Virginia Child Support Triennial Review
Panel
Dissenting Opinion Against the Proposed Schedule
In HB2261, HB2263, SB1312, and SB 313
Vote for HB 2817
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 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:
- There is no “current research and data on the cost of and expenditures
necessary for rearing children” in separate households. [Va. Code § 20-108.2
(H)]
- “Studies have begun to show that at the national level, the growth
in incarcerations has contributed to growth in arrearages of less-educated
and less-skilled workers... Over this period (Mid-1970s to mid-1990s), incarceration
rates for less-educated and less-skilled Americans grew dramatically, having
adverse impacts on their current and future earnings.”
- “... today the majority of obligors are fathers who are more involved
in child-rearing than they were 20 years ago. In addition to paying or receiving
child support, many obligors spend money on their children during parenting
time... in addition to the child support they pay.”
- “... from the mid-1970s to the mid-1990s, the earnings of less-skilled
and less-educated Americans failed to keep pace with inflation.”
- “... the deterioration in labor market opportunities of less-skilled
and less educated Americans and the negative impacts that incarceration have
on an individual’s ability to meet child support obligations provide a sound
rationale for updating the schedule.”
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 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
Footnote:
* 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.