Panel Members:
As you can see from his memo to me, Chairman
Crane has directed me to
distribute the Dissenting Opinion on the Panel's Report as received
today
from Panel Member Steinberg. After review of Mr. Steinberg's
document,
please advise me as to whether you believe the Opinion should or
should not
be included with your Report. We need your response immediately.
Mr.
Crane's decision will be based upon comments received by close of
business,
tomorrow, Thursday, November 21, 2002.
Please e-mail, FAX (804-692-2410) or telephone
(804-692-2403) your
response to me as soon as possible.
Thank you.
Bill Brownfield, Staff Director
Secretary's Child Support Guideline Review Panel
=====================================================================================
-----Original Message-----
From: Joseph Crane [mailto:jsc900@dcse.dss.state.va.us]
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 3:02 PM
To: Bill Brownfield
Subject: FW: Dissenting Opinion
Wednesday, November 20, 2002
Bill: Please distribute Murray's "Dissenting Opinion" to Panel members.
I
would like their views as to whether this should be distributed
with the
Panel Report, probably as an appendix.
I would be inclined to include it IF most Panel members support
doing so,
but we need to know their reactions by close of business TOMORROW,
since I
am determined to go to press with the final Panel Report before
Thanksgiving. So, I intend to make the decision on this inclusion
or
exclusion by this Friday.
Thanks.
JSC
=====================================================================================
Child Support Guideline Review Panel
Joe Crane, Chairman
730 East Broad Street
4th Floor
Richmond, VA 23219
Dissenting Opinion
Dear Mr. Crane:
Please find my dissenting opinion below, to be inserted in the Panel’s Final Report to the General Assembly. There may be other members who would like to concur with my opinion. I agree that a minority report could do harm to the otherwise positive recommendations to which we all agreed.
Please share this document with the Panel for their approval. I would also like you to share my critique of the Draft Report which I sent you last Friday. I think it is important for the members to see the entire picture.
Sincerely,
Murray Steinberg
Dissenting Opinion of Murray Steinberg
The record will show that I voted on the prevailing side for most recommendations of this panel. The facts presented to this panel simply do not support adopting the new Schedule of Monthly Child Support Obligations, as presented by Dr. William Rodgers. Accordingly, I strongly object to its recommendation for three reasons.
1. The overwhelming majority of testimony the Panel received from the public was that child support, obligations were unjust and too high. As one person put it, child support awards “grossly exceed actual child expenses....” Another asked, “How am I suppose to care for my children... if I have to live in near poverty.” The number one complaint stated over and over was that noncustodial parents receive no tax benefits. Others complained that special one time “environmental pay,” second jobs or unpredictable, nonrecurring overtime pay was unjustly included their “gross income.” Neither of these issues was adequately addressed by the Panel.
Only one person stated “The guidelines do not adequately provide
for the housing costs, child care costs, health related costs or education
costs of rearing children.” One other person wrote that the child
support his girl friend was to receive was “woefully inadequate.”
Many forget that our child support guidelines determine each parent’s obligation,
and that the father’s obligation alone is not suppose to be adequate.
Both parents have an equal obligation to support their child.
If custodial parents felt the awards were inadequate, they surely did
not make that clear to the panel.
2. Before the Panel could evaluate our child support guidelines, we needed the to answer two basic, fundamental questions: 1) the definition of “child support” and 2) the parameters of the schedule. No definition of “child support” was accepted by the panel majority. Some of the parameters were found in Policy Studies Inc.’s “Updated Child Support Schedule, State of Virginia, April 6, 1999, “Summary of Key Assumptions,” but found no definition was found.
Minutes of the Panel’s July 1, 2002 meeting state “Senator Quayle moved the Panel maintain the current definition of “child support” being used.” The majority approved his motion. However, from my research, I have determined that not only is there no “current definition” of “child support” in Virginia statutes or case law, but also there is none in any Federal laws, acts, or regulations.
3. Statements of facts presented by Dr. Rodgers sounded more like
reasons to decrease our present schedule. The following is a summary
of statements made by Dr. Rodgers:
The following facts seem to defy logic.
In developing new schedules, Dr. Rodgers said he assumed the same standard of living would be maintained after separation of the intact household, even though he agreed that this assumption is mathematically impossible. Dr. Rodgers stated that a smaller percentage of the parents combined gross income will be used to support the children if parents are living separately. A larger percentage will be needed to cover fixed expenses like housing.
Dr. Rodgers stated “The fact that they ( food and beverages, housing, and transportation which comprise approximately 67 percent of expenditures) increased over either period provides rationale for updating the schedule.” Although he correctly stated that the “income of less-skilled and less-educated Americans failed to keep pace with inflation,” he neglected to state that overall American’s incomes not only have kept up with the cost of necessities, but actually have risen faster.*
Under our present schedule the child support obligation goes up as income rises. There is in effect a self regulating adjustment now. For example as combined income increases from $2,000 to $3,000 child support increases by 32%. As income increases from $3,000 to $6,000 child support increases by 71%.
____________________________________________
* The Bureau of Labor Statistics chronicles a steady rise in
the inflation-adjusted wages of the average American worker in its
recent report on the subject. [See Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Employment
Cost Index, Constant Dollar, June 1989" (July 25, 2002).] On Page
3 of that report is a table showing that after inflation, workers' wages
have risen slowly but steadily from 1981 through 2002. [Table 2a, Employment
Cost Index (Compensation), Civilian Workers]
That includes the period spanned by the current child support guidelines,
beginning in 1989, since wages are 9.9 percent higher after inflation than
they were in 1989. (The table calculates all wages as a percentage
of their 1989 level; the index was 109.9 in March 2002 and 110.3 in June
2002, according to Table 2a. So there was a 9.9 percent rise by March
2002 and 10.3 percent rise by June 2002). Ref: http://www.bls.gov/web/ecconst.pdf.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed schedule raises child support roughly 17% at the lower and higher income levels and 8% in the middle income levels. If a person at the $3,000 combined income level gets a $100 a month raise, he could wind up paying 24% more child support using the new schedule.
Dr. Rogers stated that no visitation was built into his schedule because his schedule is based upon estimates of raising children in an intact family. It should be noted that the Panel voted to include “the assumption of ‘exercised’ visitation by the noncustodial parent to be between 60 to 90 days annually” at the final meeting held October 8, 2002. Not until his final report to the Panel, dated October 31, 2002, did Dr. Rodgers state, “The rationale for doing this (separate household discount) is based on expenditures that might occur during the non-custodial parent’s 60 to 90 days of visitation....”
Dr. Rodgers states, “The proposed schedule contains an average discount of 64%, with discounts of 70 percent at $3,550, $4,500, and $8500.” There does not appear to be a clear or consistent discount which can be identified at any income level. What is discounted? Originally Dr. Rodgers gave the Panel five options, stating that if we wanted different ones to just let him know. The adjustments called “Separate Household Discount” seem to be arbitrary and capricious.
As with the present schedule, no one can identify the components in any of the proposed schedule. How much is included for housing, food, clothing, education, or routine medical expenses? What is the percentage of fixed cost? If the noncustodial parent does not exercise 60 to 90 days of visitation, how much should be added to his/her child support obligation? No one knows! Judges will have a hard time knowing how much to adjust without at least knowing the breakdown of fixed and variable costs. Of course, it would be impossible for D.C.S.E. staff to make any adjustments.
FINALLY, there will be fiscal impact if this new schedule is enacted into law. The average increase is 17% in the lower and upper income levels and 8% in the middle income levels. The Division of Child Support Enforcement currently handles over 300,000 cases. Each person is entitled to a review every three years. I cannot imagine anyone who would turn down a review yielding them an increase in child support.
Even if the General Assembly adopts the new schedule and adds a clause which states “the new Schedule shall not be considered, of itself, a material change of circumstances,” judges and D.C.S.E. staff will have to first calculate child support using the old schedule to determine if there is a material change of circumstances to warrant a modification. Some custodial parents will be encouraged or tempted to ask for a modification even if they have no other material change of circumstances.
Furthermore, there will be a greater number of noncustodial parents who will not be able to pay the increased amount, resulting in a greater number of show cause hearings and an increased number of people being incarcerated. There will be fiscal impact!
UNTIL there can be a schedule with identifiable components, based upon current data on the actual cost of raising a child or children in separate households, I believe it would be reckless and irresponsible to recommend that the General Assembly adopt another schedule.
For all these reasons, I respectfully dissent and ask that the General Assembly reject the recommendation of the Panel majority for a new schedule at this time.
Murray Steinberg
______________________
Murray Steinberg
Concurring with this Dissenting Opinion are members Cynthia Ewing and Maxie Cannon