Continuing the subject of Ira Ellman's article that provides the intellectual basis for the proposed new child support guidelines in Arizona, the flaws don't stop with what I covered in my first piece.

As our reader pointed out originally, Ellman's idea that's reflected in the proposed new guidelines, is simply a transfer of income from non-custodial parents (usually dads) to custodial parents (usually moms).  His plan is to, up to 75% of the median household income, roughly equalize incomes between post-divorce households.  At higher income levels he graciously permits the higher-earning NCP to maintain a bit of his advantage.  That's assuming the NCP earns more than the CP.  If the CP earns more, then the NCP still pays to support the child, but the concept of equalizing incomes is abandoned.

As I said in my first piece, perhaps the most glaring flaw in Ellman's plan is that it completely ignores one of the cornerstones of public policy regarding child support - that money paid by the NCP be for the child, not for the CP.  That policy is the reason why states analyze data on spending to find out how much more it costs a couple to raise a child than it would if they remained childless.  As our reader succinctly stated it, under the proposed guidelines,

every person in the custodial home benefits, and every person in the non custodial parent home suffers.

Somehow, in the whole of his 58-page article, Ellman entirely missed that most obvious of policies.   My own guess about why he failed to mention it is that it was inconvenient to his thesis, so instead of bringing the subject up, he simply substitutes his own policy for it.

Ellman's policy is that the household the child spends more time in should have more money because, so certain data show us, children's outcomes tend to improve as the income of their households rises.  That is, children in more affluent households tend to do better than children in those that are less so.

That's true of course, but the very lightness with which Ellman treads on the topic betrays his discomfort with his own conclusions.  That's because children don't do better in affluent households just because of the money.  Parents in affluent households, for example, tend to be better educated and they tend to produce better educated kids because of it.  So simply plying all custodial parents with more and more money won't bring about the results shown by the sociology.  Ellman is entirely too glib for his own good on that subject.

But far more important is that, even if we take his argument - that more money means better outcomes for kids - at face value, then the obvious solution is to simply vest primary custody in the higher-earning parent.  According to Ellman's argument, the more money, the better for kids.  Therefore, leaving the child with the higher-earning parent is per se the best arrangement.  Somehow Ellman manages to miss the fact that his entire thesis argues for, in the vast majority of cases, Dad as primary custodian of the child because he tends to earn more than Mom. 

Instead, his solution is to give custody to the lower earner and then subject the higher earner to his draconian system of income transfer.  And in that way, his real intention becomes immediately clear.  For Ellman, it's not about the kids, it's about mothers.  If it weren't he'd argue for the obvious thing - give custody to Dad and let Mom chip in a little as child support.

Perhaps worse yet, Ellman totally ignores the clear ramifications of putting his ideas into practice.  The first is that divorce rates would surely skyrocket.  Why wouldn't they?  Given that mothers have primary custody in 84% of cases, offering her a steep increase in child support looks like powerful incentive for her to divorce.  Marriage?  Why would a man get married if he knew to a virtual certainty that he'd lose his children and up to half his income on divorce?  Why would a mother work for a living if she knew she could get up to half her husband's income by the simple expedient of divorce?

Those are all very possible results of Ellman's radical experiment in social engineering.  They are results that directly contradict a host of existing public policies.  Tellingly, they are results about which Ellman says not a word.

We live at a time in which non-custodial parents, along with everyone else, are having a hard time keeping their jobs.  When they do find work, it likely pays a fraction of what they were earning until recently.  That means that they're finding it harder and harder to keep up with their child support payments.  Just last week I reported on a "sweep" conducted by sheriff's departments throughout New Jersey arresting non-custodial parents behind on their payments.  The astonishing results in county after county were that, even facing incarceration for failure to pay, those parents still didn't pay.  Statewide, authorities got less than six cents on the dollar.

But far from doing the obvious thing - making child support easier to pay - Ellman wants to make it harder - far harder.  He wants to radically increase child support obligations on the part of parents who, in these worst of economic times, can't pay as it is.

And unless someone stops it, the State of Arizona is going along with his plan. 

If you want to express your opinion of the proposed guidelines, go here.

This entry was posted on Thursday, July 8th, 2010 at 8:41 am and is filed under Family Law, Child Support/Child Support Enforcement. Both comments and pings are currently closed.