Dear
As an initial matter, I agree that there are, and always will be, individuals
who take advantage of any system. However, let me try to address some of the
other issues you raised.
By way of background, the Domestic Relations Procedural Rules Committee of
the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania is an advisory body only. The committee is
composed of judges, lawyers and a court administrator from across the
commonwealth who are appointed to serve, without compensation, by the Supreme
Court. The committee's role is to advise the court regarding the rules of civil
procedure governing family law matters such as divorce, support, paternity,
custody and protection from abuse. One of the matters assigned to the committee
by the court is the support guidelines.
Federal law requires that all states have statewide child support guidelines.
Pennsylvania is one of thirty-three states that bases its guidelines on the
income shares model. The original income shares model was developed under
funding from the U.S. Office of Child Support Enforcement and administered by
the National Center for State Courts. The National Child Support Guidelines
Advisory Board recommended the income shares model for state support guidelines.
The basic support schedule in Pennsylvania's guidelines is based upon the work
of Dr. David M. Betson, Professor of Economics, University of Notre Dame. The
data he uses are derived from actual child-rearing expenditures as a proportion
of household consumption as reported in the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
Consumer Expenditure Survey. The percentage of such expenditures varies at
different income levels.
I am unclear as to your references to "higher standard of living"
or "higher income life style." The income shares model is based upon
the premise that a child is entitled to the resources that would have been
available to him or her had the parents stayed together.
As the name suggests, the income shares model underlying the guidelines is
based upon income, not "needs" or expenses. Basing the support amount
on "' needs" would be far too subjective. Some people live above their
means and may think they "need" more, while others may live very
frugally. Using income levels and statistical studies produces a fairer, less
value-laden outcome.
Similar value judgments would be involved in requiring a support obligee to
account for how support is being spent. Aside from being an accounting
nightmare, it would be an invasion of privacy for both parties, particularly in
an equally shared custodial arrangement in which both parties logically would
have to account for expenditures on the child when in his or her custody. (If an
obligor's expenses were low, would that mean more income is available to pay
support to the obligee?) Such a requirement would keep the parties involved in
one another's day-to-day financial affairs, thus creating additional tension and
conflict, which is not in the best interest of the children involved, or the
parties for that matter. It also would require court intervention into personal
values and financial decisions. The courts do not have the resources or the
willingness to micromanage family finances and it would be a misuse of valuable
court resources to have a judge decide if a child should have Nikes or Keds,
pizza or steak. Such accountings would increase, not decrease, litigation
between parents. Therefore, unless it can be shown that a child is being
neglected, the obligee has discretion over the expenditure of support received.
Child support is the responsibility of both parents. In calculating support
under the income shares model, the income of both parents is considered. If
either parent is unemployed or underemployed, the court may impute an earning
capacity to that person and base the support award on what the person should
reasonably be earning. Thus, even if the obligee decides not to work at full
potential, the obligor's payments will be less when an earning capacity is
imputed to the obligee.
The support guidelines create a rebuttable presumption that the amount of
support calculated under the guidelines is the proper amount. However, because
no set of rules is going to fit each and every circumstance, the guidelines also
give the courts discretion to deviate from the guideline amount of support when
warranted by the evidence. In addition, support law comprises not only rules
promulgated by the Supreme Court (the guidelines), but also statutes enacted by
the legislature and signed by the governor, as well as court decisions known as
case law. The court must consider all of these and apply them to the evidence
presented in each individual case.
I hope that this information is helpful.
Sincerely,
Patricia A. Miles Counsel
