Legal Basis

By federal regulation, state child support guidelines must be “rebuttable.” They are not absolute. One must be able to give arguments for doing something else for the award than the mindlessly apply the default formula. Federal regulations that supercede state law specifically state that a guideline award shall be rebutted when shown to not be economically appropriate. [Code of Federal Regulations under 45 CFR 302.56.]

The U.S. Court of Appeals – among other Federal courts – has published opinion that, when states engage in program agreements with the federal government, federal regulations supercede not just state rules and regulations but also related state statutes. A key opinion is Jackson v. Rapps, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit, October 17, 1991. 947 F.2d 332. This case specifically addressed child support program regulations.

If case circumstances do not fit the assumed circumstances of the underlying economic basis of the guideline, then the existence of the differing circumstances rebut the appropriateness of the presumptive award.

Further, states are required to enact presumptive guidelines that are economically appropriate (see 45 CFR 302.56).

A number of court opinions have specifically stated general requirements for economically appropriate child support awards, and for child support guidelines to pass constitutional muster. One of the earliest opinions to articulate how to derive an economically appropriate award was Smith v. Smith, 626 P.2d 342 (Or. 1980). This opinion specifically stated that it is economically inappropriate and unjust to apply a welfare case guideline to non-welfare cases. That case then delineated how one should allocate child costs between parents. Cases that have defined constitutionally sound child support award processes are Meltzer v. Witsberger, 480 A.2d 991 (Pa. 1984) and Conway v. Dana, 318 A.2d 324 (Pa. 1985).

These cases established several key principles. There is equal responsibility for both the father and mother according to their income and other financial standing. Child support may be used for enjoyments of the child beyond basic needs but this factor may not outweigh the need for a parent to meet their own basic living needs. The amount of child support paid in money should take into account other factors which supply the child’s basic needs or allow them to be met, including in-kind and non-cash contributions, division of property, alimony or spousal maintenance, trust funds, and other available resources of the child and both parents. Child support may not be used to accomplish objectives other than the intended purpose of child support: providing for the reasonable needs of the child. That is, child support may not involuntarily impose hidden alimony, division of property, or redistribution of wealth.

Consistent with these principles, the model:

• Assumes each parent has an equal duty of support. Each parent has an equal duty toward the other parent’s reasonably incurred child costs.
• Treats each parent’s obligation as proportional to that parent’s share of available financial resources. Generally, each parent’s obligation is proportional based on each parent’s share of income above self-support needs.
• Explicitly takes into account direct contributions toward child costs by either parent in the determination of the child support award in order for each parent to meet a standard of equal duty of support. This means inclusion of or treatment as an offset of such as direct payments of medical insurance by an obligor or obligee. This also means that obligor direct contributions of support such as provision of food, housing, clothing and other items should be factors in child support determination. These factors generally vary by parenting time shares.
• Bases the table of child costs (to be allocated between the parents) on actual data on child costs rather than on indirect measures such as changes in spending on adult goods. The preferred expenses for analyzing allocation of the costs should be those provided by the parents through financial affidavits. If the court has doubts regarding the appropriateness of cost data from financial affidavits, then data from economic studies on actual child costs are used as a presumption.
• Treats the child-related tax benefits as negative costs: that is, as partial offsets to spending on children.
• Derives a final award that is based on leaving each parent with income for each parent’s basic living needs.

Economic Report for Rebuttal of the Guideline Award for Your Case
In most cases, written economic analysis specific to your case can be used to rebut the presumptive child support award. That is, expert economic analysis can be used as part of a legal strategy in court to seek a deviation from the guideline award.

For many income situations, presumptive guidelines do not result in economically appropriate child support awards. Economic analysis can determine whether a presumptive award is appropriate or not. The analysis has several facets: explicitly stating the legal principles for sound allocation of child costs between parents, a review of the underlying assumptions, determining actual child costs for the case, and making appropriate economic comparisons between actual child costs and presumed child costs, to show that the presumption is inappropriate and rebutted. This analysis can include:

• A rebuttal of the presumptive award by showing that economic studies do not support the guideline award. Extensive citations are included.
• A rebuttal of the presumptive award based on constitutional standards for presumptions within statutes. Child support guidelines generally do not meet these standards for presumptions.
• Actual survey data on what households spend on children. This is in contrast to the“rule of thumb” methods such as obligor-only guidelines or indirect methodologies such as Income Shares.
• Treating the tax benefits attributable to the children that the custodial parent receives as offsets to total child costs.
• Sharing the net child costs (net of tax benefit offsets) between the two parents based on relative income.
• Making sure neither parent is apportioned more of the child costs than what will leave income for the parent's own basic living needs.
• Constitutional based case law on appropriate child support determination procedures

Depending on your state proceed to