PROBLEM

There are hundreds, maybe thousands, of non-custodial parents (NCP’s) that dodge their responsibility to provide for their children. Furthermore, teen/unplanned pregnancy and divorce rates are off the charts. I believe there is a correlation to these numbers and the laws that govern our family legal system.

Currently most state and local courts use their own guidelines and standards to set child support. The support “awards” are usually set at a percentage of income rather than a flat dollar amount representative of the actual cost of raising a child. In Wisconsin the guidelines suggest that each parent is responsible to equally provide for the child. The support standard is seventeen percent (17%) of the NCP’s income. This standard suggests that each parent is contributing seventeen percent (17%) of their income or thirty four percent (34%) of their combined household income. My wife and I have two children in our house and one that I pay child support for and we still don’t pay thirty four percent of our income on children.

So where do these percentages come from? The Wisconsin Child Support Standard, Chapter DWD 40 states, “the percentage standard established in this chapter is based on an analysis of
national studies, including a study done by Jacques Van der Gaag as part of the Child
Support Project of the Institute for Research on Poverty, University of Wisconsin,
Madison, entitled “On Measuring the Cost of Children.” Yet after reviewing the research seventeen percent (17%) is the amount that a couple contributes to the welfare of a child, not half the cost. Therefore, the courts are charging the NCP’s with one hundred percent (100%) of the actual cost of raising a child.

The laws that govern our child welfare system are antiquated and bias “awarding” exorbident amounts to the custodian and penalizing the NCP. Having a child is not a crime, nor is the child a winning lottery ticket for the custodian. Due to these biases by the court, children are looked upon as income for unwed mothers, teens, and women of unhappy marriages. I also believe it is due to the guildelines that so many NCP’s shirk their responsibility to provide for their children.

The following is an excerpt from the Waukesha County Wisconsin Court Self Help Website:

The assumption, of Wisconsin's DWD 40 Child Support Standard, that all families spend the same percentage of their gross income for raising a child, regardless of the family’s income, is flawed. The application of the DWD 40 standard will result in much higher awards than awards in other states. It requires one parent to pay a child support award which greatly exceeds this parent's share of the realistic cost of raising children, allows the other parent to escape their obligation to contribute an equal percentage of their income to support of the children, and violates the legislative intent as defined in Wisconsin Statute 49.90(1m) and 765.001(2) &(3). This may be perceived as punitive and/or maintenance in disguise and results in increasing the level of conflict between parents which in turn may hurt the very children this support standard is supposed to help.

The above suggests that the courts understand the need for change and yet turn a blind eye to the problem and continue to penalize NCP’s. I will now attempt to provide the foundation for a viable solution to this out of control pandemic.

SOLUTION

The US Department of Agriculture puts out an annual report suggesting the average cost of raising children of different age groups and income classes. The research is derived from data compiled by the US Department of Labor and the report is called the Consumer Expenditure Survey or CES. This report is supposedly used by state and local governments for setting child support and foster care guidelines. The report takes into consideration housing, food, transportation, clothes, healthcare, child care, education, and miscellaneous expenses. You can see a summary of this report on MSN Money at http://moneycentral.msn.com/articles/family/kids/tlkidscost.asp

Using the CES report as a guideline, standards could be created and set up by age group and income classes. Then in a divorce or paternity case the court can revert to the standards and apply the amount to the specific situation. For example: The CES proposes that a family in an income bracket of $41,700.00 to $70,200.00 annually spends $10,900.00 per year to raise a 15 to 17 year old child. This amount can then be applied to that given situation. Using the divorce philosophy (that all marital assets are divided equally without prejudice) each parent will be responsible for half of the cost to raise the child or in this case $5,450.00 per year per parent. The amount will be based on solid research and no bias is shown to either party. The dependent care tax credit should be granted to either parent and split equally between the two parents once received.

In cases where one parent’s income is higher than the other, parent “A”, with the higher income, pays a percentage more based on the percentage of income greater than parent “B”. Then the dependant tax credit is also split by that percentage.

I have outlined the base for a progressive way to move forward in changing the prejudicial guidelines governing our family judicial system. We all can agree that there is a problem with the current child support system. My plan forces accountability for each parent to provide for the child and takes away the penalties and hidden maintenance fees built into the current system. A child is not a means of income and should not be treated as one. Forced accountability changes everything. By forcing accountability for both parents we discourage divorce and unplanned pregnancy and encourage NCP’s to provide for their children as there is no longer a bias against them.

Please provide feedback to this proposal. I am interested in what you all have to say good, bad, or indifferent.

Thank you for your time!