I have recently written three articles on "the solution" to the child support problem. (links below) The articles have been posted in various forums where people interested in the problem - including several who have engaged in the child support debate for years - have been able to comment. Reaction to my commentaries on the solution has been interesting and I hope through continued dialogue to promote understanding of the solution.

As prelude to continued discussion, to reduce some of the background confusion in public review, it should be understood that I was never supportive of the movement to transform child support "guidelines" into presumptively correct calculators of awards. I support a return to constitutional rule in family law generally and definitely in the award of child support specifically. Guideline designers will only be challenged to construct and maintain formulae that actually do provide appropriate results if their results are open to challenge. Traditional constitutional due process provides the most efficient and effective approach.

The core problem that has been solved is that of finding the appropriate standard of living increase that can result from the payment of child support. Traditional statutes allowed custodial parents to sue not just for subsistence support of children but for an amount concomitant with both parents' ability to support. At the time federal laws were passed requiring states to use rigid formulae for award determinations, mathematical theory was incomplete. Current guidelines set award levels arbitrarily high.

The standard of living adjustment problem involves a puzzle. The puzzle involves two perspectives that seem to contradict one another. These two perspectives have been at the heart of public debate on child support since the introduction of federal reform.

The purpose of child support: "Child support is for the care and maintenance of children." The only criticism I've received in regard to this statement is that it is not consistent with current state laws. That's true, but since I know that current state laws yield arbitrary results, it would not make sense to try to derive a real solution from them. It is actually quite apparent that it would be silly to try to derive a formula for the proper amount of "child support" with the purpose being anything other than supporting children.

Now let's step onto trickier ground and introduce the puzzle once again. I have also said that the "actual economic role of a child support payment" is to increase the standard of living of the recipient household. This statement is the one that appears to be most at odds with the purpose. The actual difference is so basic that it might slip by unnoticed. My conclusion on the "actual economic role" is an observation, not intent. Even if the payment is only one dollar, it adds to the wealth of the recipient by one dollar and reduces the wealth of the payer by the same amount. It's a fact and an essential understanding in finding the solution to the standard of living adjustment problem. To be clear; it is not my choice. It is not a statement of policy preference. It is just something that is true.

Critics of my observation contend that it looks too much like the purpose of current guidelines; sharing income with the other parent as opposed to restricting child support awards to child support. They miss the point. In formulating policy, the difference between effect and purpose is huge. Confusing the two can be dangerous. In current law, where redistribution of wealth is the purpose, the statute is so vague that it tells us nothing about what an appropriate redistribution might be.

A reasonable person does not see legitimacy in a claim based on the principle that parents are obligated to support their children when the demand made is not actually for that purpose. If a state statute does not clearly state that the purpose of child support is support of children, then the statute is wrong.

I have said that "The basic purpose of child support law, combined with the richness of constitutional limits against arbitrary government interference, provide a sufficient basis from which a valid solution can be derived." This leads to the second fundamental principle of child support decision theory. (The statement of purpose is the first.)

Relationship (equal duty) Principle: Both parents have an equal duty to support their children.

This does not mean that each parent is obligated to provide 50 percent. The third fundamental principle demands that the understanding of children's needs and the parents' obligations are tied directly to the reality of their present circumstances. The solution is related directly to real circumstances - the present circumstances of families (i.e. while the payments are made). This is a fundamental difference between the solution and the ideas upon which current guidelines are built. The solution actually addresses the real situation rather than babbling aimlessly through the designer's fantasy world. Staying in the real world also allows a reality-check when the solution is applied.

Context Principle: All relevant circumstantial information may effect the amount of the award.

It is understood that the actual economic effect of payment is to increase the standard of living of the recipient household - no matter what the size of the payment. The answer is found by determining how great that standard of living increase can be without violating the three principles.

Related Article Links

Roger F. Gay