Opinion ID: 2002508
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Authority to Issue the Guideline

Text: As part of Congress' concern with ensuring that children receive proper support, it passed the Child Support Enforcement Amendments of 1984 (amending 1975 Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 657-662 (West Supp.1988), conditioning disbursement of Aid to Families with Dependent Children funding on state compliance with increased enforcement procedures. Pub.L. No. 98-378, 98 Stat. 1321-22 (1984). One of the provisions required states to issue child support guidelines. 42 U.S.C.A. § 667 (West. Supp.1988). The legislation did not specify the exact method by which states should adopt the guidelines, only that it be by law or by judicial or administrative action. Id. § 667(a). Thus, the individual states and the District of Columbia [5] would have discretion in choosing the particular mode of formulating their guidelines. Congress further specified that the guidelines should be made available to judges and other officials and, in 1988, added a provision that the guidelines should be presumptive. (2) There shall be a rebuttable presumption, in any judicial or administrative proceeding for the award of child support, that the amount of the award which would result from the application of such guidelines is the correct amount of child support to be awarded. A written finding or specific finding on the record that the application of the guideline would be unjust or inappropriate in a particular case, as determined under criteria established by the State, shall be sufficient to rebut the presumption in that case. Family Support Act of 1988, Pub.L. No. 100-485, § 103(a)(2), 102 Stat. 2346 (1988). [6] See also 45 C.F.R. §§ 302.56 and 303.101. The legislation did not specify the contents of the guidelines or the particular goals to which they should aspire. The Congressional findings [7] and the legislative history of the Child Support Enforcement Amendments indicate, however, that Congress had a number of concerns. First, the amendments mainly addressed the enforcement of already existing child support awards. Among other provisions were income withholding and liens on property. Second, the amendments contain two other provisions concerning the issuance of support orders, one requiring expedited procedures, 42 U.S.C.A. § 666(a)(2)(A), and the other requiring appointment of a commission to study the operation of the state's child support system, including the advisability of establishing a statewide schedule for setting a dollar amount of child support orders based on such objective standards as the State may choose. 42 U.S.C. § 601, 651; Sec. 15 of Pub.L. No. 98-378. Finally, Congress was concerned, as indicated in the Reports accompanying both the House and Senate versions of the bill, about the unrealistic amounts of child support awards. S.Rep. No. 98-387, 98th Cong., 2d Sess. at 40, reprinted in 1984 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 2397. The Senate Report explaining the guideline requirement recognized that guidelines might increase the substantive amount of awards based on the experience in states which had established guidelines. Id. It also expressed the view that guidelines would assure that there is reasonable consideration given both to the needs of the child and the ability of the absent parent to pay. Id. Finally, the Committee recognized that the development of a court order is a complex determination requiring the consideration of many aspects of the individual circumstances of the parties involved, and that there may be a need for courts to have the flexibility to exercise discretion. For this reason, the amendment leaves to each State the decision as to how these guidelines are to be considered. It is the view of the Committee, however, that the very existence of a set of guidelines in each State will tend to improve the reasonableness and equity with which support orders are established. Id. It, therefore, contemplated that guidelines would be fair in their particulars as well as promote equity through uniformity. The original House version of the bill did not have a provision for guidelines; however, in explaining its requirement that state commissions study the advisability of establishing statewide objective standards for setting awards, the House Report noted the seemingly arbitrary nature of awards which it believed contributed to noncompliance. Both parties could complain that the award was too low or too high. Several studies have found that the economic position of non-custodial parents actually improves after divorce while that of the custodial parent and children declines substantially in terms of what their income could provide in relation to their needs even when child support is paid.... Similarly, studies have found that the amounts of support obligation established by courts or administrative tribunals bear little relation to obligors' ability to pay and generally represent a lower percentage of obligors' income the higher that income is. H.R.Rep. No. 98-527, 98th Cong., 1st Sess. 49 (1983). Without guidelines, children's needs and parents' ability to pay might actually matter less than other irrelevant circumstances. In jurisdictions where there are no objective guides for establishing support obligations, amounts established in virtually identical cases may vary widely depending on a variety of factors including the particular judge setting the amount and the relative sophistication of legal advice that may be available to each spouse. Id. In such a state of seeming arbitrariness, non-custodial parents might be inclined to disregard the support order as unreasonable. Having objective criteria would increase the reasonableness and predictability of awards which would lead to greater compliance. The Committee believes that establishment of realistic support obligations would make a major difference in parents' willingness to pay support and that such realistice [sic] obligation can be obtained through the use of objective standards to guide all parties involved in the support decision  parent, attorneys, judges and administrative officers. Id. Like the Senate, the House recognized that the provisions contained in any guidelines might change the amount of individual support orders but welcomed such change. However, the House, Senate, and Conference Committee never expressed an intention to upset existing state case law.
Pursuant to its legislative authority over the District of Columbia, U.S. Const. Art. I § 8, cl. 17; D.C.Code §§ 1-201(a), 1-206 (1988 Supp.), Congress passed the District of Columbia Judicial Efficiency and Improvement Act of 1986, supra (codified at D.C.Code § 11-1732 (1989 Repl.)). Congress made hearing commissioners a more permanent part of the D.C. court system and empowered them to hear cases involving child support and to issue final orders. See D.C.Code § 11-1732(j)(4)(A), quoted supra. These orders are appealable initially to the Superior Court. Id. § 11-1732(k). See 45 C.F.R. § 301.101 (1987). The original version of the bill, however, made no mention of guidelines, requiring only that the hearing commissioner shall conduct a hearing on support, make findings, and enter judgment. [8] H.R.Rep. No. 99-326, 99th Cong., 1st Sess. 13 (1985). It sought to conform with 42 U.S.C.A. § 666(a)(2)(A), which required procedures under which expedited processes (determined in accordance with regulations of the Secretary) are in effect for obtaining and enforcing support orders. Id. at 3. The granting of permanent authority to hearing commissioners only helped expedite orders; the original bill did not purport to comply with the 42 U.S.C.A. § 667 guidelines requirement. Thus, the main purpose of this bill was to expedite child support cases through establishment of a supplementary procedure outside the slow processes of the regular judiciary. [9] The final version of the legislation enacted by Congress containing the provision which requires guidelines specifies that the guidelines would be established by rule of the Superior Court and be binding on hearing commissioners. [10] D.C.Code § 11-1732(j)(4)(A). It does not specify their substantive contents, and there is no indication whatever that Congress disagreed with established case law or wanted certain changes to be made in developing calculations. On the contrary, the section specifies that the hearing commissioners would have to enter judgment as provided by law as well as in accordance with the guidelines established by court rule. The statutory scheme indicates that Congress sought to promote fairness in the District of Columbia by providing resolution of child support conflicts on an expedited basis through an intermediate tier of hearing commissioners who have ready formulae for calculating support orders. See, e.g., D.C.Code §§ 16-924(a), (f), 30-506(a) (1981, 1988 Repl.). In addition, Congress thought that the uniformity of awards would contribute to their overall fairness and encourage settlements through their predictability. [11] It authorized the Superior Court to achieve these goals by greater use of hearing commissioners and child support guidelines established by court rule, a term Congress had previously used in connection with the functions of the hearing commissioners and defined at the time it created the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. [12] The Report of the Superior Court Child Support Guideline Committee (Guideline Report) described the state of child support in the District of Columbia as a crisis, and indicated that Congress intended to confront this crisis directly, suggesting that Congress intended any guidelines to alter the status quo. Guideline Report at 9-10. We find no basis on which to conclude, however, that Congress granted the Superior Court authority to change the substantive law regarding child support awards. To assure higher awards and uniformity of awards did not necessarily require a new approach in the then-existing substantive child support law, but if it did, as the Child Support Guideline Committee concluded, then a legislative remedy was required. The Child Support Guideline Committee recognized that it was acting in a quasi-legislative capacity, but justified its action by stating that the legislature was silent on this particular issue, i.e., specific substantive standards for child support, and that since establishing child support guidelines has traditionally been the province of the judiciary, it would have authority to make significant changes, overturning existing case law whenever necessary. Guideline Report at 9-10. While formulation of support guidelines in the absence of legislation has been the province of the judiciary, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals has been the final arbiter of the substantive District of Columbia child support law. See D.C.Code §§ 11-102 & 11-721 (1989 Repl.); Ferreira v. D.C. Dep't of Empl. Services, 531 A.2d 651, 600 & n. 9 (D.C. 1987); Gillis v. United States, 400 A.2d 311, 313 (D.C.1979). To the extent that the Superior Court Board of Judges sought to overturn existing case law as developed by this court, it was granted no such power by Congress. The Child Support Guideline Committee (and the Board of Judges) cannot expand its authority on the basis of legislation which is silent regarding the authority to overrule existing case law. From the fact that Congress had authorized guidelines to be established by Superior Court rule, it would be an extraordinary reading of Congressional intent to conclude that Congress thereby authorized the Superior Court to act as the District's legislature, with powers otherwise delegated by Congress to the Council of the District of Columbia. [13] See District of Columbia Self-Government and Governmental Reorganization Act, §§ 302, 404 of Pub.L. No. 93-198 (1973), 1 D.C.Code at 185-86. Nothing in the legislative history suggests Congress had any such intent, and none of the parties or amici has been able to locate such evidence. That Congress authorized the Board of Judges to promulgate guidelines by rule is fully consistent with the Congressional purpose to require that the District of Columbia, like the states, have child support guidelines. As the Child Support Guideline Committee itself recognized, a guideline could be based on the existing child support case law in the District of Columbia and still conform with the requirements of the federal statute. [14] Construing the reference in § 11-1732(j)(4)(A) to Superior Court rule in its ordinary meaning does not produce absurd results as would justify ignoring its plain meaning. See Peoples Drug Stores v. District of Columbia, supra, 470 A.2d at 754 (citations omitted). While there may be good arguments for promulgating the detailed formulation of child support guidelines by a court rule rather than statute (i.e., flexibility), absent explicit congressional or other legislative mandate, the exercise of such delegated authority is subject to existing law, both statutory and judicial. [15] Congress did not set out intelligible standards and statements of purpose defining such a mission for the Board of Judges or the Guidelines Committee. Cf. United States v. Ruiz-Villanueva, 680 F.Supp. 1411, 1417 (S.D. Cal.1988) (upholding sentencing guidelines promulgated by the United States Sentencing Commission). Nor do we find persuasive, in the absence of any evidence of legislative intent, the argument that Congress intended only to refer to statutory law when it provided that the hearing commissioners shall make findings and enter judgments as provided by law. [16] Congress provided in its authorization for the appointment and work of hearing commissioners that the activities of the hearing commissioners would be limited by Superior Court rule, see D.C.Code § 11-1732(a) & (n), and there is nothing to suggest that in 1986 Congress intended to change the rulemaking authority of the Superior Court as it was defined by Congress in 1970. [17]
The problem with characterizing the Guideline as a Superior Court rule, D.C. Code § 11-946, is that such a rule cannot curtail substantive rights. [18] In re C.A.P., 356 A.2d 335 (D.C.1976). [19] Cf. Meiggs v. Associated Builders, Inc., 545 A.2d 631, 635-36 (D.C.1988) (legislature is presumed to know of judicial interpretation of statute). Amici WLDF contends that there is no substantive right to the unguided and unbridled discretion of a judge or hearing commissioner, the inconsistent application of existing case law, the application of any particular formula, or computation of child support based solely on common law, and that the Guideline was merely in aid of a judicial function and therefore validly promulgated. These characterizations exaggerate the possible substantive right at stake. Amici NCCR responds that In the District of Columbia, there is a substantive right to a child support determination based upon the needs of the child and the parent's ability to pay, determined in light of the parent's available net income and determined within the discretion of the judicial officer. While no matter what the support award, the monies paid would never be in the nature of a basic substantive right, such as a parental right to custody or visitation. However, by any standard, in its impact on existing substantive law the Guideline goes beyond the governance of mere procedure. Amici WLDF acknowledges, as indeed does the Child Support Guideline Committee, that the Guideline does make changes in the substantive law beyond assigning numeric values to preexisting substantive rights. [20]