Beliefs About Child Support Modification Following Remarriage and Subsequent Childbirth

Framed by equity theory, fairness beliefs regarding child support modification to account for the financial impact of remarriage and subsequent childbirth were assessed. Based on a random sample of 407 Kentucky residents using a multiple segment factorial vignette approach, modification was supported by 57% of respondents following remarriage, but only 12% believed that child support should be modified following childbirth. Support for modification was greater when the impetus was a change in the marital or parental status of the child support obligor than the recipient. Downward modification when the obligor's financial situation worsened was favored more than upward modification when the obligor's financial situation improved. Overall, response patterns showed little support for applying existing child support models to modification decisions. Key Words: child support, divorce, equity theory, remarriage. Child support policy has rapidly evolved over the past few decades. Perhaps the most noteworthy changes were ushered in by the Family Support Act (1988), a U.S. regulation that reshaped two of the most fundamental aspects of the child support system: the processes through which child support amounts are established and the norm for how money is transferred. A shift away from broad judicial discretion in favor of presumptive guidelines for setting the child support amount was mandated to ensure children's needs were being met while also increasing the sense of fairness across cases. The Family Support Act also called for child support to be automaticaUy deducted and transferred from obligors' paychecks to child support recipients. These changes have direct implications for child support modification in the years following divorce that have been largely unexamined. Specifically, the models that underlie the child support guidelines also affect the circumstances under which modification is possible, and income withholding limits the ability of parents to privately modify child support without court involvement. It remains unclear whether and to what extent these implications are desirable because some evidence suggests that perceptions of child support fairness erode over time in the absence of modifications to adjust for changing circumstances (Hans & Coleman, 2008). Thus, using equity theory to frame the importance of fairness perceptions, this study explores beliefs among the general population about child support modification as financial circumstances change in the years following divorce and compares the compatibility of those beliefs with the two principal child support models that guide modification decisions in the United States. Equity Theory Equity theory provides insight into why maximizing perceptions of fairness with regard to child support obligations may be in children's best interest. According to equity theory, an underbenefited individual perceives an imbalance in the ratio of contributions made to benefits received in a relationship relative to the corresponding ratio of contributions and benefits of a relational partner (Walster, Walster, & Berscheid, 1978). Whether the disparity is real or imagined, the underbenefited individual experiences distress and dissatisfaction with the relationship, and underbenefited men are particularly likely to experience feelings of frustration and anger (Sprecher, 1986). Underbenefited individuals attempt to alleviate the inequity by reducing contributions or increasing benefits, and feelings of resentment may permeate the relationship until equilibrium is achieved or the relationship is terminated (Walster et al.). Although voluntary child support compliance is affected by perceptions of fairness, automatic income withholding has severed the relationship between fairness appraisals and compliance (Lin, 2000). Although underbenefited obligors now have little discretion for evading formal child support payments, equity theory suggests that those who are compelled to pay a child support obligation they perceive as unjust will compensate in other ways, many of which may be detrimental to children's well-being. …