Virginia Panel Votes to Leave 'Child Support' Undefined

September 16, 2002

The Virginia Child Support Review Panel is tasked with assuring that the use of the state's child support guideline results in appropriate awards. One might think this job impossible if the term "child support" is not defined. That is exactly what panel member Murray Steinberg thought. Mr. Steinberg has been trying since early June to have the panel agree on a definition of "child support."

The child support guideline is a fixed formula used for determining the amount of child support that one parent must pay to the other. Judges are required by law to presume that the guideline result is correct. Parents have a right to challenge the amount if it is unjust or inappropriate. But without sufficient definition and principles, there is no statutory basis for understanding what "just" or "appropriate" means. This leaves Virginia parents without a practical way to exercise the right.

Federal law requires, as a condition for funding child support enforcement programs, that states review their guidelines at least once every four years. In 1999, during the state's last review, then panel member Barry Koplen raised the same issue. A recommendation was submitted defining child support and providing necessary and sufficient principles for determining appropriate child support awards. The recommendation suggested specific changes to Virginia law.

That panel ignored the recommendation and the legislature never considered making changes to the law. Without defining the term "child support," the state obviously has no basis for certifying that their guidelines have anything at all to do with supporting children.

On July 1st, without discussion, the panel voted 8-1 to "keep the current definition" — meaning that the panel continue its review without defining the all important term. The motion to hold the vote was given by state Senator Frederick Quayle (R-District 13). Senator Quayle's two offices were contacted twice by email over a two week period asking for comment. A staff member responded that he was not available.

The design of the Virginia guideline rests heavily on the work of Robert Williams, a child support collection entrepreneur who provides consulting through Policy Studies, Inc. His collection company, which operates in Virginia, keeps approximately one third of the child support money paid through contracts it has with states and individuals, making the size of child support awards a direct factor in the company's profits.

States receive additional federal funding in proportion to the amount of child support collected. Like other states, Virginia counts all child support payments made through their system as "collections" even when they are made on time. Arbitrarily increasing the amount awarded increases the amount of federal funding they receive.

Williams contends publicly and in his consulting with states that his work is based on "economic studies." But in a deposition taken in P.O.P.S. v Gardner, he admitted that he made it up and said that acceptance of his design depends on states accepting his policy choices. The explicit goal of his "Income-Shares" guideline, introduced in 1987, was to increase the average amount of child support awards to 250 percent of what it would be under traditionally established child support law.

When questioned by the review panel in 1995, Williams admitted that he could not identify any of the components in his cost estimates, including food, clothing, housing, education, routine medical expenditure, and transportation. He was unable to identify how much of the estimated cost is fixed and how much of it varies according to visitation arrangements and other factors.

According to Mr. Murray, the panel has not presented any current research and data on the cost of and expenditures necessary for rearing children. "We have no data related to the actual cost of raising a child in a separated or divorced, two-home situation."

Income-Shares guidelines have never been shown to correspond to any set of policy choices that are rationally related to "child support," and states have implemented the model by eliminating definitions and principles from their statutes. Williams has responded to critics by claiming that the arbitrarily high orders provide a higher standard of living in custodial parent households.

But the question of increasing standard of living through child support payments has already been addressed scientifically. There is a limit to the standard of living increase that can be obtained through a child support payment. Increasing child support amounts beyond the limit introduces what has become known as hidden alimony. Many experts agree that it is illegal (incl. unconstitutional) to include alimony in a child support award.

Virginia's approach uses extremely dubious estimates of what two parent families spend on children, which include arbitrarily high percentages of such families' expenditures on housing and transportation. What an intact family might spend is unrelated to post-divorce spending. This leads to child support awards that are quite random in their relation to actual family circumstances and the needs of children regardless of the credibility of the estimates.

Another contentious aspect of the guideline is its intentional denial of credit for support provided by noncustodial parents during visitation periods, and inadequate credit for near or greater direct support provided by parents with joint custody.

Murray Steinberg has been through it all before. He previously served twice on the state panels, in 1993 and 1995. He refused reappointment in 1999 acknowledging that the majority of political appointees on each panel are predisposed to maintaining the status quo. He accepted reappointment for this review after receiving assurance that things would be different this time. Indications are however, that this review will be like the rest.

Roger F. Gay