COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS TO RECOMMENDATION 67; PENNSYLVANIA SUPPORT
GUIDELINES REVIEW
February 22, 2004
Patricia A. Miles, Esq.
Counsel, Domestic Relations Procedural Rules Committee
5035 Ritter Road
Suite 700
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
Fax 717-795-2175
Email: patricia.miles@pacourts.us
Dear Ms. Miles;
The following suggestions and comments to the Recommendation 67, Pennsylvania
Support Guidelines are divided into three general categories. The first category
are positive comments to the Committee's recommendation in recognition of the
inherent bias and unfairness practiced by Pennsylvania Domestic Relation Courts
in current child support order applications. The second category is comments and
suggestions intended to improve the fairness in treating parties similarly in
similar circumstances and in the best interests of the children. The third
category is questions directed to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Domestic
Relations Procedural Committee.
Positive Comments
Rule 1910.16-1 Explanatory Comment D 2004
The establishment of the Self Support Reserve (SSR) at poverty level is a
recognizable improvement over the current $550, below poverty level amount. The
previous amount was below poverty level and left obligors in an untenable and
inherently unfair economic position.
Rule 1910.16-2 Explanatory Comment E 2004
The recognition of the previous shared custody "cliff effect" is notable. The
previous Recommendation totally ignored any economic impact of shared,
significant or partial custody on the non-custodial parent. The adopted
recommendation for the existing guidelines set a 40% of overnight stays as the
point where child support should be reduced to reflect the costs spent on the
children by the non-custodial parent. This fixed point created a natural
battleground for parents to litigate in court and did not serve the best
interests of the children. Non-custodial parents with 39% or less of overnight
stays were treated by the guidelines in terms of credit for the real money they
actually spent on their children as if they spent no time at all with their
children.
This Committee is recommending a more level playing field for families by
establishing a more graduated credit for the expenditures that non-custodial
parents have and will continue to spend on their children. In fact, because of
this credit, the non-custodial parent will have greater resources to spend even
more on his or her children. This will promote the best interests of the
children.
In this section recommendation, the Committee has also recognized the
importance of reviewing other states' support guidelines.
Rule 1910.16-4 Tables A and B
The reduction credit for time spent for non-custodial parents with their
children for all non-custodial parents is the best change in these support
guidelines recommendations. This change will reflect the reality of how
non-custodial parents contribute more than the amount paid in child support to
the obligee and is in the best interests of the children.
Best Interests of the Children Suggestions and Comments
Rule 1910.16-1 (a)(2)
Support to a public body should only be applied if and only if neither
biological parent or grandparent have requested and/or been considered to become
the custodial parent. California (see the article from February 17, 2004 at
www.presstelegram.com) has only recently begun a revamping of their family
services departments including adding a budget item of nearly $250,000,000 to
keep child in the family and away from becoming wards of the state or foster
care. No interim support order shall be issued on behalf of a public body until
the courts have determined that neither biological parent or grandparents
desires primary custody nor are parentally fit to have primary custody.
This Rule rewards public bodies to take custody of minor children from their
natural families and then punishes and hinders the natural families from their
basic rights of being parents to their children.
Explanatory Comments - 1998 to 2004
The basis of support guidelines descriptions is contradictory within
themselves and are inherently unconstitutional. The basis of the child support
guidelines for separated, divorced or out-of-wedlock parents is compared to
intact marriage families. This comparison is not treating people similarly in
similar situations nor is it reasonable because by its very nature the necessary
basic household expenses of both parents are ignored even though these expenses
exist and are real. These recommendations of using an intact family's one
household expenses for children and applying them to a separated family with two
household expenses and no increase in income is comparable to ordering that the
same intact family continue to spend the same amount of money on their children
even after their income decreases to a level equal to the expenses to maintain a
second household.
In reality, the above reduced income intact family would adjust their
expenditures on their children if the family experienced such a loss of income.
Therefore, using the similar circumstance treatment Federal policy for child
support guidelines mandates an income shares model for expenditures on children
from separated, divorced and out-of-wedlock families.
The writer suggests the Committee adopt a reasonable second household expense
amount and in the calculations deduct this amount from the combined income in
the calculation of net income.
Rule 1910.16-2(a)(8)
Consideration of settlements should be restricted to when the settlement is
actually paid to the party and the actual amount paid less bonofide and
documented settlement costs.
A case in point involved a father who won an employment racial discrimination
suit but his employer appealed the settlement decision. No settlement payments
were made. The mother filed to increase her support based on this settlement and
the court agreed with her and increased the support amount in consideration of
the full settlement amount. However, the father never received any of this
settlement but the higher amount was ordered, attached to his wages and soon
became an arrears amount. This father was given a child support order today
based on a possible settlement amount that may or may not occur some unknown
time in the future.
Rule 1910.16-2(a)
Income tax refunds should be considered as income if the parties' net income
is determined by their federal paycheck withholding amounts. This is because the
actual tax liability is what the Rule 1910.16-2 allows for a deduction and to
conform with the Rules, only the Federal, state and local income tax forms
should be used.
Additionally, Federal Child Tax Credits are not included in the income
calculations. This will add about $80/mo. per child of net income to the parent
who claims the children on their Federal income tax filings.
Rule 1910.16-2(c)(1)
Add per capita taxes, unemployment taxes and mandatory professional fees to
the deductions from gross income. These fees and taxes are steadily increasing
and are non-voluntary in nature. These taxes and fees can be annualized to a
monthly basis.
Rule 1910.16-2(d)(4)
A definition of "when the opportunity is available" should be added. The
party's job skills should be stated and then use publicly available employment
classified section or publication to be used to determine if there is an
opportunity available.
Rule 1910.16-2(f)
If an obligor is contributing 60% or more of the combined income and is
current with his child support obligations for the given year, then allow the
obligor the option to claim the children as dependents in terms of filing of his
or her Federal income taxes.
This will create an incentive for obligors to keep current with their child
support, which is again in the best interests of the children.
Rule 1910.16-2 Explanatory Note 2004 Subdivision (c)
All child related health insurance premiums should be income deductible and
not a shared expense. Allowing insurance deductions will encourage insurance
coverage for the children, which is in their best interests.
Define what is minimal income in terms of the obligee in regards to insurance
credits.
Rule 1910.16-2 Explanatory Note 2004
This explanatory note gives an example of a low-income obligor living with
his or her parents and creating an upward deviation in his support calculations
due to the contributions of the parents. Why not make the same situation apply
to both obligors and obligees? The basis of these support guidelines and
recommendations are to treat parties similarly in similar situations. Therefore,
this Committee should follow it's own guidelines.
Rule 1910.16-4 Part II
Consideration should be given to the obligor's court ordered supervised
visitation actual costs. Too often in Pennsylvania Family Courts, custody
litigation becomes impassioned, creating accusations of child abuse, frequently
unfounded. The accused parent is relegated to a paying visitor to his or her
children and often may miss a visit due to the lack of money for the supervised
visit fee. By allowing income deductions of paid supervised visitation fees will
encourage visits of the accused parent and may reduce false accusations because
it may reduce support to the accuser. In both ways then, the children's best
interests are served.
Income Tax Intercepts
A definition is needed for what is late or how much in arrears warrants the
tax refund intercept program to be initiated. The guideline nature of seasonal
workers averages their income over a whole year. During their slow employment
time periods, there may be months that they fall into arrears through no fault
of their own. By defining late and/or an amount for being in arrears will not
penalize obligors who are trying to follow the support rules and guidelines.
This change will demonstrate some personal respect to those who honor their
obligations to their children and may encourage support compliance.
Official Note (d) Private School Tuition, Summer Camp and Other Activities
These additional discretionary costs should never be a part of addition to any
child support order. Parties will contribute to these discretionary costs as
they see that they serve the best interests of their children without court
intervention. Too often these added costs and activities are done to punish the
other parent.
This section implies that public schools are inferior to private schools. Why
then are not intact families ordered to send their children to private schools?
However, a special needs child would be an exception and their expenses should
be considered.
Official Note (e) Mortgage Payments
The writer objects to including separate and additional mortgage payments of
any kind into any child support order. Mortgage payments and property issues are
to be resolved with equitable distribution. The obligee should seek different,
affordable, and reasonable accommodations rather than receive additional
payments for mortgages.
Explanatory Note - Child Care Tax Credit
A clause should be added that changes the amounts for the Child Care Tax
Credit for any future changes to the Federal Tax code for this item.
Explanatory Note - Unreimbursed Medical Expenses
Increase the amount by 5% to $260.50.
Questions for the Committee
Why can't the Committee hold public meetings prior to issuing their
recommendations? Once the Recommendations have been issued for public comment,
the public is at a disadvantage because now the recommendations have to be
proven wrong or unfair. If the public meetings were held before the
recommendations were issued, then the Committee will have heard opposing points
of interest to consider before writing their recommendations.
How are the Committee members chosen? Why isn't there any laymen or advocacy
groups on the Committee?
Why hasn't the Committee commissioned an economic study of separated families
to measure what they spend on their children relative to their combined income
levels and number children?
Please direct me to where the research conclusions and report of Dr. David
Benson and Dr. Jane Venohr can be obtained, including the data from the 1996-98
Consumer Expenditure Survey and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Center for
Nutrition Policy and Promotion data.
If the higher income parent had greater than 60% of the overnight stays and
is the Father, would he still have to pay the Mother child support? What if the
overnight stays were 55% with the Father?
Respectfully submitted,
Kevin Sheahen, P.E.
Secretary of National Congress for Fathers and Children
37 Seneca Road
Pittsburgh, PA 15241
pghdads@aol.com
