From: noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer)
Subject: Re: Indiana Welfare
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 01:44:33 GMT

In article <qyqZXB1w165w@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca> lisa@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca writes:
>garrod@dynamo.ecn.purdue.edu (David Garrod) writes:
>
>> 
>>      Several persons had posted the the base for child support should
>> be welfare benefits, so I thought it appropriate to investigate same
>> for my state and post them in this forum.

>Does anyone HONESTLY believe that $432/month is enough for one adult
>and one child to live on???  The other figures seem ridiculously,
>unrealistically LOW, too!
>
>No wonder single parents who aren't getting child support and who are also "on
>the system" are screaming for enforcement of child support orders!  Come on.
>All of you who are espousing that your own children should only get $148/mo.
>in total (and/or plus Blue Cross) for all of their on-going needs, while
>professing your love and dedication as a parent, ought to look at this a
>little closer. $148/month???  Give me a break!
>
>I guess $148/mo. should be adequate for food costs.  But what about clothes,
>school supplies, shelter, braces and (God forbid!) baseball gloves or birthday,
>Easter and Christmas gifts?  
>I just can't believe that anyone living in the real
>world could honestly believe that $432/mo. is adequate for a parent and child
>to live on.  
>
>> While one cannot from these data separate out the cost of the first
>> child from the cost of the mother;
>> the second child cost is $580 - $432  =  $148
>> the third child cost is $720 - $580   =  $140   per month.
>> 
>> Medicaid (or is it medicare?) picks up medical and dental on top of 
>> this.
>> 
>> Based on my experience with economic models for child costs it would
>> appear to me that a reasonable estimate based on the above numbers
>> for the first child is about $160/month.
>> 
>> David Garrod
>> 
>A "reasonable estimate"?  I'm appalled.

Maybe you are so involved that you are not willing to accept logical
reality.  Maybe you think that ex-husbands owe their former wives a
living and child support should reflect that.  Child support guidelines
*are* de facto alimony in this country, unlike Canada.  If you are
appalled by what Dr. Garrod has logically and unemotionally stated
based on reasonable calculations of "costs" for children, excluding
particulars that must be dealt with on and individual basis, such as
braces, daycare etc., and based on his understanding of the minimal
"cost" support the government offers mothers and children, then maybe
the government's own calculations of costs will enlighten you.

<begin excerpt>
 
        "Development of Guidelines for Child Support Orders", U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, September 1987, is a manual
developed by an advisory panel and supported by the OCSE.  It
discusses and relies primarily on five models of the average expense
to raise a child from birth to age 18.  These are the BLS (1982), the
USDA (1982), the Turchi (1983), the Olson (1983), and the Espenshade
(1984) models.
 
        Even the most generous of these models, the Olson, places the
cost of raising a child at $607.76 a month for a middle-income
household.  The USDA places the cost of raising that same child at
$372.22, with other models going as low as $283.75.  A high-income
household is expected  to spend $924.40 a month on a single child, and
$1,302.31 a month on two children, less then half the amount awarded
in re Smith.
 
        Why such variances between what is needed to provide for a
child, and what is awarded as the result of judicial discretion?  Why
did the Legislature enact a child support standard act which sets a
minimum amount which must go to the mother, but sets no maximum limit
for that which may be taken from the father?

<end of excerpt>
 
Source:  "The Hypocrisy of 'Equality' in a Family Law Context"
          (c) Anne P. Mitchell, J.D.  1991

Note that NCPs are only supposed to provide their "share" of the child
support obligations.  CPs are also supposed to provide their "share" of
the obligations.  NCPs are scrutinized and are legally accountable for
their shares, while CPs are not.  Often child support awarded is twice
the amounts reflected in the most generous models for determining costs
of raising children.  Many of these models include non-standard costs
in determining the average figures, but then most states add those
non-standard expenses on top of the base calculated child support, in
effect, awarding the non-standard expenses as child support twice.

Child support guidelines also completely disregard the time that NCPs
spend with their children, and the inherent expenses NCPs have for
providing food, clothing and other expenses when they have the
children.

While you are appalled that rational and reasonable child support
calculations seem LOW, I am appalled that our American system
financially devastates NCPs (usually fathers) for the sake of their
children.

Besides, as another poster mentioned, you're talking Canadian, we're
talkin' American, and at the current conversion rate, our numbers,
which seem so low to you, would be appreciably higher in equivalent
Canadian numbers.

Aaron L. Hoffmeyer
TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM