Opinion ID: 2334045
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Melson Formula/Review in Delaware

Text: The first, and ironically the only, reported decision which outlines the parameters of the Melson Formula appeared in 1979, and did so in an appendix. Lucy K.H. v. Carl W.H., Del.Fam., 415 A.2d 510, 517-19 (1979). Thereafter, several reported opinions by the Family Court and the Superior Court have referred to the use of the Melson Formula in various contexts, which did not require an examination of its basic validity. Husband J. v. Wife J., Del.Fam., 413 A.2d 1267 (1979); DeFEO v. DeFEO, Del.Fam., 428 A.2d 26 (1981); Emsley v. Emsley, Del.Fam., 467 A.2d 700 (1983); Murphy v. Murphy, Del.Fam., 467 A.2d 129 (1983); Topper v. Topper, Del.Super., 478 A.2d 640 (1984); Wife (D.S.) v. Husband (G.F.W.), Del.Super., 521 A.2d 634 (1986); Kathleen L.H. v. Wayne E.H., Del. Fam., 523 A.2d 977 (1987); Ardizzone v. Bailey, Del.Fam., 542 A.2d 806 (1987). The only reported opinion of this Court, which makes reference to the Melson Formula, clearly stated that our decision does not turn on the question of the Formula's validity and nothing we say bears on that subject. R.T. v. R.T., Del.Supr., 494 A.2d 150, 152 n. 1 (1985). Although there has been no reported judicial decision completely addressing the intrinsic merits of the Melson Formula, it has been the subject of constant review in the unreported decisions of the Delaware Family Court and of the Superior Court. Because the origin of the Melson Formula had been a judicial response to a statutory mandate, its analytical framework continued to be defined as the common law developed through its application in those decisions. By 1984, the Melson Formula had been refined by judicial opinions establishing net income by attribution; [14] determining the proper self-support deduction where the parent is remarried or cohabiting in a relationship as husband and wife; [15] defining extraordinary medical and allowable child care expenses; calculating child support where parents share joint or split custody; [16] modifying the support amount during periods of extended visitation; and enunciating circumstances under which an application of the formula may be inequitable. [17] The Melson Formula has also been the object of extensive examination within the State of Delaware in several non-litigation contexts. In 1983, a joint resolution of the Delaware General Assembly created a Blue Ribbon Task Force on Divorce Law Reform to evaluate Delaware's domestic relations laws and to make recommendations for changes in those laws. The report of that Blue Ribbon Task Force was delivered to the General Assembly on March 15, 1984. That Task Force endorsed the principle of applying the Melson Formula in child support cases, as a rebuttable presumption. The report stated in part: While the Task Force has not studied the Melson Formula in detail, it supports in principle the establishment and use of a formula by the Family Court of a child support formula which is primarly based upon the actual net after-tax income of each parent or his or her earning capacity in order to assure uniformity of treatment of persons in comparable situations and to add some degree of predictability to the outcome of support cases which encourages out-of-court settlements and a consequent substantial saving in the legal fees and stress incident to litigation. . . . . ... [T]he Task Force endorses in principle the adoption and application of a uniform and equitable formula for the determination of child support which should be, as we understand the Melson Formula is, a rebuttable presumption which may be varied by the Family Court upon an appropriate showing. Report of the Blue-Ribbon Task Force on Divorce Law Reform to the 132nd General Assembly at 9-11 (Mar. 15, 1984). In 1983, the Delaware General Assembly passed another resolution. The second resolution requested that the Chief Judge of the Family Court review and evaluate the current Delaware support Melson formula and report his findings and recommendations back to the General Assembly. [18] The Chief Judge of the Family Court submitted the report of his findings and recommendations to the Delaware General Assembly on April 15, 1984. The report emphasized the fact that the Melson Formula had not remained static from the time of its adoption by the Family Court, as a uniform standard, in 1979. The summation in that report stated that: [a]fter conducting substantial research, weighing the methods applied in other states, and considering the comments of the general public and the [B]ar, it is the conclusion of the Family Court judiciary that the [Melson Formula] continues to be a fair and equitable approach to setting child support as measured by both the letter and the spirit of Delaware law. In 1985, the Long Range Courts Planning Committee of the Supreme Court of Delaware established its own Task Force to comprehensively examine the structure and processes of the State-wide Family Court for the purpose of advising the General Assembly with respect to the operation of the Family Court ... and its responsibility to dispense justice in an efficient, consistent and compassionate manner. [19] On March 3, 1986, that Task Force submitted its report to the Chief Justice, the Governor, and the Chairmen of the Judiciary Committees of the Senate and the House of Representatives of the State of Delaware. With respect to the support jurisdiction of the Family Court, the Long Range Courts Planning Committe Task Force found that, in most cases, the Melson Formula produced a fair result. The Task Force also found that the Melson Formula produced a consistent result from case to case: Thus, most of the time support determined in accordance with the formula is acceptable to both parties and, even if it is not, the parties know that their case was judged on the same basis as all other support cases. [20] The Task Force concluded that the continued use by the Family Court of the Melson Formula is not only proper but should be encouraged, with periodic reviews to adjust the Formula to reflect economic conditions and social mores. [21]