In a previous article, I summarized the way in which a mathematical solution was found to the problem of calculating just and appropriate child support awards. The article responded to questions and comments following a simple news report that a solution had been found and included links to articles for advanced study.

The purpose of child support is not merely to prevent children from becoming public charges. Amounts awarded are not limited to a division of subsistence support between the parents. The calculation of a child support award includes consideration of the parents' ability to provide a higher standard of living for their children. The previously unsolved problem is finding the appropriate standard of living increase.

Prior to federal reform, state courts understood the child support problem quite well. Many generations had dealt with the problem and valid decision principles emerged in the shadow of the constitution. The article suggests that a solid understanding of the mathematical solution can be reached within a reasonable period of time for those who are prepared and persistent. I believe some people can make it through the lengthy review and analysis of principles, and the derivations of the basic calculation, the balance of child support with spousal support, and the adjustments for visitation and shared custody over a dedicated weekend.

All that being true, one might reasonably ask why a solution to the standard of living adjustment problem wasn't found earlier. My own experience in finding the solution lasted much longer than a dedicated weekend. It began with the perception that traditional child support decision principles were nothing more than old (but seemingly quite reasonable) policy choices and that an analyst's job could be nothing more than finding equations to match whatever policy a state selects. That perception deepened as I read the technical work that provides the basis of current guidelines. The underlying logic, one might say politely, is questionable at best. Its developers did nothing to validate their results. Yet, their new policy choices in the form of simple equations and "economic tables" were adopted as law in every state. This was clearly politics rather than science.

Project work began with the goal of developing mathematics that could easily be adopted to the nuances of policy choices (including welfare and non-welfare policies). I wanted to formulate equations that policy-makers, judges, and parents can understand. To do that, it is necessary to match variables and logic in the mathematics to the reality of family circumstances. It was in the pursuit of this goal that I eventually made the transition from policy analyst to child support scientist. When policy is defined for a specific purpose, such as enforcing the support of children, random policy choices are invalid in a scientific sense. The basic purpose of child support law, combined with the richness of constitutional limits against arbitrary government interference, provide a sufficient basis from which a valid solution can be derived.

Finding the solution to the standard of living adjustment problem was not simply a matter of having the will to do it. Others had tried before. Sociologist Judith Cassetty investigated the challenge of developing a child support formula for the State of Texas. She concluded that if the state wanted a formula that could be presumed to give correct answers, they would have to abandon traditional child support policy altogether because no one knew how to calculate the right standard of living increase. (She then suggested replacing "child support" awards with standard of living equalization between parental households.)

A theoretical solution to the standard of living problem did not emerge in the many efforts of judges, lawyers, and bar associations. A well-known example is the work of family court Judge Melson whose guideline model was adopted as the statewide guideline in Delaware. His formula was derived from traditional child support law. It is clear and rational. He divided basic (subsistence) support between parents along with extra expenses such as day-care. After subtracting the payers' contribution (so far) from his or her net income, he added another 5 percent of what remained. This was not a theoretical solution, but one that seemed reasonable on the basis of his years of experience.

But I have said that the solution is not difficult to understand. So I should also explain that finding the solution involves solving a riddle. It was a lot like the first time, as a youngster, someone asked me, "What's black and white and red all over?" I heard "red" which was also suggested in context by mention of two other colors. In order to reach understanding, one must realize that the answer is not something that is "red" but something that is "read." (newspaper)

The purpose of child support is support of children, but what is the actual economic role of a child support payment? Child support payments are not made to children. They do not result from specific child related expenses being billed to parents who are ordered to pay. They are in fact payments made by one parent to another. They play the same role in the recipient household as income from any other source. They increase the income and thus standard of living in one household at the expense of the other. Given that their actual economic role is increasing standard of living, the solution to the standard of living adjustment problem is found by matching that effect to the intended purpose of child support; no more, no less.

The problem does have the character of a riddle. I have no doubt that many will have some difficulty accepting the inevitability of the result regardless of how the problem is re-examined. A child support payment is income that increases the standard of living of the entire recipient household. Did I say "read" or "red?"

I also understand that those of you who have no preconceptions, who may be looking at this problem for the first time, might be left wondering what all the fuss is about. Count yourself lucky if your only thought is - of course, child support money is the same color green as the rest. People involved in the debate understand the level of confusion that has persisted since the federal government reforms went into effect (1989) and that there is still a steep hill to climb before politics accepts rationality.

Roger F. Gay