpenseshavesimplybeenaddedtostandardawards.Thisisnotanequitableprocedure.Whenmoneyisspentonafixedcostsuchasdaycareforexample,theparentsabilitytopayforotherthingsisreduced.Anexampleofinelasticityofspendingcanbegivenwithoutcomplicatedmathematicalanalysis.x##݌̌ X  @x  X  '  Taketheexampleofasinglemotherwhosenetpersonalincomeisjustsufficienttoprovideforherselfandtwochildrenatthepovertylevelwithoutsendingeithertoalicenseddaycarecenter.Inherrequestforchildsupportfromthefather,sheproposestosendtheirtwochildrentoacentercosting$300apiece.Inthisexample,thefathers abilitytopayisequalto$600permonth,exactlythecostoftheproposeddaycarearrangement.Iftheproposalisaccepted,100percentofthe$600inchildsupportwillbeabsorbedbythecostofdaycare.Nonetheless,itshouldberecognizedthatthestandardoflivinginthemothershouseholdincreasesbythe$600inrevenuecontributedbythefather.')(݌̌ X  @x X  N+  Ofcourse,thecalculationsineverysituationarenotsoconvenient.Letusincreasetheincomesoftheparentsinthisexample,sothatthemotherisabletoprovidedaycareandothernecessities.Thefathersincomeisalsohigher,sothatheisabletoprovideanadditionalstandardoflivingincrease.Whatisthebalancebetweentheadditionalcostofraisingchildrenfordaycareandthereductioninabilitytopayexperiencedbyparentswhopayforit?N++݌̌ X  #" X  -  Wecanfindasolutionbydeductingthepropershareofthedaycareexpensefromeachparentsabilitytopay.q#XX  \ q#  . Xb,X , \X Xh Xb,  ݢ`@ )  38      ףWhatisspentonthechildrenwillbe |$ basedontheremainderoftheirincome.TheadjustmenttoabilitytopayisfoundbysubtractingDadsPart*DayCarefromthefathersabilitytopayandMomsPart*  ТDayCarefromthemothersabilitytopay.Thismightappeartoeffecttheparents  relativeabilitytopay.Relativeabilitytopayisnoteffected.ItiseasilyconfirmedthatthenewequationsforDadsPartandMomsPartarealgebraicallyequivalent ` totheoriginals.Ofcourse,careshouldalwaysbeexercisedtoassurethatproposedexpensesdonotexceedtheparentsability(includinggovernmententitlements)topayforthem.--݌̌ X   ( ` @    2  6@% a UpdatingChildSupportAwards%a@323 2Ԍ  ( Ќ  6 P  X  3  Inthefirstexample,thefatherhadpaidnochildsupportforthefirstyear   ofhischildslife.Alimitonchildsupportwascalculatedthatincludedastandardoflivingincreaseforthemothershousehold.Whenchildsupportawardsareupdated,spendingbythecustodialparentmayalreadyreflectastandardoflivingincreaseduetopaymentofchildsupportinthepast.Themajorityofsinglemothersingovernmentsurveysarereceivingprivatechildsupportpayments,publicassistance,orboth.So,thesameistruewhenusingaveragedataonsingleparentspending.34݌̌ X  @(x X  6  ThecorrectvalueforChildsPartcanbeeasilyobtainedbyaddingtheold @ childsupportawardtotherecipientsincome.ThatiseasilyconfirmedbyreplacingthemothersoriginalspendingwithSX//XXX ChildsPartX X/XSX/*(SX//XXX Mother+FathersX X/XSX/)  andherincomewith(SX//XXX Mother+FathersX X/XSX/).Dividingspendingbyincome  obviouslyreducestoSX//XXX ChildsPartX X/XSX/.Usingthisdirecttechnique,itiseasiertofind  anaccuratevaluefor,becauseotherwisewewouldhavetospeculatemorethannecessaryontheeffectofchildsupportpaymentsonthecustodialparentsspendingpatterns.67݌̌ X  H X  :  Thefinalcalculationismadeinthesamewayasbefore,exceptwiththenewvalueof.Nochangeshouldbemadeinthedefinitionofeitherparentsincome.ThevalueofSX//XXX MotherX X/XSX/isincludedinthecalculationwithoutaddingchild  !p supportreceived.Relativeabilitytopayisstillcalculatedusingtheparentsincomewithoutadjustingfortheoldchildsupportaward.Itshouldbeobviousthatifthereisnochangeinthecircumstancesofeitherparentorthechildren,thefinalanswershouldremainthesameaswell.:7;݌̌ X  &!%! @    =  6@% b Awardsthatare JustandAppropriate%br>=A> )>Ԍ &!  Ќ  6(#' # X  ?  Theamountofchildsupportthatisjustandappropriatedependson (#! childrensneeds,familycircumstances,andchoicesmadebyparents.Thecharacterofindividualcircumstances,thoseofeachindependentfamily,arenot \*%# thesameastheaverageoraggregatecharacterofthegeneraldemographicgroupstheyareassociatedwith.Thisisthepointoftenmissedbythosewhofavorsimplestatisticalsolutions.Thereismuchdiversityofneedsandmuchdiscretionisnormallyexercisedamongintactanddividedfamilies.Therefore,theabilitytoascertainfairnessinindividualcasesisessentialtofairtreatmentingeneral.ItisalsoalegalrequirementoftheFamilySupportAct.q#XX  \ q#  OBpay Xb,X , \X Xh Xb,  c )  39      ?Y?݌ L  Ќ X   P8  X  C  Purelyeconomicargumentsfavoringcurrenthighawardlevelsdependontwobasicassumptions.Oneisthattheeconomiceffectsofsplithouseholdsdemandastandardoflivingtransfertotheprimaryresidenceofthechildren.q#XX  \ q#  Dpay Xb,X , \X Xh Xb,  ݢd| )  40      ף  ( Theotheristheexpectationthatincreasingtheincomeofaprimarycareparentwillincreasespendingonchildren.q#XX  \ q#  Fpay Xb,X , \X Xh Xb,  ݢet  )  41      ףTheseeconomicassumptionswillnotbe   discussedatlengthinthispaper,sincethatwoulddemandamuchlengthieranalysisthatwoulddistractfromthemainpoint.Thereareseveralimportantpointsthatcanbemadeinthecontextofthispresentation.CC݌̌ X  (x`  X  H  Beyondsubsistencelevel,muchofspendingisdiscretionary.q#XX  \ q#  {I  Xb,X , \X Xh Xb,  ݢf  )  42      ףWhen (x nationaldataonfamilyspendinginparticularconsumptioncategoriesq#XX  \ q#  J  Xb,X , \X Xh Xb,  g )  43      ׀is d plotted,itlookslikeashotgunscatterplot.Economicanalysiscomparingpreandpostdivorcestandardoflivingishighlyspeculative,isbasedon unsubstantiatedassumptionsaboutfamilyspendingpatterns,andleavesout ( manyimportantconsiderationsthatwouldtendtoshowthatpostdivorcestandardoflivingismorenearlyequalamongthehouseholdsofsplitparents.q#XX  \ q#  M  Xb,X , \X Xh Xb,  ݢh )  44      ףH I݌   X  P X  O  Rebuttaltotheincreasedinvestmenttheoryisgiveninthesectionentitled; PromotingInvestmentinChildren.Whatisshowninthispaperisthatthereisanaturallimittotheeffectivenessofchildsupporttransfersinincreasingspendingonchildren.Incombinationwithanunderstandingoftheextenttowhichspendingbyadultsisdiscretionary,thelogicalconclusionisthatactualspendingbytheadultrecipientofchildsupportisthemostimportantindicatorofwhetheraparticularchildsupportawardisfairorreasonable.OXO݌̌ X     X  Q  Aproblemarisesintheuseofevidenceonspendingbysingleparents.Someparentshavebeenreceivingchildsupport,othershavenot,andothersreceiveonlypartofwhatisdue.q#XX  \ q#  R  Xb,X , \X Xh Xb,  ݢi )  45      ףIfcircumstancesinthefamilyhavechanged, d  theappropriateupdatemayrequireonlyapartialadjustmenttotheexistingaward.Thelimitequationpresentedinthispaper,isappropriateinallcircumstances.Theequationusestheparentscurrentincome,reasonableprojectionsofspendingduringtheperiodwhenchildsupportshouldbereceived,andaccountsforanappropriatestandardoflivingincreaseregardlessofincomehistory.Q R݌̌ X  ( X  U  Anobviousquestionis;Whathappenswhenachildsupportawardislessthantheadjustedupperlimit?Theequationdevelopedforfindingtheupperlimitcanalsobeusedtoanswerthisquestion.Thereisadefiniteansweraslongasweremainconsistentinthewaytheequaldutyprincipleisexpressed.Anexamplewaspresentedinwhichthefathersnetavailableincomeis$25,000andthemothersis$18,000.Themotherisspending20percentofherincomeononechild.Thetotalcombinedchildsupportis$4,119.Thefathersshareis63percentofthatamountandthemothersshareis37percent.Takethesetwopercentages,representingtheparentsrelativeabilitytopay,asthetestcriteria foradherencetotheequaldutyprinciple.U3V݌ < Ќ X  x X  Y  Whathappenswhenthefatherscontributionisreducedfrom$2,594.97 to$2,000peryear?Themotherstotalincome,includingchildsupportpayments,wouldbe$18,000plus$2,000,whichis$20,000.Ofthis,shespends20percentononechild.Therefore,weexpectthemothertospend$4,000peryearinchildsupport.Inthatcase,theparentswouldbepayinga5050share.Bycomparisonwiththeestablishedvaluesforrelativeabilitytopay,thelowerawardalsoviolatestheequaldutyprinciple.Theadjustedupperlimitisalsotheadjustedlowerlimit.Therefore,thejustandappropriateamountofchildsupportcanbederivedusingtheadjustedlimitequation.YY݌̌ X     @    \  6@% j EvaluatingChildSupportGuidelines%j[]\*] ]Ԍ   Ќ  6|   X  ]  TheFamilySupportActof1988establishedarequirementforperiodic |  reviewandevaluationofallstatechildsupportguidelines.q#XX  \ q#  ^  Xb,X , \X Xh Xb,  ݢk )  46      ף]9^݌ h  Ќ X  X lT  X  g`    ...,andshallbereviewedatleastonceevery4yearstoensurethattheirapplicationresultsinthedeterminationofappropriatechildsupportawardamountsg``݌̌ X  X 0 X  a    Therehasbeennoobjective,detailedcriteriafordeterminingwhetherguidelinesmeettherequirementsoffederallaw.TheFamilySupportActprovidedgeneralcriteriafortheapplicationofchildsupportguidelines.q#XX  \ q#  c  Xb,X , \X Xh Xb,  ݢl< )  47      ףaa݌  Ќ X  X 4l X  |d    Thereshallbearebuttablepresumption,inanyjudicialoradministrativeproceedingfortheawardofchildsupport,thattheamountoftheawardwhichwouldresultfromtheapplicationofsuchguidelinesisthecorrectamountofchildsupporttobeawarded.Awrittenfindingorspecificfindingontherecordthattheapplicationoftheguidelineswouldbeunjustorinappropriateinaparticularcase,asdeterminedundercriteriaestablishedbytheState,shallbesufficienttorebutthepresumptioninthatcase.|dd݌̌ X  X \"! X  =g    Inordertomeettherequirementsforapplicationofchildsupportguidelines,statesmustassurethatcalculatedawardsarejustandappropriate.Whenanawardiscalculatedforaparticularcase,thereshouldbeobjectivecriteriafordeterminingwhethertheawardisjustandappropriate.Whatis just?Whatis appropriate?Federallawissilentontheessentialdetails.=g{g݌  &\! Ќ X  x X  si  Litigantstryingtoprovethattheapplicationofachildsupportguidelineis unjustor inappropriateintheircasehavebeenaskedtodosowithoutknowingwhatjustandappropriatemeans.q#XX  \ q#  jjudi Xb,X , \X Xh Xb,  m )  48      ׀Thesametechnicalproblemis P facedbychildsupportguidelinecommitteeswhomustattempttoreviewtheirguidelinestodeterminewhether theirapplicationresultsinthedeterminationofappropriatechildsupportawardamounts.sii݌̌ X    P X  l  Clearly,objectivecriteriafordeterminingwhetherguidelinesaredesignedproperlyareneeded.Definitivestatementsandmathematicaltoolsarenecessarytoachieveaproperbalancebetweenthestrengthofpresumptiveguidelinesindeterminingawardsandlitigationtodeterminewhetheraparticularawardisappropriate.ThedevelopmentofdefinitivemathematicsfordifferentiatingbetweenchildsupportandspousalsupportisanessentialstepinfulfillingtherequirementsofTheFamilySupportAct.q#XX  \ q#  @ojudi Xb,X , \X Xh Xb,  n@ )  49      l%m݌ P  Ќ X  T<  @    p  6@% o SimplifyingChildSupportGuidelines%oqpp pԌ T  Ќ  6D,| X  q  Oneofthedesiresexpressedbychildsupportcommitteemembersand D judgesisthatguidelinesshouldbesimple.Simplifyingchildsupportguidelinesisnotthesameassimplifyingtheirapplication.Thisauthorhaspreviouslyarguedthatthebestapproachtobuildingguidelinesthatareeasytousecomesfrommaintainingarelationshipbetweenchildsupportcalculationsandthereallifefactorsthateffecttheawarddecision.q#XX  \ q#  svep Xb,X , \X Xh Xb,  pl )  50      ׀Thisisalsoanessentialpartofassuring  thatawardsdeterminedbyguidelinesarejustandappropriate.qq݌̌ X  0h X  u  Considerthealternative.Begintheprocessofcalculatinganawardbyapplyingnumbersthatatbesthaveanobscure,fundamentallyofftargetrelationshiptothecircumstancespresentedincourt.Howdoyoudecidewhether thestandardawardisappropriateinaparticularcase?Ifadeviationisneeded, D howshoulditbecalculated,andonwhatinformationshouldthecalculationbebased?uu݌ X  P X  w  Whennodeviationisappropriate,thestandardcalculationshouldbeassimpleaspossible,justasitisincurrentguidelines.Butitshouldalsobeeasytounderstandwhyitisappropriateinthatcase.w x݌̌ X   , d @    ?y  6@% q PromotingInvestmentinChildren%qy?yy yyԌ  , Ќ  6  T X  _z  Ithasbeenimpliedinpolicydebatethatincreasingchildsupportawards   willdramaticallyimprovetheeconomicwellbeingofchildren.q#XX  \ q#  X{vep Xb,X , \X Xh Xb,  ݢr )  51      ףButdoesit    performwellinthatrole?UniversityofChicagoEconomistsYoramWeissandRobertWillisstudiedtransfersamongdivorcedcouples.q#XX  \ q#  }vep Xb,X , \X Xh Xb,  ݢst )  52      ףTheamountthat   effectivelytransfersfromnoncustodialparentstothecareofchildrendependsonchildrensneeds,familycircumstances,andcustodialparentchoices.WeissandWillisestimatedthatinsomecasesaslittleasoneadditionaldollarisspentonchildrenforeachsixteendollarsinpayment._zz݌̌ X  D,| X    Intheexamplesbelow,comparisonsaremadebetweenspendingonchildrenandcustodialparentincomewithandwithoutreceiptofchildsupportpayments.Thelimittheorywillbeappliedtothespecificquestion;Howmuchimpactshouldweexpectchildsupportpaymentstohaveonacustodialparentsspendingbehavior?݌̌ X  X X  z  Intheratherextremeexampleinwhichthemothercouldnotafforddaycareandthefatherwasjustabletopayforit,totalspendingafterpaymentofchildsupportwouldbeabout97percentofthemothersnetincome.Butthisresultisonlyreachedbyaddingthefixedexpenseofdaycarethatthemothercouldnotprovideonherown.Themotherherselfwasexpectedtocontinuetocontribute24.5percent(atpovertyrate)ofherincometochildsupport.Nonetheless,inthislowincomeexamplethemotherssituationhasimproved dramatically.Whenneededservicesarenototherwiseaffordable,itis   reasonabletoexpectthatincomeforthoseservicescanhaveasignificantimpactontherecipientslife.z݌ X  P X    Whenthemothersincomeexceedsthepovertylevelbyacomfortablemargin,thecomparisonisnotsodramatic.Inthefirstexampleabove,themothersnetincomeis$18,000andthefathersis$25,000.Includingchildsupportpayments,herincomeiscomfortablyinthemiddleclass.Atthelimit,thecombinedcontributionofbothparentstothesupportofonechildis$4,119.Thisis22.9percentofthemothersnetpersonalincome,only2.9percenthigherthanhercontributionalone.Inthissituation,thepaymentofchildsupporthasincreasedthemothersincomeby14.4percent,buthasresultedinamuchsmallerincreaseinspendingonthechild.SpendingonthechildisincreasedonlybySX//XXX ChildsPartX X/XSX/oftheaward.B݌   Ќ X  `   X  ӈ  Thislastexampleillustratesthereasonaprivatechildsupportawardisnotgenerallythepropermechanismtopromoteincreasedinvestmentinchildren.Therearenaturallimitstotheeffectivenessofchildsupporttransfersforimprovingtheeconomicwellbeingofchildrenbecausespendingbehaviorbytherecipientofthetransferiscontrolledbytherecipientschoices.Themosteffectiveandappropriateroleofchildsupportiswhatithastraditionallybeen,anoncustodialparentsshareoftheactualandnecessaryexpensesofraisingchildren.ӈ݌̌ X   X    Thefocusofdiscussiononpoliticalreformsisapracticalone.Manypeoplebelievedthatincreasesinprivatechildsupportawardswouldhaveadramaticeffectinloweringdependenceonpublicassistance.Thishasturnedoutnottobetrue.q#XX  \ q#  vep Xb,X , \X Xh Xb,  t )  53      ׀Oddlyenough,thebeliefseemedtobescientifically L supported.TestimonybeforeCongresshadoftenreliedonaveragevaluesforparentalincome,combiningthepurchasingpowerofallincomegroupsintoone.q#XX  \ q#  ގvep Xb,X , \X Xh Xb,  u )  54      ׀Thecriticalflawinthatanalysisisobvious.Theincomecombinationsof ` individualparentsmustbeconsidered.Singlemotherswithlowincomedonotbenefitwhenhigherawardsarepaidbyfatherswithhigherincometomotherswithhigherincome.Fatherswithlowincomecannotaffordtopayhighamountsofchildsupporttomotherswithlowincome.Ջ݌̌ X  ( x` @      6@% v GenderrelatedInequality%v ґԌ ( x Ќ  6 hP  X    Anotherconsiderationgiveninthedebateonchildsupportisthaton  h average,womenearnlessthanmen.q#XX  \ q#  vep Xb,X , \X Xh Xb,  ݢw )  55      ףThishasraisedthequestionwhether  T childsupportawardsshouldbehigher,sinceitismostoftenthatmenpaychildsupportandwomenreceiveit.Thiswouldtend,statistically,tooffsetsomeofthegenderrelatedinequalityofearnings.Themethodpresentedinthispaperaccountsforincomedifferencesinamorepreciseway.Inanycaseinwhichthepayersincomeissignificantlyhigher,thedifferenceisexpressedintheparentsrelativeabilitytopay.Thisisofcourse,atraditionalapproach.݌̌ X  @x  X    Althoughnotanewidea,itisstillworthyofdiscussion.Guidelinesthatfocusonabilitytopay,incontrastwiththeaverageorassumedeffectsofincome,dealmoredirectlyandappropriatelywithincomeinequalities.Itisimportanttorecognizethatthisisapositiveeffectofcomprehensiveandappropriatedesign.Usinggeneralstatisticalmeasures,theanswersmaybecoincidentallyappropriateforsome,butwillbewildlyinappropriateformanyothers.OurcurrentcaseinpointistheIncomeSharesmodel.Whenthestandardnumbertablerepresentswhatparentsactuallyspendonchildren,lowincomemothersreceivelessthanthesupporttheyneedfromhigherincomefathers.Whenthenumbersareadjustedupwardstocompensateforthiseffect,adisproportionateamountisorderedincaseswhereabilitytopayismorenearlyequalandwhenincomedisparityisreversed.'݌̌ X  hP X    Applicationoftheformulaepresentedinthispaperleadstoaclearconclusionthataspousalmaintenanceawardisamuchmoreappropriatemechanismfordealingfurtherwithincomeinequality.Thereisadefinitivedifferencebetweenchildsupportandspousalmaintenance.Aspousalmaintenanceawardshouldonlybemadeincaseswhereitisappropriate.Theeffectsofincludingamarginofspousalsupportinstandardchildsupportformulaeareasrandomasthevarietyofsituationsfacedbyseparatedparents. $ Thefollowingsectionexplainshowtheawardofspousalsupportcanbebalancedwithachildsupportawardtoprovideanadditionalstandardoflivingadjustmentfortheentirecustodialparenthousehold.+݌̌ X  <t @    j  6@% x ԢSpousalMaintenanceAwards%xj Ԍ < Ќ  6, |d  X    ݢSpousalmaintenancecanbeawardedseparatelywhenappropriatein , | ordertoraisethestandardoflivinginacustodialparenthousehold.Followingthemathematicalreasoningtothispoint,itshouldbeobviousthatanyincreaseinincomeinthecustodialparenthouseholdcanpotentiallyincreasetheamountspentonchildren,andthereforeincreasethenaturallimitofchildsupport.ğ݌̌ X     X    Forthesakeofdiscussion,assumeagainthatgovernmentwelfareprogramsguaranteeeverysingleparenthouseholdapovertylevelincomeforallfamilymembers.Atthesametime,imagineagovernmentpolicyintendedtomoveallsingleparenthouseholdsoffwelfarewheneverthenoncustodialparentisabletopaytherequiredsupport.Whatshouldtheamountofspousalmaintenancebeinordertojustifyatargetchildsupportawardthatwouldreducepublicassistancetotheminimumamountnecessary?Thesolutionisobvious.Thenoncustodialparentwouldbeorderedtopayasmuchasheorshecanuntilthegovernmentassuredsupportlevelisreached.Butthispatanswerisonlygoodinthelimitedcaseofwelfarerecipients.Whentheamountofchildsupportorderedisrestrictedbyapplicationoftheequaldutyprinciple,thedivisionbetweenchildandspousalsupportisnotarbitrary.݌̌ X  h X    Forgeneraluse,aformulaforcalculatingtheamountofspousalandchildsupportneededtobringthecustodialparentsincometoanytargetlevelwouldbeconvenient.Asmallamountofalgebrayieldstheequationsforspousalandchildsupporttoobtainatargetstandardoflivingfortheentirehousehold.Thetargetstandardoflivingisequaltotheamountoftotalincomethatthecustodialparentwillhave,includingpersonalnetincome,childsupport,andspousalmaintenance,adjustedtothenumberofpeoplesupportedbythatincome.Theamountspentonchildrenwillbeusedtospecifythetarget.Thespousalmaintenancecomponentcanthenbecalculatedusingtheformulagivenbelow.݌̌ X  |$# X    Letussaythatanattorneyforacustodialparentwishestojustifyanincreaseinthestandardoflivinginthecustodialparenthouseholdsuchthatchildsupportisequalto$3,000peryear.Forthesakeofsimplicity,thereisonechild,thecaseinvolvesafatherwhowillnotspendtimewiththechildandtherearenoadjustmentstobemadeforanyotherreason.Thefathersincomeis$25,000peryear.Thecalculationsarequitesimpleaslongasweknowthepercentspendingonthechildbythemother.Inthisexample,shespends23percentofherincomeonthechild.Thetotalincomeneededbythemother, *@&% includingherincome,spousalandchildsupport,is$3,000dividedby0.23,whichis$13,043.48.Sinceweknowinadvancewhatthechildcostis,itiseasytofindtheadultcomponentofthetargetamountofspousalmaintenance.U݌̌ X  &1%XX 'X[XX' 4    [ Child_Support(Target) ` ӢAdult_Component=-------------------------------------Child_Support(Target)-MotherӀChildsPart #X X1%&#  p     < X      Letussaythatthemothersincomeis$9,000peryear.Tospend$3,000onachild,themotherneeds$3,000plusanadditional$1,043.48.݌̌ X  0 4 0 4!4!0 ! !0[ ! !$3,000x [![! ӢAdult_Component=---------------$3,000-$9,000=$1,043.48`Ӏ0  0.23 ` !! s  @ s 4 Allthatneedstobedonetofindthetargetspousalmaintenanceawardistocomputethemothersshareofchildsupport(SX//XXX MothersX X/XSX/)andaddthattothe ,| adultcomponent.̀0 4 0 4!4! &1%XX ԢChild_Support(Target)*(Mother+Adult_Component-Reserve)P ! ! Mother's=----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4  Father+Mother-(2*Reserve)-Child_Support(Target)#X X1%&x#    ӢSpousal_Maintenance(Target)=Adult_Component+Mother's    4 Whenperformingthecomputation,itisadvisabletochecktoseethattheanswersarecorrect.Tocheckthespousalmaintenanceaward,addSX//XXX Spousal l MaintenanceX X/XSX/(SX//XXX TargetX X/XSX/)tothecustodialparentsincomeandsubtractitfromthe h noncustodialparentsincome.Thencomputethechildsupportaward,beginningwithrelativeabilitytopay.ThenewSX//XXX Mothers+FathersX X/XSX/shouldbeequalto P  SX//XXX Child_SupportX X/XSX/(SX//XXX TargetX X/XSX/).Thefollowingcomputationsarebasedonourexample, L! withachildsupporttargetof$3,000.  Ӏ $3,000*($9,000+$1,043.48-$8,000)  $p! Mother's=------------------------------------------------------=$408.69$25,000+$9,000-$16,000-$3,000  &X!#  Spousal_Maintenance(Target)=$1043.48+$408.70=$1,452.18  '8#%  t  )%' t($25,000-$1,42.18)-$8,000̢DadsPart=------------------------------------------=0.86377̀$25,000+$9,000-$16,000    0.86377*0.23*($9,000+$1,452.18) x Father's=-----------------------------------------------------=$2,591.311-(0.86377*0.23)  `   Child_Support(Target)=$2,591.31+$408.69=$3,000.00  @    4 Togetherwiththefathersshareofchildsupport(SX//XXX FathersX X/XSX/),hewouldpay  p  theentirecostofraisingtheirchildandadditionalmoneytothemothersothatshecanaffordtosupporttheirchildatthetargetstandardofliving.Inthesectionentitled, DifferentiatingChildSupportandSpousalMaintenance,anexamplewasgiveninwhichapplicationofamodernIncomeSharesformulagaveasimilarresult(numerically)withoutdifferentiatingbetweenchildsupportandϢspousalmaintenance.l @    o  6@% y Discussion%yo Ԍ l Ќ  6\ X  y  Accordingtotraditionallegaldoctrine,thechildsupportobligationis \ basedontheactualandnecessaryneedsofchildrenanddividedbetweenparentsinproportiontotheirrelativeabilitytomeetthoseneeds.Thepresumptiveuseofmodernchildsupportcalculationshasincreasedchildsupportawardsfromlevelsthathadbeenawardedbyjudgeswhohadbeenindependentlyapplyingtheseprinciples.y݌̌ X  4 X    Oneoftheimportantquestionsforguidelinedevelopersiswhytheuseofguidelineshasincreasedchildsupportawards.Thereareatleastthreecommonlyunderstoodanswerstothisquestion.Numerictablesinguidelinesuseestimatesofintactfamilyspendinginsteadofactualexpensesincurredbythecustodialparent.Theestimatesusedincludeahigherthanmarginalpercentageofexpendituresonjointneedssuchashousingandtransportation.Andconsiderationforfactorsthatwouldnaturallyreducethechildsupportaward,suchasvisitation,jointphysicalcustodyarrangements,andtaxcreditshavebeengreatlyreducedoreliminatedformostfamilies.݌̌ X  &"%H! X    Traditionalchildsupportwaspaidbythepersonnotgivenprimarycareof children,inanamountthat constitutesjustandpropercontributiontowardthe '"" supportandwelfareofsuchchildren.q#XX  \ q#  here Xb,X , \X Xh Xb,  ݢz )  56      ףGuidelinesshouldbedevelopedwith   concernforboththejusticeinthedecisionsmadeandtheperceptionofjusticeamongthosewhoselivesiteffects.q#XX  \ q#  here Xb,X , \X Xh Xb,  {< )  57      ׀Basiccalculationsshouldcorrespondtoa  reasonablechildsupportdoctrineanditshouldbeclearthatfactsinindividualcasesimpactonthedecisioninarationalway.Severalkeyfeaturesshouldbeincorporatedintothenextgenerationofguidelines.݌̌ X   P8  X  C  Ithasbeenshowninthispaperthatthereisanaturallimittotheeffectofchildsupporttransfersonspendingonchildren.Inordertoadheretotheequaldutyprinciple,itisnecessarytobasechildsupportawardsonwhatwillactuallybespentonchildrenduringthetimeperiodthatthepaymentsarebeingmade.Singleparentspendingpatternsandamarginalrateforallocatingexpenditureonjointneedsshouldbeusedforthecreationofnumerictables.C݌̌ X  P   X    ݀Supplementalincomeformaintenanceofahouseholdshouldincreaseasthecustodialparentsabilitytomaintainahouseholddecreases.Inotherwords,assumingacomparisonbetweenpayerswithequalandsufficientabilitytopay,acustodialparentwithalowincomeshouldreceiveahigherfractionofhousing,transportation,entertainment,andpossiblyhealthcareandinsurancecoststhanwouldacustodialparentwithamiddleorhigherincome.݌̌ X  ( X    Housingandtransportationexpensesoffertheeasiestexplanations.Thecorrelationbetweentheseexpendituresandincomeisstronglypositive.Inotherwords,themorepeoplemake,themoretheyspend.Thisgeneralruleisindependentofwhethertheyhavechildren.Peoplewithmorechildrenactuallytendtospendlessonhousingandtransportationthanthosewithout.Thechildsupportpaymentoffsetsexpenditureonchildren,therebyfreeingsomeofthecustodialparentsincomeforpersonalinvestmentinhousesandotherthings.Ithastheeffectofraisingthestandardoflivingoftheentirehousehold.Careshouldbetakenthatexpenditurescountedaschildcostsareactuallychildcosts,ratherthanadultinvestment.8݌̌ X  ! ( X  g  ݀Thereshouldbearesurgenceofinterestincircumstancesthatreducethenaturallimitofanaward,suchasvisitationcostsandtaxadvantages.Itisgenerallyunderstoodthatvisitationoftenreducesthefinancialburdenoncustodialparentsattheexpenseofnoncustodialparents.Inlowerincomehomesthiscancauseaconflict.Partofthechildsupportpaymentmaybe P%  necessarytomaintaintheprimaryhomeandtopayothernecessaryexpenses.Thiscanbehandledeasilybyapplyingapartialexemptioninsuchcases.q#XX  \ q#  here Xb,X , \X Xh Xb,  | )  58      g݌  Ќ X  P X  A  Negativestereotypesshouldnotbepresumedinstandardcalculations.Examplesincludethefollowing.Fathersoftentakelowerpayingjobsinordertoobtainasmallerchildsupportorder.Fathersjumpfromjobtojobinordertopretendtheyareunemployedortoavoidchildsupportcollections.Fathersbecomeunemployedvoluntarilytoavoidchildsupport.Selfemployedpeopleusuallyunderreportincome.Manyofthesepopularstereotypesrepresentirrationaleconomicchoicesandthereisnovalidevidencethattheyrepresentthecommonbehaviorofparents.Parentsareleftwithabizarrechoicewhenevertheseandothernegativestereotypesarebuiltintoguidelinecalculations.Eitheracceptawardsthatareinappropriateoradoptalifestylethatfitsthestereotype.A݌̌ X  P   @      6@% } Conclusion%}^- Ԍ P  Ќ  6@x  X    UnderthepressureoftheChildSupportEnforcementAmendmentsand @  TheFamilySupportAct,thescientific/politicalworkonchildsupportguidelinesinthe1980sproducedresultsthatareoftenbetterdescribedasabizarrecollageofideasthancoherenttechnologyforthecourts.Theprimaryflawintheprocesshasbeenalackofmeaningfulanalysisanddefinitionforkeygoalssuchas improvingtheadequacyofchildsupportawards.Nofundamentalresearchindicatedthatchildsupporttechnologywasreadyforuseasapresumptivecalculator.Thepoliticalwillracedfaraheadoftechnicaldevelopments.Asadirectconsequence,manyoftodayschildsupportlawsarelackinginsuchessentialsasabasiclegaldefinitionof childsupport.#݌̌ X  @x X    Asthescienceandengineeringofchildsupportdecisionmakingtoolsimproves,itappearsmorelikelythatcurrentguidelinecalculationswillbefoundtobeconstitutionallyflawed.TheIncomeSharesmethod,currentlyusedinmorestatesthananyotherformula,provideserraticresultscomparedtomorecompletemodelsofpostdivorcefamilycircumstances.Asthemodelsimprove,thearbitrarynatureofcurrentguidelineswillbecomemoreapparent.Butthosesameadvancementscouldalsoleadtobetterguidelines,compensatingfor manyofthesameflawstheyexpose.݌ # Ќ X  x X  t  Itisdifficulttopredicthownewknowledgewillimpactthepoliticaland judicialsystem.Oneapplicationoflimittheoryisinlitigation.Atechniquefordefiningthedifferencebetweenchildsupportandspousalmaintenanceisanimportanttoolforthosewishingtoshowguidelineresultsaretoohigh.Thefactthattheequaldutyprincipleisalsoviolatedwheneverawardsaretoolowoffersotherlitigantsanopportunitytoapplythetheory.Theevaluationofexistingstateguidelinescanalsobeimproved.Thequalityofanyevaluationofchildsupportguidelinesdependsonhavingtoolsavailablethatcanbeusedformakingobjective,comparativejudgments.t݌̌ X     X    Duringthe1980s,reformerstiedasensethattheequaldutyprincipleisconstitutionallymandatedwiththebeliefthatsomechildsupportordersweretoolow.Thereactionhasbeenmajorchangeinthewaychildsupportiscalculated.Thegoodnewsisthatchildsupportawardshaveincreasedinmanyofthosecasesinwhichinequitypreviouslyexisted.Thebadnewsisthattheequaldutyprinciplehasnotbeenacentralfeatureinthedesignofnewguidelines.Theinequityhasmerelybeenshiftedtodifferentincomegroups.q#XX  \ q#  here Xb,X , \X Xh Xb,  ~ )  59      ݌ d Ќ X  P X  x  Therearefundamentallimitstotheeffectivenessoffinancialchildsupportasamechanismforimprovingthelivesofchildren.Morecarefulconsiderationoftheeffectsoffinancialtransfersareneededtoproduceequitableresultsforseparatedparentsandpoliciesthatarebeneficialtochildren.Contrarytothecurrentlypopularview,maximizingincometocustodialparentsdoesnotalwaysmaximizethestandardoflivingofchildren.Carefulapplicationoftheequaldutyprinciplecangoalongwaytowardimprovingtheeffectsofchildsupportawarddecisions.x݌̌ X  @(x @    B  6@%  Acknowledgments%B |Ԍ @ Ќ  60h X  Q  ...tobecompletedQ݌ 0 Ќ X