The manner in which the child support guidelines are reviewed and established in Iowa can be construed as neither fair nor legal.  In performing the function of both creating and enforcing the child support guidelines, the Iowa Supreme Court is not acting within its purview.  This condensed article shall explore the current process used to establish the current child support guidelines and legal factors not considered or completely ignored in the process.
The Iowa Legislature entrusted the Iowa Supreme Court with the responsibility of reviewing and maintaining the child support guidelines through Iowa Code 598.21B(1). The Iowa Legislature also established the Child Support Advisory Committee (CSAC) through Iowa Code 252B.18 by appointment only to examine the guidelines and make recommendations to the Iowa Supreme Court Committee to Review Child Support Guidelines. Relevant Iowa Child Support Advisory Committee By-Laws, Article IV, Section 1, states, “Members shall include at least one district court judge, the General Assembly of Iowa, the Office of Citizens’ Aide, the Iowa State Bar Association, the Iowa County Attorneys Association, representatives ofcustodial parent groups, non-custodial parent groups and other constituencies which have an interest in child support enforcement issues.†However, as this thesis shall show, Iowa’s adoption on how to administer the federal child support guidelines requirement cannot through statutes supersede the Iowa Constitution. Furthermore, the Iowa Supreme Court is not bound by any recommendation made by the CSAC and attendance on behalf of state legislators is not mandatory creating a situation where many appointed legislators never participate in the process.
Policy Studies, Inc. (PSI) of Denver, CO is a consulting service used by the State of Iowa, contracted by the Iowa Supreme Court, to help determine child support guidelines. However, the Iowa Supreme Court refrained from allowing open bidding and competition and unilaterally handpicks PSI relying on Iowa Administrative Code 11 – 106.7. The Iowa Supreme Court, using solely PSI’s calculations and recommendations, and without allowing citizens the opportunity to question or provide direct feedback or observe the child support guidelines meetings, then determines the child support guidelines every four years.
The Iowa Supreme Court refraining from allowing open bidding and competition clearly violates the Sherman Antitrust Act found at 15 U.S.C. §§ 1-7, the Clayton Act found at 15 U.S.C. § 12, and the Federal Trade Commission Act found at 15 U.S.C. § 45. Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act outlaws “every contract, combination . . . , or conspiracy, in restraint of trade†and Section 2 makes it unlawful for a company to “monopolize, or attempt to monopolize,†trade or commerce.  In Parker v. Brown, 317 U.S. 341 (1943), the United States Supreme Court reconciled the conflict between the sovereignty of the states and the federal antitrust laws. The Court found that “a state does not give immunity to those who violate the Sherman Act by authorizing them to violate it, or by declaring that their action is lawful….†id, at 351. The Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 12, regulates general practices that “potentially may be detrimental to fair competition.†The Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45, outlaws “unfair methods of competition.â€Â  A case which clearly emphasizes this problem is United States v. Texas State Board of Public Accountancy, 464 F. Supp. 400 (W.D. Texas 1978) where prohibiting open bidding can virtually eliminate price competition and lead to an existence of conspiracy.
Further compounding the problem is when the Iowa Supreme Court takes on legislative duties of writing the child support guidelines, which is not specifically listed as an authority of the Iowa Supreme Court under  IA. Const. art. III, § 1 , IA. Const. art. V, § 4,  Iowa Code 602.4101, Iowa Code602.4102, or Iowa Code 602.4202, the Iowa Supreme Court is not acting within its purview and thus the child support guidelines are not legal and enforceable. The only power the Court has is the power of judgment.  See U.S. V. Butler, 297 US (1936). The Iowa Supreme Court has stated itself that it is not in their jurisdiction to make law or to add, delete, or change wording in a law. See Iowa Department of Transportation v. Soward, 650 N.W.2d 569;  O’Hara v. State, 642 N.W.2d 303.   Yet in Iowa the Supreme Court creates and enforces the guidelines.
Due process is lacking under the current Iowa system used to establish the child support guidelines. In Matthews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) - the U.S. Supreme Court stated that it will consider three factors as a due process balancing test: 1) The private interest that will be affected by the official action. 2)  The risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used and the probable value, if any of additional or substituteprocedural safeguards. 3)  The governments interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requisites would entail.  Considering the Iowa Supreme Court is acting as both the establisher and trier of fact of the child support guidelines and that lower Tribunal Courts must follow any precedent and/or rules established by the Iowa Supreme Court, due process is lacking for any partying challenging a child support obligation or the child support guidelines themselves. Due process requires a neutral decision-maker, be it a judge, hearing officer, or agency. Decision makers are constitutionally unacceptable where they have a personal monetary interest in the outcome of the adjudication or where they are professional competitors of the individual. Gibson v. Berryhill, 411 US 564 (1973); Ward v. Village of Monroeville, 409 U.S. 57 (1972); Tumey v. Ohio, 273 US 510 (1927).
Regarding modification of child support, the State of Iowa or the Child Support Recovery Unit (CSRU) does not have the constitutional authority to modify the original child support agreement between the parties as established in IA. Const. art. I, § 21 which states, “No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, shall ever be passed†and as established in U.S. Const. art. I, § 9, cl. 3 which states, “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law will be passed†and as established in U.S. Const. art. I, § 10, cl. 1 which states, “No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, orConfederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.† Government may not prohibit or control the conduct of a person for reasons that infringe upon constitutionally guaranteed freedoms. See Smith v. United States , 502, F.2d.512 (1974).  The Iowa Constitution and the United States Constitution is clear, the contract (decree or stipulation) for the child support obligation between the parties may not be modified due to changes in the child support guidelines because that constitutes ex post facto law and impairs the obligation of contract. Therefore, the rebuttable presumption in favor of the guidelines is not applicable in a child support modification proceeding and must be declared unconstitutional.
Any judgment entered by relying on statutes or guidelines that violates the Iowa Constitution is done so without jurisdiction.  A judgment entered without jurisdiction is void and a judgment void can be challenged at any time. Rosenberg v. Jackson, 247 N.W.2d 216, 218 ( Iowa 1976).  A void judgment is no judgment at all, and no rights are acquired by virtue of its entry of record. Williamson v. Williamson, 179 Iowa 489, 494, 161 N.W. 482, 485 (1917).  A judgment that lacks in personam jurisdiction over a necessary party is subject to a declaratory ruling that the judgment is void on collateral attack. Marshfield Homes, Inc. vs. Eichmeier, 176 N.W.2d 850, 851 (Iowa 1970).
One approach to address and correct the problems with the current establishment of the Iowa Child Support Guidelines would be to have the Iowa State Legislature establish the child support guidelines and remove this responsibility from the Iowa Supreme Court. This would solve three problems; 1) It solves any potential conspiracy issue because all legislative committee meetings and floor debates are open to the public.  2) It allows for redress on behalf of all citizens to help maintain and ensure equality. 3) This removes the legality issue of whether or not the Iowa Supreme Court is acting with its purview of IA. Const. art. III, § 1 , IA. Const. art. V, § 4, Iowa Code 602.4101, Iowa Code 602.4102, or Iowa Code 602.4202.  Iowa must open the bidding process up to other consulting companies rather than relying solely on PSI. An undertaking much more easily achieved through the state legislature.
In conclusion, there are many legal factors completely ignored by the current Iowa Child Support Guidelines and the process used to establish them to be considered constitutional.  The research indicates the Iowa Supreme Court is not acting within its purview to create and enforce the child support guidelines. The end result is due process is lacking for any partying challenging a child support obligation or the child support guidelines themselves because the Iowa Supreme Court is acting as both the establisher and trier of fact of the child support guidelines and that lower Tribunal Courts must follow any precedent and/or rules established.
Bryan Iehl is the founder and president of IowaFathers.com.
© 2010 Bryan Iehl. All Rights Reserved.
