Newsgroups: alt.child-support
Subject: Re: Indiana Welfare
From: lisa@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 93 16:34:11 PST
Distribution: na
Organization: Lebenty-Screech's Almanac, Nanaimo, B.C. CANADA

noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:

> 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 "
> >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 birthd
> >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 chil
> >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.

No, I certainly do not.

> 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.
>
I have a great deal of respect for Mr. Garrod, and for your presentations
in general.  Canadian or American, $148 (or the Canadian equivalent) as a
 *total* monthly estimated expense for raising a child seems quite low to me.

> <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?
> 
I don't know, Aaron.  I agree such legislation is grossly unfair.  Please, I
am only questioning the $148 (or even $160) figure...

> <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.
>
Let's change that.

> 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.
> 
I am appalled at any system that financially devastates either parent.

> 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.
>
I will give this some thought...

Lisa

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lisa Lambeth                             lisa@oneb2.almanac.bc.ca

Founder, P.E.R.C.S. (Parents for Enforcing Regular Child Support)
Vancouver Island, B.C., Canada // Courtesy of the old coot hisse'f!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------