On Jan. 4, the Deseret News published an article explaining a proposal for increasing child-support amounts. The proposal was endorsed by the state Child Support Guidelines Committee.
Reading the article, I became concerned because the proposal embodies a major shift in the philosophy of the system. Also, looking at the situation for six children (rather than two children, highlighted in the article), I realized that the proposal has much more radical increases in support than the article showed.The proposal was based on child-raising costs provided by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The committee was unanimous in feeling that current guidelines are too low. However, it was split in the recommendation about how much they should be raised.
The following comments are based on a comparison of the proposal to the existing guidelines, determination of the tax impact on take-home pay at different gross income levels, and a prior review of the philosophy underlying the current guidelines.
1. The proposal ignores economic realities. Use of USDA guidelines for costs of raising children ignores some important economic realities. It costs more to support two households than one. Attempts to provide the same level of support to children after divorce as before is unrealistic. Doing that, someone's living standard declines precipitously. Under the committee's proposal, that someone is the father (as the children generally live with the mother).
2. The proposal has increases of up to 100 percent for fathers with many children. The comparison shown in the Deseret News for two children shows increases of up to 40 percent in support. However, for fathers of six children, the increases range from 60 percent to 100 percent. The new proposal has little increase for fathers of one child, yet the allowance for each additional child is from 10 percent to 15 percent of the father's take-home pay. It makes no allowance for fixed versus variable costs nor for economies of scale. It is low for few children and astronomical for many.
3. The schedule makes little allowance for fathers to support themselves.
4. "Cost-of-living" increases shouldn't change schedule. The increases in the schedule have been justified as "cost-of-living" increases. If the father's income has kept up with inflation, then a change in the schedule is not needed. He will move up the gross income scale, which increases the amount awarded in support. An adjustment in the award is needed, but not in the underlying scale. If his income has not increased with the cost-of-living, then an increase in the schedule will impose a hardship on him rather than on the children. A change in the scale should be justified on the fairness of the division of income.
5. The committee disregards the emotional needs of the fathers.
The divorce system in Utah is punitive to fathers. Many didn't want divorce. Secondly, even if faithful and responsible, they have a minuscule chance of getting custody of their children. Thirdly, under the proposal, the system gives them no opportunity to start a new life.
If the system is too unfair to fathers, many will bail out - and we are all the losers. The biggest scandal of the child-support system is not how low the awards are, but how little of those awards are collected.
6. The proposal imposes a level of child support that is too high for the long haul.
7. Need for other changes in the system. As long as we are considering major changes to the philosophy of the system, perhaps we need to consider some others. I suggest the following:
A higher percentage of the father's income should be available for support during the period of adjustment (say five years) than later - when he should invest in a new life for himself.
The adjustment of the award (after five years) should take into account the total income and responsibilities of both families, valuing each equally. Second families should not be ignored nor should financial contributions of spouses.
In summary, the child-support system should help the divorce process. It should provide for strong support in the transition to two families, yet provide increasing independence later on. For the benefit of the children, it should encourage, not discourage, remarriage. Two-parent families are much better able to support children than single-parent families. Anyone who has been through divorce and carried honorably the attendant responsibilities will not approach marriage nor procreation of children lightly.
Importantly, it should not be punitive to fathers. If there is nothing in it for them, they will bail out - and we all lose. The solution is not to pile a greater load on fathers. That is the effect of the current proposal.