September 12, 2002
By Roger F. Gay
The Virginia Child Support Review Panel is tasked with assuring that use
of the state's child support guideline results in appropriate awards.
One might think this job impossible if the term "child support" is
not
defined. That is exactly what panel member Murray Steinberg thought.
Mr. Steinberg has been trying since early June to discover or have the
panel agree on a definition of "child support."
Federal law requires, as a condition for funding child support
enforcement programs, that states review their guidelines at least once
every four years. In 1999, during the state's last review, then panel
member Barry Koplen raised the issue of a lack of definition for the
term "child support." A <a
href="http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5910/va.html">recommendation</a>
was submitted defining child support and providing necessary and
sufficient principles for determining appropriate child support awards.
The recommendation suggested specific changes to Virginia law.
That panel ignored the issue and the addition of a sufficient definition
to the Virginia statutes did not take place. Without defining the term,
the state obviously has no basis for certifying that their child support
guidelines, which judges must by law presume give correct results, have
anything at all to do with child support.
On July 1st, without discussion, the panel voted 8-1 to "keep the
current definition." The motion to hold the vote was given by state
Senator Frederick Quayle (R-District 13). Senator Quayle's office was
contacted twice over a two week period asking for comment, but he was
not available.
The design of the Virginia guideline rests heavily on the work of Robert
Williams, a child support collection entrepreneur who provides
consulting on design of guidelines through Policy Studies, Inc. His
collection company, which operates in Virginia keeps approximately one
third of the child support money paid through contracts it has with
states and individuals, making the size of child support awards a direct
profitability factor.
States receive additional federal funding in proportion to the amount of
child support collected. Like other states, Virginia counts all child
support payments made through their system as "collections" even when
they are made on time. Arbitrarily increasing the amount awarded
increases the amount of federal funding they receive.
Williams contends publicly and in his consulting with states that his
work is based on "economic studies." But in a deposition taken in
<a
href="http://www.acfc.org/legal/pops.htm">P.O.P.S. v Gardner</a>,
he
admitted that he made it up and said that acceptance of his design
depended on states accepting his policy choices. The explicit goal of
his "Income-Shares" guideline, introduced in 1987, was to increase
the
average amount of child support awarded to 250 percent of what it would
be under traditionally established child support law.
When questioned by the review panel in 1995, Williams admitted that he
could not identify any of the components in his cost estimates,
including food, clothing, housing, education, routine medical
expenditure, and transportation. He was unable to identify how much of
the estimated cost is fixed and how much of it varies according to
visitation arrangements and other factors.
According to Mr. Murray, the panel has not presented any current
research and data on the cost of and expenditures necessary for rearing
children. "We have no data related to the actual cost of raising a child
in a separated or divorced, two home situation."
Income-Shares guidelines have never been shown to correspond to any set
of policy choices that are rationally related to "child support,"
and
states have implemented the model by eliminating definitions and
principles from their statutes. Williams has responded to critics by
claiming that the arbitrarily high orders produced by an Income-Shares
guideline provide a higher standard of living in custodial parent
households.
But the question of increasing standard of living through child support
payments has already been addressed scientifically. It has been found
that there is a limit to the standard of living increase that can be
obtained through a child support payment. Increasing child support
amounts beyond the limit introduces what has become known as <a
href="http://www.fathermag.com/906/alimony/index.shtml">hidden
alimony</a>. Many experts agree that it is illegal (incl.
unconstitutional) to include alimony in a child support award.
Virginia's approach uses extremely dubious estimates of what two parent
families spend on children, which include arbitrarily high percentages
of such families' expenditures on housing and transportation. Even if
these estimates have something to do with intact family spending, they
are unrelated to post divorce spending. This leads to child support
awards that are quite random in their relation to actual family
circumstances and the needs of children regardless of the credibility of
the estimates.
Previous political debates on the subject of child support have done
nothing to deal with the child support problem objectively. Many
advocates of the current system have responded in typical gender-warrior
fashion. Men should not be allowed to "get away with" paying less
(to
the mother) than they would if they were married. Others have stated
that arbitrarily high child support awards help <a
href="http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/stories/gay032802.htm">even
the score
between men and women generally</a>.
Another contentious aspect of the guideline is its <a
href="http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/stories/gay072402.htm">intentional
denial of credit</a> for support provided by noncustodial parents during
visitation periods, and <a
href="http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/stories/newswire070402.htm">inadequate
credit</a> for near or greater direct support provided by parents with
joint custody.
Murray Steinberg has been through it all before. He previously served
twice on the state panels, in 1993 and 1995. He refused reappointment in
1999 acknowledging that the majority of political appointees on each
panel are predisposed to maintaining the status quo. He only accepted
reappointment for this review after receiving assurance from acting
Department of Social Services Secretary Lou Rossiter that things would
be different this time. Indications are however, that this review will
be like the rest.
_____________________________________________________________
Free LawGuru.com Email: http://readmail.lawguru.com/