Child Support, Revisited

Quite a while back, I discussed my position on child support. My perception of child support is based on personal experience and interaction with other divorced parents – both male and female. To recap my stance on child support, I am against any form of child support in situations where both parents spend equal time with the child(ren). In cases where on parent is absent in order to pursue a career (or to be a shiftless drifter, or whatever) and the other parent sacrifices a career in order to do what’s best for the kid, child support is absolutely in order. But in cases where both parents are equally involved in raising their offspring, child support should not be an issue.

Eliminating child support in joint custody cases could provide a multitude of benefits. It would encourage both parents to be actively involved in child-raising, it would benefit the economy by encouraging both parents to work, and it would streamline the bloated bureaucracy that is our child support recovery system.

For many years, the court system had a bias toward granting the mother custody of children in divorce situations, and business had a bias toward giving men more pay for the same job. The result was that divorced mothers were often left as single parents, barely making ends meet, and the current child support system was enacted to offset this disparity. This change addressed the financial disparity and made things “fair” toward the custodial parent (usually the mother), but it did nothing to address the needs of the non-custodial parent (usually the father), or the emotional needs of the child. Over time, the court began to realize that having both parents actively involved was better for the child, and the court began awarding joint custody.

The premise behind joint custody is that both parents are equally responsible for the care and upbringing of the child, but closer scrutiny shows this isn’t exactly the case. Inevitably, one parent has more income than the other, and the court still awards child support. This means that the parent with the higher income is de facto more responsible for the care of the child. Abolishing child support in joint custody would be beneficial for everyone involved. It would encourage joint custody, which has been demonstrated to benefit the child. It would benefit the parent paying support by effectively increasing income, and it would benefit the parent receiving support by removing the stigma of having to rely on an ex-spouse for support.

For all intents and purposes, the child support system is a microcosm of the welfare state. Child support is a “tax” on the income of the parent with the higher income, which in turn is granted as an “entitlement” to the parent with the lower income. This tax can range from 10% to over 50%, depending on the number of children involved, the specific custody arrangement, and the incomes of the parents. The majority of the scenarios I’m personally familiar with have the fathers paying the mothers over 20% of their income. This is on top of the roughly 1/3 of our income taken by the government. Between the government and the ex-spouses, these fathers are seeing over half of their income go up in smoke. Isn’t this a disincentive to work? Doesn’t this undermine the desire to move ahead in life and society?

Child support not only discourages advancement on the part of the parent with the greater income, it also deters the parent with lower income from working and advancing. Since child support is tied to the income of both parents, if the poorer of the two parents receives a pay increase, the child support drops proportionally, and in its worst case scenario, this miniature welfare state can cause a “why work when I can get it for free” mentality. Not only does this cause a disincentive for both parents to work toward their maximum potential, this mentality can be passed to the children.

Child support doesn’t impact just the parents. As a result of our child support laws, a huge, nationwide bureaucracy has been established in the form of state child support recovery offices. These bureaucracies are not funded by the parents; they are funded by all taxpayers. By eliminating child support in joint-custody situations, this bureaucracy could be tremendously reduced. This, in turn could allow for a reduced tax burden for all Americans, and it would free up the existing child support case workers to focus on the real deadbeats.

While I agree that child support is warranted in some cases, I am firmly of the opinion that it is counterproductive in joint custody circumstances. Eliminating child support in these instances will benefit children by encouraging both parents to be actively involved in their child’s life. By encouraging both parents to advance economically it will help the adults and provide a positive example for the child, and by reducing the caseload, it would allow existing case-workers to focus on real issues and reduce bureaucracy. Eliminating child support in joint custody cases is a winning solution for everyone.