Before making comments about the specific suggestions submitted by William M. Rodgers III, it is necessary to put the suggestions in the context of the Panel's previous decisions and to relate Dr. Rodgers' suggestions to the history of child support guideline development and politics. A competent and honest discussion about the specific suggestions being made is impossible without this context.
The Panel has made two decisions that that seriously undermine the process of determining whether the guidelines produce appropriate results. It is at present flying by the seat of its pants without an airplane. The suggestions under consideration fit that context and that is the most general (summary) reason for rejecting the suggestions.
The first problem created by the Panel resulted from the decision to proceed without a definition of "child support" and a sufficient set of principles that define what an appropriate child support award is. Without definining what is meant by "an appropriate child support award" the Panel has no objective basis for considering specific suggestions. It has no basis for determining whether the current guideline, any detail of the current guideline, or any change to the guideline would serve the purpose of assuring its use results in appropriate child support awards.
Even though the Income-Shares model is known to be fundamentally flawed in its logic to the point that it cannot produce appropriate child support awards, the Panel has elected to proceed with detailed considerations on the possibility of improving the existing Income-Shares guideline. Suggested changes to the Income-Shares guideline can possibly improve the situation for some people, but it is impossible to make partial changes that will fix the guideline properly (changes to the numeric table for example). Suggested changes to the guideline can only be discussed in superficial ways, such as – it's apparently too high, but by how much?
To put the specific suggestions in context, I'm sure that returning Panel members know that Dr. Rodgers' is making suggestions that were developed by child support collection entrepreneur Robert Williams. There is no valid legal or scientific basis for increasing the table at the high end. This suggestion has been rejected by child support guideline committees throughout the country, every time Dr. Williams has suggested it, for at least the past eight years. It has already been proven that the current guideline produces results that are too high and do not in any logical way relate to the support of children. That the guideline produces results that are too high – that it contains "hidden alimony" – has been well and truly proven.
Comments on the specifics
In that context, some commentary on the specific basis of the suggestions
is possible, even though seemingly unnecessary. It is difficult to understand
why the Panel should proceed in attempting any detailed analysis of suggestions
that correspond to a fundamentally flawed model, and therefore are totally
lacking in technical credibility. The specific logic supporting the suggestions
is weak, superficial, and off-target. There is no possibility of putting
suggested changes to an Income-Shares guideline on a sound analytic basis
because the platform (the Income-Shares model) is fundamentally flawed.
The goals Dr. Rodgers aims for are wrong:
Dr. Rodgers suggests that the goals of Virginia's guideline are 1.) an adequate standard of support for Virginia's children subject to the ability of parents to pay, 2.) to make support obligations more equitable by assuring more consistent treatment of people in similar circumstances, and 3.) to improve the efficiency of court and administrative processes by providing guidance in establishing the level of child support awards.
Under federal law, the purpose of the review is to assure that use of
the state's child support guideline results in appropriate child support
awards. State law does not establish the goals presented by Dr. Rodgers.
Two of three assumptions about current guidelines are wrong:
Assumption: Both parents share legal responsibility for supporting their chidren.
Observation: Virginia law does not establish any financial responsibility for custodial parents. The current guidelines do not establish any financial responsibility for custodial parents. The guidelines do not relate at all to spending in custodial parent households.
Assumption: The current guideline partially satisfies are requirement to take the subsistence needs of each parent into account.
Observation: The current guideline does not account for the subsistence needs of parents except in cases where the arbitrarily high amounts produced by the guideline would create a financial hardship. Dr. Rodgers is wrong in asserting that the Income-Shares guideline includes a self-support reserve. It applies a cap in some circumstances. Use of the cap instead of the self-support reserve is one of the fundamental flaws of the Income-Shares model.
Assumption: The current guideline does not account for financial support provided directly by parents during parenting time.
Observation: The current guideline does not account for financial support
provided directly by parents during parenting time.
Basis of Dr. Rodgers' analysis:
Basis: "There are no estimates of parental expenditure that occur during parenting time."
Research: Costs of contact are found to be high. For contact with one
child for 20 per cent of the year, costs of contact represent about 40
per cent of the costs for a year of that same child in an intact couple
household with a medium income and more than half of the costs of that
child in a household with low income. The good news is that the mathematics
has been developed to make things come out even, although specific circumstances
must be considered in formulating a reasonable understanding of what coming
out even means. The bad news is that child support is not calculated properly.
If orders are adjusted in proportion to parenting time it is obvious that
many recipients would be giving up a margin of profit in addition to fair
compensation for expenses.
Basis: Variation exists in the ways obligors spend both time and money with their children.
Research: Variations exist in the ways all parents spend both time and money with their children, at all income levels and in all family configurations. There are controlling factors however, including the amount of disposable and discretionary income. The amount of income parents have to spend is affected by child support decisions.
Basis: The Income-Shares model will be used.
Research: The Income-Shares model has been shown to have fundamental flaws that cannot be corrected (short of a new and different guideline). It is impossible for an Income-Shares guideline to produce appropriate child support awards for a wide variety of family circumstances. In cases where the guideline may produce an appropriate result, the correspondence is merely coincidental.
Basis: Use of the 2000 Consumer Expenditure Survey to update the schedule due to inflation. The assertion is that spending patterns have shifted because the cost of some goods have increased relative to others.
Observation: This idea is inconsistent with the reasoning of the Income-Shares
model. The table provides a single value corresponding to the combined
income of the parents, related to an arbitrarily determined relatively
fixed percent of average overall household spending by intact households
at a variety of income levels. As expenditure in one area increases, expenditure
in other areas decreases. In fact, this is what Robert Williams has told
review committees time and again. He does not allow reductions when alternative
compensation is provided in one or more areas (such as she gets the house
or he drives the children to school every day). His argument is that when
spending in one area decreases, it allows more money to be spent in other
areas. "Total" expenditure is fixed to income without regard to spending
in individual areas. There is no relationship between the numbers in the
table and actual spending on children.
Basis: Incarceration rates are high and the ability of noncustodial parents to pay has degraded.
Observations: A very large number of drivers licenses have also been revoked. These issues cannot be dealt with adequately by manipulation of the guideline table. Drivers licenses need to be returned, increasing the ability of noncustodial parents to earn a living, and debts need to be forgiven. This is not the first time that suggestions have been made to lower the low end of the table of an Income-Shares guideline, but solving the problem of accumulating debt that cannot be repaid requires more than modification of the table. In particular, the variation in income (periods of un- and underemployment), and other debts accumulating as a result need to be accounted for.
Basis: Use of Gross rather than Net income.
Observation: Net income is a closer approximation of what noncustodial
parents actually have available to support themselves and pay child support
than Gross income.
Basis: Principle in mortgage payments are treated by the Consumer Expenditure as savings. Since a large portion of direct expenditure on children is likely to be on housing, this underestimates expenditures on children.
Observation: Principle mortgage payments are included in the CES in
the section, "other financial information," not savings. The Income-Shares
model sets table values arbitrarily based on a percent of the total amount
that intact families spend. The same fault exists in this argument as in
the argument for increasing table values due to inflation. In the Income-Shares
model, it does not matter what category of this spending and that belongs
to. In addition, it is unlikely that any parent(s) with high income is
spending a large portion of their income on housing for a child. Dr. Rodgers
has confused the inclusion of a large portion of housing expenditure in
the Income-Shares guideline as an indication of reality. In fact, parental
expenditure on housing does not increase in proportion to children. On
average, it decreases. Payment for housing is not a direct expenditure
on children. Children live in their parents' homes. Paying direct support
for the care of children tends to decrease the amount of money parents
have available for spending on housing (and transportation). The analysis
by Dr. Rodgers incorrectly "assumes" a portion of housing and transportation
costs into child raising costs. This is another of the major faults of
the Income-Shares model.
Recommendations:
Rodgers: Increase the cap (he calls "self-support reserve threshhold") to 150 percent of the poverty line.
Observation: The poverty level is an extremely uncertain measure of the amount of income required for subsistence. Certainly, it is most realistic to set a self-support reserve or cap significantly above the poverty line. However, the poverty line constantly moves upward due to inflation. As I write this, the figure Dr. Rodgers suggested is less than 150 percent of poverty level.
Rodgers: $65 mimimum payment.
Observation: Someone whose income is at the poverty line will be forced below it by a $65 mimum payment.
Rodgers: Phase in the level of basic support above the self-support reserve threshold to minimize work disincentives.
Observation: What do work disincentives have to do with it? Referring to child support law established in the shadow of the constitution, a man should not be ordered to pay so much that he is unable to support himself. The panel wouldn't be looking at policy goals that are unrelated to supporting children and such crude guideline construction techniques if the guideline was based on a valid theoretical model.
Rodgers: Estimates of the cost of children in intact households with income above $8500 per month are based on estimates of expenditure at $8500 per month.
Observation: With the exception of extraordinary expenditure, actual spending on children begins to level off at much lower income levels. At the high end of Dr. Rodgers table, he suggests an annual expenditure on one child of $17,136 per year for one child, well exceeding 150 percent of the poverty line that he suggests as a self-support reserve threshold for one adult. Keeping in mind that this is tax-free income, he is suggesting that a child should be provided for with an income that is in between the actual mean incomes of adult men and women in the United States who live alone. The level of income would be sufficient for the child to care for his own family independently of his parents. Dr. Rodgers' suggestion is for arbitrary wealth redistribution that has no rational relationship to child support.