Child Support Award Decision Modeling.
What type of Model is it?
Child Support Decision Modeling (CSDM)
This page was created on December 6, 1999
Last changed on September 7, 2005
Tutorials in Child Support Decision Theory (2005)
By now, most people who have reviewed child support guidelines are used to simple labels explaining what type of child support model is used. For example, Cost Sharing, Income-Shares, or Percent-of-Income. The PICSLT model does not fit the characteristics of any of these easily labeled models. So, what is it? It is in a class of models that have so far not been labeled. This class can be characterized as those guideline models developed as child support award decision models (CSDM). First, I will summarize the key characteristics of the three model types listed above, and then explain CS award decision modeling.
Cost Sharing: The cost-sharing model was developed in the shadow of established legal principles on making a child support award. Child support is an amount of money paid by the parent not allowed primary care for the actual and necessary expenses of caring for the child. This concept was supported by at least part of established child support principles. The cost-sharing model provided a means of calculating a reimbursement to the custodial parent for expenses in caring for children. Established child support law also provided that children should, to a reasonable extent, be protected from the standard of living loss that accompanies divorce. The cost-sharing model was created before mathematics had been developed for making the standard of living adjustment. Appropriately, the cost-sharing model was never used with the legal presumption that the child support guideline gave the correct result. Its function was to provide a uniform comparative starting point. According to law, judges were to use discretion to formulate a final order based on the full set of principles and the circumstances of all concerned. Using the cost-sharing model as a starting point was a perfectly rational approach. It is the child support recipient who was being reimbursed for expenses. The recipient has access to records of cost and payment that would allow supported presentation in court of an argument that additional support is needed. In contrast, a payer wishing to show that expenses are not so high as presumed would not have access to records to prove the point.
Income-Shares: Another incomplete model -- what might also be called "mothers' revenge." The relationship between established child support award principles and the calculation were eliminated. A direct counter to cost-sharing, the only consideration in the Income Shares model is that of attempting to guarantee the custodial parent a standard of living similar to that she might have if she chose marriage rather than single parenthood. The Income Shares model is not based on any rational principles for the award of "child support," nor does it have any valid economic basis. As we know it today, the Income Shares model was developed by a child support collection entrepreneur (Policy Studies, Inc.) making use of ideas that had been developed in a political movement to increase alimony. The theory in relation to the interests of collection agencies is that the more that is awarded, the more that will become past due (related to unemployment or any other cause.) Because most collection agencies work on percentage, this increases their profits.
Percent-of-Income: The percent of income model is the simplest of the income redistribution models. Its primary basis comes from highly controlled economies such as that of the Soviet Union. If one imagines that individuals and families have their income controlled according to family size, it is easy to understand how a simple percentage shift from one parent to another can account for the child's entitlement. Use of the percent-of-income formula is a blatant rejection of US Constitutional principles in favor of centrally controlled wealth redistribution as found in the failed communist system. Its primary promoter in the United States was left wing professor of Social Work, Irwin Garfinkel in conjunction with work with the Wisconsin Institute for Research on Poverty.
Child Support Decision Modeling (CSDM)
Characteristics of a CSDM: The legal principles upon which child support awards are based must be provided in statute. For example;
1. Child support is for the care and maintenance of children.
2. Both parents have an equal duty to support their children.
3. All relevant circumstantial information may effect the amount of the award.
The child support formula is then designed to conform to the set of principles upon which a child support award is based. It must be clearly understood how the model fits the legal principles. The logic and data used must also be easily comparable with evidence of actual family circumstances.
A characteristic of law in the United States has been its reliance of principles rather than detailed instructions. An early contributing effort to model the child support decision process in the United States was made by Maurice Franks. Franks documented statute and case law and attempted to develop mathematics powerful enough to reflect established principles of child support law.
Franks work was carried out before the federal government mandated use of child support guidelines as presumptively correct calculators of child support awards. In Smith v Smith (290 Or 675, 626 P2d 342, 344, 1981), the Oregon court was asked to require the use of child support calculation used then only in welfare cases to a non-welfare case. The Oregon Supreme Court in reviewing the decision noted that Franks' model better fit the principles of statutory law. They decided against accepting use of the welfare model and did not require use of Franks' best-fit model either. Franks' model was also discussed favorably by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Melzer v. Witsberger (505 Pa. 462; 480 A.2d 991, 1984)
(A review of the Pennsylvania decision can be found at http://adrr.com/law1/pareport.htm )
Although Franks' work fit the character of child support decision modeling, the mathematics he developed fit the description of the cost-sharing model fairly well. In application, a judge might start by using Franks' mathematics and them make additions and changes to better fit the full range of circumstances and considerations. The cost sharing approach does not include consideration of another important component that was included in established child support law. The award level could be adjusted to protect the child's standard of living in a way that reflects the parents' ability to provide.
Under the pressure of federal reforms, family court judge Melson created a more complete decision model in the mid 1980s based on Delaware child support statutes, which were quite typical of child support law throughout the United States. Melson's model accounted for the basic and additional needs of children, distributed the obligation of support between the parents, accounted for visitation, and provided a standard of living adjustment; all in way that corresponded reasonably to the principles of established Delaware child support law.
Melson's model was not a replacement for established principles of law. It was an effort to implement established principles. It was also designed to work within the Constitutional system. One could understand the relationship between Melson's mathematical model and the principles of law they were designed to implement. One could also understand the relationship between the mathematics and the details involved in the individual circumstances of each case.
Therefore, one could also understand the relationship between established principles of law and the child support decisions in individual cases. If one was not satisfied with the results provided by the mathematical model, because they seemed unjust or inappropriate, one could challenge the results based on established principles of law.
Given all this, Melson's model could generate child support awards completely within the context of the Constitutional system. This it would seem would make Melson's the first complete mathematical child support decision model; CSDM. Melson's model is similar to Sweden's, which is generically labeled the child support calculation.
Worthy of mention also, is the California system; which at least in its logic has much of the character of a CSDM. That character however is contradicted by the use of arbitrary numeric values.
Franks proposed his model with the generic title; "How to Calculate Child Support." Melson's model is named for its author and the state in which it was first used; the "Delaware-Melson" model. Franks work and Melson's model belong within the class of efforts to actually and fully model established child support law. The designation I would like to give them is CSDM.
Melson developed his model before mathematics had been developed to explicitly calculate the standard of living adjustment. He made up for this by adding 5% of remaining ability to pay after a basic award had been calculated.
Since then, the mathematics for calculating the standard of living adjustment have been derived. A new CSDM is being developed by Project for the Improvement of Child Support Litigation Technology.
