III Child Support Models in Ten Jurisdictions

• Previous page
• Table of Contents
• Next page

A. Introduction

Factors such as culture, the social-political environment, legal foundation and history have major impacts on the way a jurisdiction organizes its approach to the determination of child support. As a result, the ten jurisdictions examined in this study all operate under different child support models. However, there are a remarkable number of similarities.

The purpose of this chapter is to:

• Provide a high-level summary of the factors incorporated into the calculations in the formulas used to determine child support amounts. These formulas are a key component of each jurisdiction’s child support model.
• Describe how the model is administered in each jurisdiction.
• Provide an overview of the rationale for, and the significant legislative changes to, the child support models that have occurred over time.

The material presented in this chapter provides the context for the information provided in Chapters IV and V. In these chapters, the report delves into more detail about the factors and how they are used in the construction of the formula and the accompanying rules used by the ten jurisdictions.

To complement the various sections in this chapter, supporting details have been included in tables that are provided at the end of this chapter.

A Summary Report for each jurisdiction in provided in Volume II. Each summary provides a more detailed description of the child support model in that particular jurisdiction.

B. Summary of Child Support Models

The purpose in providing a brief overview of the formula used in each model is to assist the reader to understand how child support amounts are calculated in each jurisdiction. This provides the context for the details of the various components that are addressed in subsequent sections and chapters of this report.

One of the main findings of this review is that all ten models and the formulas used in these models operate differently – no two formulas or models are exactly alike.

Having said this, all models reviewed require:

• The same types of income information from the paying parent and, if required, the receiving parent, to calculate the child support amount.
• Expenditure data or costing information on children.
• Information on the number of children who are the subject of the award as well as the number of any other dependent children.
• Information on the amount of overnight time each parent spends with the child.

In addition, most of the models reviewed incorporate information on special expenses such as childcare, medical, extracurricular activities, special needs and education.

As well, the models in seven jurisdictions59 take into consideration the financial ability of the paying parent to actually pay the child support amount. This is done by either including a self-support reserve or including caps on income below which the paying parent is not required to pay child support.

Most jurisdictions also base the estimate for expenditures on the child that are incorporated into their respective formula on data collected from a national government agency that has the mandate to collect, analyze and disseminate household expenditure data.

Seven jurisdictions60 have child support models that are based on an income shares approach, requiring the income of both parents to determine child support amounts.61 The other three (Wisconsin, France and the United Kingdom) only require the income of the paying parent in straightforward cases where there are no adjustments to the formula calculations for time spent with the paying parent. However, in more complex situations such as when the child resides with the paying parent for a period of time that results in an adjustment to the child support amount, or in split custody cases, their models may in fact require the incomes of both parents to determine the child support amount.

Thus, all models reviewed make use of the same factors. However, the manner in which the factors are reflected in the computations varies across jurisdictions. The following summaries of the models used in the jurisdictions highlight how these various factors are used. The intent is to highlight the similarities and differences whenever possible.

C. Overview of the Child Support Model in Each Jurisdiction

1. The four American states

United States federal law and regulations require each state to establish child support guidelines that the courts and relevant organizations must use in any judicial or administrative proceeding when determining child support.62 That being said, states have the discretion with respect to the type of guideline model they implement as well as the economic basis of their child support formulas. A review of the four states included in this study reveals that each has adopted a different model.

a) Delaware

The formula in Delaware is based on the principle that each parent is entitled to keep a minimum amount of income for his or her basic needs before they are required to take care of the child’s basic needs. If there is any remaining income after these needs are met, then the child is allowed to share in the excess income. These objectives are reflected in the construction of the formula.

Firstly, the gross incomes of both parents are required. Deductions from their gross incomes are allowed for their own basic needs (self-support allowance) as well as other dependent children.

Secondly, the basic needs for the child are determined. This amount is shared between each parent in proportion to his or her share of the combined family income available for child support.

Thirdly, a standard of living adjustment is made to ensure that if there is any remaining income after the basic needs of both parents and child are met, the child can benefit from this excess income. A percentage of each parent’s remaining income is then calculated to determine the child’s share of the excess income.

Fourthly, the two amounts – the share of the child’s basic needs and the child’s share of the paying parent’s excess income – are added together to make a combined child support amount. If the child stays with the paying parent for more than 80 overnights, a percentage of the other parent’s income is calculated to make a parenting time adjustment. This adjustment is subtracted from the combined child support amount to generate the final child support amount.

Finally, to ensure that the child support amount does not cause undue hardship on the paying parent as a result of existing support obligations for other children, a self-support protection amount is calculated. The final child support amount cannot be higher than the self-support protection amount.

b) Vermont

Two key objectives of the Vermont model are to ensure that both parents contribute to the financial support of the child and that the child is entitled to the same standard of living that they would have experienced had the parents lived together and combined their resources.

These objectives are reflected in the formula by ensuring that the incomes of both parents are used in the calculation of child support and that the expenditures that the parents will share in proportion to their income are derived from household expenditure data in intact families. This model is referred to as an income shares model.

Consequently, the first step in the calculation is to determine the gross income of both parents. Then, using standardized tax conversion tables that vary by the number of children living in each household and by the type of parenting time arrangement (shared, split or sole custody), the gross monthly income is converted into a net monthly income for both parents. At this point adjustments to the net income can be made, if applicable, for pre-existing child support orders as well as an amount for any additional dependents.

Then, using a standardized guideline table, the relevant child expenditure amount is determined. This table sets out the basic child support obligation amount based on the combined family net income amount and the number of children for whom child support is being determined. If the case has a shared parenting arrangement (the child resides with the paying parent for more than 30 % of the time) the child expenditure amount is multiplied by 1.5 to reflect the increased costs of raising a child in two households.

Added to the child expenditure amount, if applicable, are extraordinary expenses for childcare, extraordinary education and medical costs. This total amount is then shared between the parents in proportion to their income.

Finally, to ensure that the paying parent has the ability to pay child support, a self-support reserve amount is deducted from the paying parent’s income available for support. The child support amount is the lesser of the child expenditure amount plus applicable extraordinary costs, or the results of the self-support reserve calculation – whichever is less.

c) Illinois

Although the child support guidelines first introduced in the State of Illinois were based on a fixed percentage model, in 2017 Illinois implemented an income shares approach.

As in the State of Vermont, the two key objectives of the Illinois model are to ensure that:

• Both parents contribute to the financial support of the child.
• The child is entitled to as close to the standard of living that they would have received had the parents lived together and combined their resources.

Again, similar to the Vermont model, the Illinois model uses tax conversion tables and standardized child expenditure tables (which outline the basic child support obligation by the number of children and combined family income amount) to assist parents and courts in calculating child support amounts. Unlike in Vermont, however, use of the tax conversion tables in Illinois is mandatory.63

The first step in the calculation is to determine the net income of both parents using the tax conversion charts. The two net incomes are added together and each parent’s proportional share of the total is calculated. Then, using the combined net incomes, the child support amount is found in the standardized child expenditure tables and each parent’s proportional share of it is calculated.

At this point in the calculation, special expenses such as childcare and medical expenses, where applicable, may be added to the basic child support amount and then shared in proportion to each parent’s income.

In shared parenting cases where the child resides with the paying parent at least 40% of the time, the basic expenditures are multiplied by 1.5 to reflect the increased costs of shared parenting time. The Illinois model is also different from the models used in the other states in that it has no offset of the child support amount for parenting time below 40%.

As well, there is no calculation included in the formula that takes into consideration the paying parent’s ability to pay.

d) Wisconsin

With one exception, the principles underlying the Wisconsin model are very similar to those underlying the models used by Vermont and Illinois. The underlying principle in Wisconsin is that the receiving parent will share their income directly with their children due to the fact that they live in the same household. Consequently, the receiving parent’s income is not required in the formula calculations. Thus, the calculations are based on a fixed percentage model. In the simplest straightforward cases, the percentages used are called the “percentage standard”.

However, the Wisconsin model applies different percentages (which are modifications of the percentage standard) to the income of the paying parent depending on their income level (“high” or “low”) and the parenting arrangement—whether there are any shared, split or “serial” situations (where a paying parent has more than one existing child support order). In essence, there are six formulas – each with a set of percentages that again, are a variation of the percentage standard. All are tailored to combinations of different parenting arrangements and income levels of the paying parent. The calculations all start with the determination of income of the paying parent. Once the parenting arrangement has been determined, the relevant formula is used.

There are no provisions in the formula calculations to consider the paying parent’s ability to pay or provide for a self-support reserve.

2. United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand

In these jurisdictions child support amounts are assessed and determined primarily by an administrative agency and, in the case of New Zealand, by the taxation department. They have access to taxpayer information (via the Taxation Authority) in respect of the income of the parties. This facilitates both the determination and enforcement of the child support amounts, a feature that is unique to these jurisdictions.

The administration of child support in two jurisdictions (Australia and New Zealand) is also interconnected with the delivery of means-tested social benefits provided by the state. The agency responsible for the delivery of the child support system is also responsible for delivering social benefits to their clients. In these two jurisdictions, the benefits that parents receive can be affected by the amount of the child support that is determined by the administrative agency.

This is not the case in the United Kingdom. Prior to 2003, its model was highly integrated with the social benefit system – with parents receiving a dollar for dollar reduction in their social assistance payment for any child support amount received. However, as a result of complaints about the disincentive emanating from the linking of the two payments, as of 2008 the calculations for social assistance amounts is not reduced at all by any payment received for child support. That is, a person on social benefits may keep the full amount of their benefits and the full amount of child support paid to them.

a) United Kingdom

The United Kingdom has had a contentious history in implementing guidelines to determine child support amounts. A key aspect of their model has been the use of administrative agencies that have been mandated to determine, enforce and administer child support amounts. Many of the changes that have been implemented over the course of the past thirty years have pertained to these agencies. The rationale for many of these changes emanates from differences over the years concerning what child support guidelines were expected to achieve.

Areas in which the objectives have changed include: reducing the number of lone parent families who live in poverty; ensuring that paying parents take financial responsibility for their children; and removing disincentives to paying child support by allowing parents in receipt of child support to keep all their social benefits. These changes in policy objectives have resulted in significant changes to the UK administrative mechanisms, powers pertaining to enforcement measures, and the construction of the formula used in the child support guidelines.

The model in the United Kingdom is based on a fixed percentage approach with only the income of the paying parent being required. The child support amount64 is a percentage of the paying parent’s income.

As with all formulas reviewed, the calculations commence with determining the gross income of the paying parent. Then, adjustments are made for any pension contributions. Deductions are also made to reflect the financial responsibility that the paying parent has for other “relevant” (dependent) children that are not part of the action under calculation.

Then, depending on the income level of the paying parent and the number of children, different percentages are applied to the income of the paying parent to determine the child support amount. What makes the United Kingdom model unique is that the set of percentages (“rates”) to be applied are adjusted according to the various income bands, from lower to higher income levels of the paying parent. In total there are five different rates that vary by income. Finally, if the paying parent spends more than 52 (14%) overnights with the children, there is a direct deduction in the amount of child support to be paid.

b) Australia and New Zealand

The Australian and New Zealand formulas are very similar. When child support guidelines were introduced in both countries, they were based on a fixed percentage model. However, both jurisdictions (Australia in 2008 and New Zealand in 2015) changed their approach to an income shares model that requires the incomes of both parents to apportion the expenditures on children.

In both jurisdictions, the first step in the calculation is to determine the income available for child support. After determining the gross income of both parents, an amount is deducted for a self-support reserve. If applicable, an amount that represents a dependent child allowance is also deducted. Once the income available for child support has been calculated, the incomes of both parents are added together and the respective percentages of their combined income are determined.

Then, the child amount is calculated by taking the parents’ combined child support income, selecting the appropriate income category and age and number of children in the table, and then ascertaining the appropriate “cost of the child”.

It is the next step that is unique to Australia and New Zealand. Both calculate a “cost percentage” for each parent. This percentage reflects that parent’s percentage of overnights that they spend with the child and is derived by selecting the appropriate category of percentage overnights from a prescribed table, and using that percentage in the calculations. Both parents receive a cost percentage ranging from 0%-100%.

The “cost percentage” for each parent is then subtracted from each parent’s respective percentage share of total child support income. This calculation reflects the reduction in the parent’s percentage of available income that they now have as a result of having the child for either less or more time – depending on the parenting time arrangement. The parent with the positive result (greater than zero) is the paying parent, and the resulting percentage (income percentage minus cost percentage) is multiplied by the expenditures on children to produce the final child support amount.

3. Norway, Sweden and France

In these three jurisdictions, the overall child support models are quite different from the others in our sample. For example, in Norway and Sweden, the expenditures on children are budget-based, and are not based on actual expenditures that are derived using a “marginal cost” approach.65 As well, in France and Sweden, the use of child support guidelines is completely discretionary, although in both jurisdictions agencies exist to assist parents in the determination of child support and will use the guidelines in their calculations.66

a) Norway and Sweden

Both the Norway67 and Sweden models are based on an income shares approach and require information on the incomes of both parents to determine the child support amount. Unlike other jurisdictions that use an “actual costs of children” based methodology to determine expenditures on children, a basket of goods – or budget-based – methodology is used.

Furthermore, both jurisdictions have social benefit systems in place for low-income families that are intricately linked to the child support or “maintenance” allowances that are determined. The amount of social benefits that a low-income parent will receive is directly affected by the amount of child support collected and paid – with child support payments offsetting the social benefit on a dollar for dollar basis. As well in Norway, parents who are not receiving their child support amount from the paying parent are eligible for “maintenance support”. This government benefit is a set monthly amount that is based on the age of each child.

Although similarities between these two jurisdictions exist, there are also significant differences. In Norway, the use of their child support model is presumptive for all parents who are on social assistance. This is not the case in Sweden, where it is discretionary with the onus put on parents to reach an agreement. Each country also takes a different approach to reflect the impact of the increased costs as a result of the child spending time with each parent into their guideline calculations.

There are also differences in how the jurisdictions determine the income for each parent in the calculations. Norway uses gross income for each parent as the amount available to determine the child support amount. Sweden starts with the gross income for each parent, but then subtracts taxes, living and housing costs (as reported by the parents), resulting in the amount of income that is available for child support calculations for each parent.

In Norway, the recognition of parenting time is built into the formula calculations. A table, with bands of parenting time per month and by the age of child, sets out the relevant “costs for parenting time” per child. The relevant amount, called a togetherness amount, is then subtracted from the paying parent’s child support contribution.

In Sweden, once parents have agreed on the amount of parenting time, this amount is translated into a percentage that is based on blocks of time spent with the paying parent. For each block of time, which is either six days a month or five consecutive days, there is a 1/40th deduction in the child support amount.

Finally, Norway includes in its formula calculations tests to ensure that the paying parent has enough to live on. It also “caps” the final child support amount. This is to ensure that the child support amount does not exceed 25% of the paying parent’s gross income. As well, the final child support amount shall not exceed the paying parent’s “maximum contribution capacity”, which is set at their gross income, minus deductions for social security tax, regular tax, expenditures for their own maintenance, housing expenses, and maintenance for other children in their household. Sweden does not include provisions in their child support model.

b) France

The child support model in France is entirely a court-based model and must be used if parents seek to obtain a legal order that is enforceable. Parents negotiate an agreement between themselves and have it registered with the court through the use of services from a social agency, or they may use a “notaire” (lawyer) who is mandated to register child support agreements. They may also appear before a judge when they cannot agree. The use of guidelines is discretionary; however, principles stated in the Civil Code clearly underscore the financial responsibility of both parents towards their children. Both are responsible for the financial wellbeing and upbringing of their children, as they are considered to have joint custody of the children, unless their custody is terminated by a court of law.

Although its use is discretionary, the French Ministry of Justice implemented a standardized “Table of Child Support Amounts” in 2011 and created an online calculator to assist parents in determining child support amounts. The calculation is quite simple and only requires three sources of information: income of the paying parent, the number of children the paying parent is responsible for, which includes any child from a previous as well as current relationship, and the amount of time the child spends with the paying parent.

The Table of Child Support Amounts is based on a fixed percentage of income model, which only requires the gross income of the paying parent. The expenditures of the children are presented as a percentage of costs in a table that indicates the child support amount (as calculated using the percentage of income) by level of income (displayed as gross monthly income minus a self-support reserve), number of children and the amount of parenting time. The amount of time spent with the child is categorized into three levels: reduced (less than 25% of the time); classic (over 25% of the time) and alternating (approximately 50% of the time but with child still primarily residing with the receiving parent). By consulting the table with these three pieces of information, parents are able to obtain a “per child” support amount that can be used in their discussions concerning an appropriate child support amount given their particular circumstances.

D. Administration of the Models

A review of the ten jurisdictions demonstrates that there are three types of decision-making systems in place to determine child support amounts.

They are:

• Parent negotiated child support arrangements or private agreements.
• Use of the services of an administrative agency.
• Seeking a court order for child support in cases where the parents cannot agree and/or when the model requires judicial oversight for decisions made by the administrative agency.

1. Parent negotiated child support arrangements

As indicated in Table 1 (located at the end of this chapter), in all jurisdictions parents can privately negotiate an agreement for a child support amount. However, in the four American states, as well as in Australia and New Zealand, parents must use the services of their administrative agency if the receiving parent is in receipt of social assistance or government benefits.

In France, Sweden, the United Kingdom and Norway, being in receipt of social assistance does not preclude the parties from making a private arrangement. The use of the child support guidelines is also discretionary and, with the exception of the United Kingdom, should the case appear before the courts, judges in these jurisdictions are not mandated to use the child support guidelines.

In most jurisdictions, parents are required to appear before a judge to ensure that their order is legally binding. In these cases, if the parties have agreed to an amount that is not in accordance with the guidelines amount, the judge may use the guidelines as a reference point. If the judge is satisfied that the financial needs of the child are addressed, the parents can deviate from the guidelines amount.

2. Use of an administrative agency

As indicated in Table 1, all jurisdictions (except for Sweden) have government or non-government68 administrative agencies that have authority over the determination and administration of child support amounts. In seven jurisdictions (with the exception of France, Sweden, which doesn’t have an administrative agency, and the United Kingdom) their agencies are also responsible for the enforcement and payment of the child support amount to the receiving parent.

Other services that most agencies provide include establishing parentage, establishing an order for medical support (the latter service occurring in the four states only), modifying and enforcing an existing order, or locating a delinquent paying parent. In the United Kingdom, in addition to the above noted services, the agency is also responsible for the delivery of all other services that separating or divorcing families may require, such as housing.

In seven jurisdictions,69 parents who are not in receipt of social assistance or benefits from their jurisdiction can apply to use the services of their relevant administrative agency. However, in all cases where the receiving parent is in receipt of social benefits, parents are obliged to use these services. The administrative agency then determines the child support amount using the relevant guidelines.

Among the American models reviewed, Illinois is the only state that does not require a review by the courts once they have determined the child support amount. In the other three states, the setting of child support orders must be done through a court process. Once the child support amount has been assessed by the administrative agency, they will then process the file through the court system on behalf of the parents. As the amount has been determined using the relevant child support guidelines, the court is simply acknowledging receipt and is approving the order.

In all six of the jurisdictions with administrative agencies70 that legally determine child support amounts, should either of the parties not agree with the amount determined and they have exhausted the recourse mechanisms established by the agency, their final recourse is to file an application with the court to have their case reviewed.71

In Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom, the assessment of child support is aided by the ability of the agency to obtain financial information directly from their taxation authority. This also facilitates annual mandatory updates of the child support order.

3. Seek a court order for child support

As shown in Table 1, in all jurisdictions, when parents cannot agree on a child support amount and do not want to use or are not required to use the administrative agency, they can file an application to the court to have the appropriate child support amount determined.

In the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Norway and Illinois, the administrative agencies have authority to determine and vary a child support amount without processing the case through the court system. In these jurisdictions, the courts are used only in cases where parents have exhausted the recourse mechanisms established by the administrative agencies or the parents have decided that they would like to have their case processed through the court system.

In the four American states and in the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand, the judge will determine the child support amount using the relevant guidelines. However, they also have the discretion to deviate from the guidelines amount if there are extra expenses or other relevant factors that should be taken into account based on the best interests of the child. In the other three jurisdictions (France, Norway and Sweden), use of the guidelines in the courts is discretionary.

4. Assessments or evaluations of the administrative models

As highlighted in the summaries for the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand, their child support models have come under heavy scrutiny by the public and their legislatures. Several assessments have been completed and have resulted in changes to not only their child support legislation, but also to their respective administrative agency. In the United Kingdom, for example, two agencies currently exist to determine child support amounts – with one being phased out as the cases in their system close or terminate. All three countries have undergone a number of parliamentary committee reviews or inquiries into their respective child support systems. Each of these reviews has resulted in reports containing recommendations. Several changes to their relevant child support legislation have been as a result of these reviews. Later in this chapter, we highlight some of these major changes.

In the four American states reviewed, under federal law, each is mandated to review and report on its child support system every four years. This review includes an examination of both the guidelines used to determine child support amounts as well as the enforcement of those amounts.72

E. Rationale for the Model Used in Each Jurisdiction

This section outlines whether the legislation in the ten jurisdictions sets out objectives that are to be achieved by each model. As well, it describes the tools provided to help parents and courts determine the child support amount.

Theories, objectives or principles that underlie a child support model are reflected in the construction of the formula and, in some cases, in the sequencing of relevant factors that are inherent in its mathematical construction.

Delaware’s model illustrates this concept. Rule 501 (a) of its Statute states “in determining each parent’s ability to pay support, the Court considers the health, income and financial circumstances, and earning capacity of each parent, the manner of living to which the parents had been accustomed as a family unit and the general equities inherent in the situation.” This objective has been translated into their formula through:

• The use of expenditure data in low-income two-parent families to ascertain and meet the basic needs of children.
• The inclusion of self–support reserves (again, based on low-income measures for a single person) to ensure the basic needs of each parent is met. This includes an amount that is deducted from each parent’s gross income.
• An “ability to pay” calculation as the last step in the application of the formula.

Our review of the legislation and/or administrative rules on child support in the ten jurisdictions reveals that all have some form of statement about what their own model is intended to achieve. Outlined in Table 2 is the rationale for the model used in each jurisdiction. Essentially, there are six different rationales or objectives that have been identified and that vary by jurisdiction.

Although the wording is not identical, the concepts of the guidelines being in the “best interests of the child” are objectives that are present in legislation in five of the ten jurisdictions.73

As well, in all jurisdictions there is a reference in the legislation that “both parents have a financial responsibility to care for their child”.

Four jurisdictions (Australia, New Zealand, Vermont, and Delaware) have references in their legislation that set out how expenditures are to be determined. In these four jurisdictions, references are made to expenditures either having to be based on data on the cost of raising children or in “accordance with the costs of children” (Australia).74

With the exception of the United Kingdom and Norway, all jurisdictions set out objectives that address the standard of support to be provided to the child. For example, Wisconsin identifies this as an “adequate standard of support for the children, subject to the ability of the parents to pay”. Australia notes that “children should share in the standard of living of both parents,” and in France, “parents have a duty to participate in the needs of their children proportionally to their resources” and “they have a duty to contribute to the education and upbringing of the child”.

In four jurisdictions (Wisconsin, Delaware, Illinois and Vermont), provisions contained in federal law require the state to conduct a review every four years of their child support models, including their formulas and caseload. As well, state legislation outlines which state department is responsible for providing forms and tools to assist the parties in the determination of child support amounts.

Finally, six of the ten jurisdictions75 provide other objectives that are not noted in the categories above as to what their child support guidelines are expected to achieve. Some examples of these objectives are the need to protect the interests of the taxpayer (New Zealand), parents needing to share their income with the child (Wisconsin), and improving the efficiency of the court process (Illinois).

F. Tools for Parents

All jurisdictions have provided tools for parents to assist them in determining child support amounts. All designated authorities, whether they be government departments or child support agencies, have an abundance of material posted on their websites designed to help parents, other family law officials such as lawyers and other state partners understand their legal obligations with respect to child support. Aids such as online calculators help them determine the child support amount in their situation. In some jurisdictions (e.g., France), lawyers are available to assist parents in understanding the law with respect to child support and can help negotiate and register settlements with the courts, if required. A clear finding from this review is that in each jurisdiction, there is an abundance of material available online to help parents navigate the administrative complexities and to understand how the law applies in their situation, along with online tools to assist them in their formula calculations.

G. Major Changes to Child Support Legislation over Time

This section includes a discussion of the types of changes that have occurred in the child support legislation in the ten jurisdictions and identifies any patterns that emerged. It highlights reasons for the changes as well as whether there is any specific case law that has been identified as the impetus for the changes.

The nature and volume of changes to child support legislation vary by jurisdiction and by category of reforms. Given the volume of changes, the focus is on identifying those areas or categories in the legislation where there has been either a substantial change (e.g., moving from a fixed percentage model to an income-shares model) or frequent refinements (e.g., refinements to the definition of income) within the same category.

As noted in Tables 3a) and 3b), six categories of changes meet these two criteria:

• Method used to apportion the expenditures in each model.
• How expenditures on the cost of the child are to be determined.
• Changes to the definition of income used in the calculations of the formula.
• Time spent with the child.
• Recognition of second families/other dependents.
• Other noteworthy changes.

1. Method used to apportion the expenditures in each model

As shown in Table 3a), since the inception of their guidelines, six of the ten jurisdictions have not changed the method used to apportion child expenditures between the two parents. In the other four jurisdictions – Norway (2003), Australia (2018), New Zealand (2015) and Illinois (2017) – the legislation with respect to how the costs were to be apportioned between the parents changed from a fixed percentage (only the income of the paying parent was required) to an income shares method (where both parents incomes are required). In all four jurisdictions, these changes were made as a result of significant opposition from the public and the growing dissatisfaction from parents and family law professionals concerning child support amounts determined by the fixed percentage model. The rationale provided was that inequities resulted from the requirement that only the income of the non-custodial parent was used in the determination of child support amounts.

2. How expenditures on the costs of the child are determined

None of the ten jurisdictions have changed their legislation in this area in any substantial way. Apart from rate changes in the various tables and calculations included in the formula, all ten use the same basis for calculating the expenditures on children as when they started. The only change has been that, in some jurisdictions (Australia, New Zealand, Vermont and Illinois), amendments have been made to ensure that the source of data used to determine the expenditures on children is clearly stated, is of high quality and is current.

3. Changes to the definition of income available for child support used in the calculations of the formula

In the United Kingdom (2012), Delaware (2019) and Norway (2019), legislative amendments were made to switch from the use of net income to gross income in the formula calculations. The experts interviewed stated this was done to simplify the calculations and to reduce confusion with respect to the types of tax deductions that were eligible under the guidelines.

As shown in Table 3a), all jurisdictions have introduced changes to their legislation that have resulted in refinements to what is included in the definition of income. Examples of some of these changes include how existing child support payments are to be treated (i.e., all jurisdictions now allow for a deduction for those amounts), the inclusion/clarification of provisions to impute income (such as revenue from trust funds), and clarifying factors related to the attribution of income.

Also included in this category are changes that some jurisdictions have made that pertain to the treatment of other family dependents and the amounts that they now can consider as allowable deductions from gross income calculations to determine what is referred to as “income available for child support”. The various approaches to the treatment of other dependent children within the models are further explored in Chapter V. However, for the purposes of this section, it is important to note that in 2012, the United Kingdom changed its definition of income to be used for child support to include a deduction of an amount from gross income for parents who have legal obligations with respect to other dependent children.

In Australia and the United Kingdom, changes have also been made with respect to allowing their taxation authority to provide income data for the purposes of child support determination. The rationale for these changes was to allow for more accurate, timely information in an effort to improve the administration of child support determination in the responsible child support agency. As well, access to accurate up-to-date income information allows for automated annual recalculations in these jurisdictions.

4. Recognition of second families or other dependents

How child support models treat second or new families in their child support calculations has evolved over time. Four jurisdictions – the United Kingdom (2012), New Zealand (2015), Vermont (1990) and Delaware (2002) – introduced changes to their legislation to include provisions that recognize the financial impacts of having second families. The reasons cited for these changes were the concerns raised by the public about the inequality of the treatment of second families in the guidelines’ construction.

5. Time spent with the child

With the exception of France, all jurisdictions have made changes to the provisions pertaining to the treatment of time spent with the child by each parent. Changes have largely focused on reducing the thresholds that would trigger a change in the percentage deduction that each parent receives as a result of having spent time with the child. Other types of changes have included clarity on how to treat continuous blocks of time76 that a parent may spend with a child that is not the traditional overnight time (Wisconsin 2018), and simplification of the bands of time before a reduction is allowable (Delaware 2015).

6. Other noteworthy changes

Changes to legislation pertaining to the administrative agencies mandated to determine child support amounts on behalf of their clients have occurred in several jurisdictions. These changes have either affected their scope of enforcement capability or, as in the United Kingdom, have resulted in the dissolution of the existing administrative regime and either the creation of a new one or a reassignment of the authority to another department. The rationale for these changes has consistently been related to the performance of the agency.

Other changes worth noting include various recent amendments that have occurred in Delaware and New Zealand pertaining to provisions designed to protect the ability of the paying parent to actually have the financial means to pay child support. These jurisdictions have included amendments to their self-support amounts, provisions for paying parents who are incarcerated, and adjustments to relevant standard of living calculations.

H. Summary

This chapter provided an overview of the factors incorporated into the calculations in the formula underlying the child support models. As well, it summarized the rationale for, and the legislative changes to, the models that have occurred over time. The following are the main observations:

• All models have embedded in their legislation principles on what child support guidelines are designed to achieve. These principles or objectives are integral to how their formula is constructed, both in the elements used and their sequencing.
• In all jurisdictions, parents always have the option to negotiate their own child support amounts; in these cases, child support guidelines are discretionary. In most jurisdictions, for people who are receiving social benefits from their government, administrative agencies are mandated to determine child support amounts. In these cases, child support guidelines are mandatory. In cases that are processed through the court system, depending on the jurisdiction, the use of child support guidelines is mandatory. However, judges have the discretion to deviate from the guidelines amounts.
• Five jurisdictions (Australia, New Zealand, Illinois, Norway and the United Kingdom) have made significant changes to their child support model in the past ten years. In Australia, New Zealand, Illinois and Norway, the reforms included changing from a fixed percentage of income model to an income shares model. Not only did these four jurisdictions make changes to the way they apportioned the expenditures between the parents, they also changed their legislation pertaining to parenting time thresholds and calculations, definitions of child support income, and increased rigor in the methods used for determining expenditures on children.
• All ten models, and the formulas used in these models, operate differently. Nonetheless, all models make use of a number of the same elements in their formulas. What is also important is how these elements are defined and integrated in the calculations in the formula, which differ considerably from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
• Changes to the models have occurred in all ten jurisdictions. The main reasons were public outcry due to administrative failures, inaccurate assessments, and the need to keep pace with the reality of the changing nature of families.

---

• Previous page
• Table of Contents
• Next page