Nov 16, 11 child support legislative panel meeting report by Kenneth Skilling
D'Arcy L McGreer
Below is the Report by Kenneth Skilling who attended and spoke at this meeting:
The following are what I see as the main points of the November 16, 2011, meeting of the child support review panel:
(1) Senator Quayle said he was stepping down from the chairmanship, because he would not be standing at the next election. Judge A. Ellen White, of the Lynchburg-area Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court, was elected as his successor.
(2) It was made clear that the review panel had a more relaxed schedule than in previous years. In order to allow time for a more deliberative approach, the panel will have all of next year to consider the issues, and the review need not be completed until 2013.
(3) Only about half of the panel members were present at the meeting, and neither of the two noncustodial parent representatives was there. In general, panel members just listened to the various presentations, and very few questions were directed at the speakers.
(4) Social Services Commissioner Martin Brown gave a general outline of his department's work in relation to child support. He said that one in four Virginia children was the subject of a child support order, and the total number of nonmarital births in the state last year was 36,000. In the nonmarital birth situation, about 50 percent of fathers were "romantically involved" with the mothers at the time the children were born, but the situation changed "as reality sets in," and by four months later only 13 percent of couples had married. The Department of Child Support Enforcement was a very efficient agency, he said, and would continue to be aggressive in pursuing those who should be paying CS. However, one of his objectives was to find ways of stabilizing families, and preventing the need for payment of CS. He was not specific about how this would be done, but he drew attention to what had been done in New York City under Mayor Giuliani. In trying to control crime, Giuliani had shifted the focus from the number of arrests to the crime rate. Brown said he was interested in getting suggestions about what could be done to reduce the need for CS.
(5) Craig Burshem, senior assistant attorney general, presented the results of a survey about the present child support guidelines. These results are to be published on the panel's web site (http://dls.state.va.us/GROUPS/childsupport/research.htm). Notable elements in the results were the fact that there was relatively heavy participation by attorney and noncustodial parents, but somewhat less participation by custodial parents. (The survey is of questionable value, because the results are not based on a random sample, but on what was said by a self-selected group of responders. There also was at least one point in which the summary of the responses was itself biased. Burshem said that the 90-day limit on applicability of the shared custody guidelines was used by some parents as a way of minimizing their CS liability. However, he made no reference to the fact that the limit is also used by probable custodial parents as a way of ensuring that visitation time does not cut into the amount of money they receive from the noncustodial parent.) Despite the limitations of the survey, in my view it is useful because it identifies all the areas where the panel will be considering changes.
(6) During the public comment period a wide range of issues were raised, many arising from the personal experience of those who were speaking. It was not always clear what changes the speakers wanted to see made to the CS guidelines. Among points made:
(a) A nurse from Virginia Beach who shared custody with her ex-husband said the shared custody guidelines operated unfairly in her case, partly because she made significantly more money than her ex.
(b) Diane Poljacik, a mediator, said that, because of the present economic difficulties, the panel should not consider raising the amounts in the CS guidelines. She also warned against trying to make the guidelines too specific, arguing that they "should just be guidelines." In addition, she said that incarceration for nonpayment should be an absolute last resort.
(c) Ed McMichael, a noncustodial father with two daughters, said there should be controls to ensure that CS was actually spent on the children. He said that, by the time his daughters were grown, he would have paid his ex $1.25 million in CS -- a figure that he later conceded, in reply to questions from one panel member, was far too high, because he had made a mistake in his calculations.
(d) A foster mother contrasted the difference between the money she received for her foster children and what noncustodial parents had to pay in CS, apparently making the point that the foster care payments were much lower than CS and there was accountability for foster care payments.
(e) Stuart Miller (temporarily resident in Fredericksburg) made a presentation that stressed his long experience in CS issues, and offered 16 detailed proposals for change. These included: getting rid of the 1.4 multiplier for shared custody and the 90-day limit; allocating fixed expenses like housing equally between both parents; no add-ons for things like insurance or child care; and considering the allocation of tax benefits in determining CS numbers.
Kenneth Skilling
November 18, 2011
Sender this message: D’Arcy L McGreer, 571-224-2294, fax 571-312-9227, 2200 Wilson Blvd, Ste 102-271, Arlington, Virginia 22201-3324. Fathers for Virginia’s (FFV) website. FFV’s Google Group for messages and discussion, Virginia Childless Fathers.