My Proposed Child Support Guideline Formula

[POC]

My formula is primarily derived from the Costs Shares formula of former Atlanta Federal Reserve economist, Mark Rogers. However, I tweaked his formula to account for inequities that he may not have considered. I give full credit to Mr. Rogers for his formula, and in no way claim any rights to this formula. With these acknowledgements, my proposed formula is as follows:

1.   Use USDA data on the costs of raising children, except marginal (not per capita) housing costs, and base the level on the parents' average income, not their combined income. Basic Child Costs Per Month (In this example, we will assume that amount is $1,000)
2.   Determine which costs are fixed and which are variable costs. Regardless of how much time a child spends with their parent, fixed costs do not decrease. Examples are rent/mortgage, bed, dresser, car seat. Variable costs increase in or decrease depending on how much time a child spends with each parent. Based on USDA data percentages are derived for both fixed and variable costs. For arguments sake, we will assume that fixed costs are 30% and variable costs are 70%. (Fixed costs $300, variable costs $700)
3.   Prorate NRP's fixed costs by multiplying percentage of time with the NRP by two. For example, if the child spends 40% of his/her time with the NRP, then the prorated portion of fixed costs would be 80% of what ever the fixed costs are. Therefore, the prorated portion of fixed costs would be 24% (.30 x .80). Or, $1,000 x .24 = $240
4.   Multiply amount in line 1 by percentage in line 3 and add that amount to the amount in line 1 to arrive at the total amount needed to provide for the child. In this example it would be the amount in line 1 x 1.24. ($1,000 x 1.24 = $1,240).This equitably accounts for the reality that it costs more to provide for the child at one home than it does at two homes. But, at the same time, it accounts for the fact that the child benefits from the fixed items at the primary home for longer periods of time than he/she is able to at the NRP home. Child support monies are proportioned accordingly.
5.   NRP's total costs are percentage of time at NRP's home multiplied by (variable costs) in line 2, plus prorated portion in line 3 multiplied by line 1. In this example, ($700 x .40 + $1,000 x .24) = $280 + $240 = $520 (NRP's Basic Costs)
6.   Primary Parent's (PP) total costs are percentage of time at the PP home multiplied by (variable costs) in line 2, plus the full 30% of fixed costs of line 1. In this example, ($700 x .60 + $1,000 x .30) = $420 + $300 = $720 (PP Basic Costs)
7.   *    Combining the final figures of lines 5 and 6 totals up to the total amount of basic needs for the child, as described in line 4.
8.   Add actual payments made by NRP for medical and child care to line 5. (NRP's Total Costs)
9.   Add actual payments made by PP for medical and child care to line 6. (PP's Total Costs)
10.   Subtract what ever tax benefits (income tax deduction, child tax credit or deduction for day care) the NRP receives (annual benefit of deductions /12) from line 5. NRP's Net Costs
11.   Subtract what ever tax benefits (income tax deduction, child tax credit or deduction for day care) the PP receives (annual benefit of deductions /12) from line 6. PP's Net Costs
12.   Calculate NRP's net monthly income, minus a self-support reserve of ($982 poverty level income) for amount of available income to support the child.
13.   Calculate PP's net monthly income, minus a self-support reserve of ($982 poverty level income) for amount of available income to support the child.
14.   Divide figure in line 12 by line 12 plus line 13 to arrive at NRP's available income percentage.
15.   Divide figure in line 13 by line 12 plus line 13 to arrive at PP's available income percentage.
16.   Multiply line 14 by line 11 to arrive at NRP's share of PP's Costs.
17.   Multiply line 15 by line 10 to arrive at PP's share of NRP's Costs.
18.   If line 16 is greater than line 17, then the difference is the presumptive child support award that the NRP would pay to the PP. If line 17 is greater than line 16, then the difference is the presumptive child support award that the PP would pay to the NRP.


Any mathematical formula worth its salt can be tested for validity at any point of the spectrum for validity. The above formula seamlessly proportions an equitable amount of money for children's reasonable needs (as defined by the USDA) across the time sharing and income distributions that are reality in today's society. In situations where stay-at-home-moms earned no income before and after a divorce, the father would still provide for 100% of the financial needs of the child. In situations where there is equal parental incomes and 50/50 time sharing, there would be no child support award, except to equitably account for actual differences of one parent paying more for day care and medical than the other, or because of tax benefit implications. When a child spends 100% of his/her time at one household and none at the other, all of the money to support the child is proportioned to provide for the child's needs at said home. All of this is accomplished with the same mathematical formula. The sheer presence of a deviation formula is an admission of a flawed basic child support guideline formula. Children deserve not to have the money that is intended to meet their needs so misproportioned. Every step in my formula more equitably provides for the needs of children than do current guidelines.

Now, when you argue that the child support guidelines are unjust and inappropriate, and when the rebuttal is, "come up with a better one" you have your reply to them.

[KAT]

POC, I just wanted you to know that I did read your new guidelines. I haven't had time to work them up (but did print it out). I will respond over the holiday weekend. However, I do want to comment that unless we  50/50 custody changes, support is still going to screw those who pay. Both need to be addressed at the same time or you are still going to have the custodial parent who refuses/accuses & otherwise stops visitation in order to gain financially.

Till later!

KAT

[POC]

KAT,

First of all, it would be hard to find a much bigger proponent of presumptive equal parenting time laws than I. However, if you work the numbers through, you will find that the differences between various time sharing arrangements are very equitable. The biggest self-admitted flaw to the formula is that it does not proportion enough money to provide for the fixed costs at the NRP home. So, admittedly, that could leave a child short of money to provide for their needs. I gave rationale for that in the formula.

The guidelines would be based upon annual USDA figures for child rearing. As such, there would be a rebuttable basis to the guidelines for any particular case, which does not exist now, but is required by federal statute. This would make it possible for judges to equitably account for various inequities, such as long distance transportation. USDA figures break down what the costs are for, such as housing, food, transportation, etc...

In short, CS guidelines can and should be equitable regardless of the time sharing arrangements. Conversely, I think you will find that once the guidelines become equitable for all situations, more and more time sharing arrangements will be something closer to 50/50. Again, I'm for presumptive equal parenting time laws. But, I believe removing the financial incentive to separate kids from a parent (almost always the dad) is one of the surest ways to accomplish that.