Friends,
I have just received word that the final report of the 2005 Ohio Child Support Guidelines Council is available on-line at http://jfs.ohio.gov/csguidelines/ . (When I just checked, I got a "page not found error" but I suspect that it is just a timing issue and the page will be there very soon.)
I have requested information from ODJFS as to who will sponsor the bill to enact these
recommendations and whether it will be introduced in both the House and the
Senate or just in one body. As soon as
we get answers to these questions, we will begin a full-court press to ensure
that
What we want is child
support guidelines that:
Are based on reasonable estimates of the costs of raising children: The proposed changed increase the estimates for the cost of raising children by as much as 89% over the current estimates. This means that the recommendation is to presume that parents making the same gross income spend nearly twice as much on their children as it is currently presumed they do. This worst for the lowest income parents. It is not reasonable to believe that parents now earning $9,600 a year are now spending about twice as much on their children as parents who earned $9,600 in 1992 did on their children.
Will not force more parents out of their children's lives: The enormous increases proposed in child support will--especially because they fall disproportionately on the poor--force more loving parents out of their children's lives. In order to meet the unrealistic child support obligations that will result from these recommendations, nonresidential parents will forced to work additional overtime hours and take additional jobs. This takes parents away from children. Worse, more nonresident parents will, in the face of these unrealistic guidelines, simply give up and drop out--moving into the underground economy where they are paid in cash for transient work.
Will not create criminals out of parents who are trying to
support their children: The
federal Office of Child Support Enforcement recognizes that 70% of the back
child support that is owed is owed by parent who earn less than $10,000 a
year. This owed money will never be
paid. Not even the implements of the
Spanish Inquisition will succeed in extracting the billions in back child
support owed by parents who can barely support themselves.
Will promote, rather than deter, equal shared parenting: The proposed guidelines will deter equal shared parenting--indeed, they will be a deterrent to any real sharing of parental responsibilities.
While the proposed guidelines involve significant increases in presumptive child support, very little has been done to address a fundamental flaw in the child support guidelines. The flaw is that the current guidelines puts 100% of the total child support funds in the household of one of the parents even though standard parenting time plans put the children in the other parent's household anywhere from 20% to 37% of the time. While time is not money, it is a fair proxy for money and it is undeniable that nonresidential parents who are exercising even "standard" parenting time have significant direct expenses on their children. The proposed guidelines, after raising the child support tables significantly, would propose to "give back" to the child support obligor 8.75% of his or her portion of the total child support obligation provided standard parenting time was being exercised. (The "fuzzy math" that resulted in this number is an interesting story in its own right. But we won't get into that now.)
The economic study done by Policy Studies, Inc. shows that even this paltry adjustment will be unavailable to any parent, regardless of income, if the recipient of the child support is unemployed. When the recipient's income is 50% of the obligor's and they have two children, the adjustment doesn't kick in until the obligor earns $48,600. So, many nonresidential parents will continue to get no recognition of their direct expenses on the children and even those who do will have only a token recognition--a small fraction of their actual expenses recognized.
There is no mandatory or even presumptive adjustment for extraordinary parenting time.
Here is what is
recommended:
1. If it is determined that the parenting time of the obligor exceeds 130 overnights (35.62 percent) per year, the court should consider a deviation from the amount calculated pursuant to the worksheet and the schedule in section 3119.021 of the Revised Code.
2. If it is determined that the parenting time exceeds 164 overnights (44.9 percent) per year, the court shall consider a substantial deviation from the amount calculated pursuant to the worksheet and the schedule in section 3119.021 of the Revised Code. If the court declines to grant a substantial deviation the court shall specifically state in the order the facts that are the basis for this decision.
Neither of these provisions make an adjustment presumptive correct.
The first only recommends considering an adjustment. The second requires considering an adjustment and requires a statement of the reasons for not awarding one, but gives no restrictions on what the court may employ as a basis for denying such an adjustment. And, this is true in a case where the obligor has the children in his or her custody nearly half the time.
Because the Guideline Council chose to handle these extended parenting time cases as a deviation from the guideline amounts, they will be available only to those who take their cases to courts--an alternative that is effectively denied to many low-income parents.
These recommendations of the Ohio Child Support Guidelines Council are very far from being in the best interest of children--that is, unless one thinks it is best for children to economically overburden one of the parents, force parents to work extended hours rather than caring for their children, criminalize many low income parents, and advance the "winner-take-all" approach to custody and child support determinations that is holding back the cause of shared parenting.
GET READY FOR A
POLITICAL
Don
