Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
California Guideline Review
CSDA Legal Practice Committee
Guideline Review Subcommittee
Sub - Committee Members
Jonathan Burris - Sacramento Tom McCool – Orange Jeanne Miskel - Sonoma George Nielson – Contra Costa David Oppenheim - CSDA Melinda Self – San Francisco
Data Collection
Sample of top performing states Sample of bottom performing states Sample of large states
Difficulties Encountered
Different guideline models Calculation of income Concepts of self sufficiency reserve Treatment of CP income Treatment of timeshare Treatment of multiple children Treatment of children from other relationship
Monthly Support for one child, comparing Guidelines
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
800 850 900 950 1000 1050 1100 1150 1200 1250 1300 1350 1400 1450 1500 1550 1600 1650 1700 1750
Net Monthly Income
AZ CA PA AL SD IL MA MN NY OH
Monthly support for two children, comparing Guidelines
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
800 850 900 950 1000 1050 1100 1150 1200 1250 1300 1350 1400 1450 1500 1550 1600 1650 1700 1750
Net M onthl y I nc ome
AZ CA P A AL SD IL MA MN NY OH
Monthly support for three children, comparing Guidelines
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
800 850 900 950 1000 1050 1100 1150 1200 1250 1300 1350 1400 1450 1500 1550 1600 1650 1700 1750
Net Monthly Income
AZ CA PA AL SD IL MA MN NY OH
Monthly Support for four children, comparing Guidelines
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
800 850 900 950 1000 1050 1100 1150 1200 1250 1300 1350 1400 1450 1500 1550 1600 1650 1700 1750
Net M onthl y I nc ome
AZ CA P A AL SD IL MA MN NY OH
Monthly support for five children, comparing Guidelines
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
800 850 900 950 1000 1050 1100 1150 1200 1250 1300 1350 1400 1450 1500 1550 1600 1650 1700 1750
Net M onthl y I nc ome
AZ CA P A AL SD IL MA MN NY OH
Monthly support for six children, comparing Guidelines
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
800 850 900 950 1000 1050 1100 1150 1200 1250 1300 1350 1400 1450 1500 1550 1600 1650 1700 1750
Net M onthy I nc ome
AZ CA P A AL SD IL MA MN NY OH
Monthly Support for one child, comparing Guidelines
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
800 850 900 950 1000 1050 1100 1150 1200 1250 1300 1350 1400 1450 1500 1550 1600 1650 1700 1750
Net Monthly Income
Su
pp
ort
Ord
er
AZ CA PA AL SD IL MA MN NY OH
Monthly support for two children, comparing Guidelines
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
800 850 900 950 1000 1050 1100 1150 1200 1250 1300 1350 1400 1450 1500 1550 1600 1650 1700 1750
Net Monthly Income
Su
pp
ort
Ord
er
AZ CA PA AL SD IL MA MN NY OH
Monthly support for three children, comparing Guidelines
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
800 850 900 950 1000 1050 1100 1150 1200 1250 1300 1350 1400 1450 1500 1550 1600 1650 1700 1750
Net Monthly Income
Su
pp
ort
Ord
er
AZ CA PA AL SD IL MA MN NY OH
Monthly Support for four children, comparing Guidelines
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
800 850 900 950 1000 1050 1100 1150 1200 1250 1300 1350 1400 1450 1500 1550 1600 1650 1700 1750
Net Monthly Income
Su
pp
ort
Ord
er
AZ CA PA AL SD IL MA MN NY OH
Monthly support for five children, comparing Guidelines
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
800 850 900 950 1000 1050 1100 1150 1200 1250 1300 1350 1400 1450 1500 1550 1600 1650 1700 1750
Net Monthly Income
Su
pp
ort
Ord
er
AZ CA PA AL SD IL MA MN NY OH
Monthly support for six children, comparing Guidelines
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
800 850 900 950 1000 1050 1100 1150 1200 1250 1300 1350 1400 1450 1500 1550 1600 1650 1700 1750
Net Monthy Income
Su
pp
ort
Ord
er
AZ CA PA AL SD IL MA MN NY OH
Analysis
Correlation inconclusive as to FM3 Ca. GL consistently higher at all levels Ca. GL consistently higher for multiple
children Court discretion to depart from guideline
Review of Literature
If support is too high as a percentage of income it won’t be paid
Bulk of non-paid support is at the low end of the income spectrum
Obligor must be able to meet basic needs or won’t/can’t pay support
Recommendations
Simplify the formula Provide subsistence allowance for
obligor Reduce the multiplier for additional
children Grant courts more discretion to depart
form guideline based on individual case circumstances.
