Open Letter to National Parents
Organization
It is time to explain your actions
Part 4 – New Child Support Law
It is far past time for the National Parents Organization to explain why they have worked against every organization that has independently sought to bring comprehensive changes to the approaches that states take to custody laws across the county.
With your appointment of Don Hubin, as your new Interim Executive Director, the responsibility of answering these questions now falls directly on his shoulders. Dodging or failing to answer for the organization's actions will further show that it is the intent of the National Parents Organization to drag the much-needed changes out for years into the future. All information that I am basing these questions that have come from others that have had the misfortune of had the organization interfere with numerous efforts across the country.
|
This week’s newsletter will provide a review and critique of Ohio HB 366 which enacts multiple changes to the state’s child support legislation, including creating a self-sufficiency reserve for payors, lowering child support obligations for low-income earners, and capping a payors' responsibility to pay for child care expenses. Despite these welcomed changes, however, the new bill presents some concerns.
In this issue, Board Member and OH State Affiliate Chair of NPO, Dr. Donald C. Hubin, analyzes the good, bad and ugly sides of HB 366. (Also, for a brief summary of the Bill, please see the article re-posted from the Toledo Blade earlier this week on NPO’s website.)
|
|
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly of Ohio’s New Child Support Law
By Donald C. Hubin, Ph.D., Chair, Ohio Executive Committee and Member, National Board of Directors
Ohio has recently enacted into law the most extensive changes in its child support laws in over a quarter of a century. Ohio news media is filled with stories highlighting the changes. As the leader of the Ohio Chapter of NPO, a member of the 2005 Ohio Child Support Guidelines Advisory Committee, and a member of the 2001 Ohio Child Support Shareholders Committee, I have had more than a passing interest in this legislation.
From the time the legislation was first introduced in the form of Senate Bill 125, and throughout the legislative review process, Ohio NPO has analyzed the legislation, pointed out both positive and negative features of it, and taken a stand on its passage. For details of NPO’s position on this legislation, see the links at the bottom of this post. Here, I want to highlight just a few of the changes to Ohio child support laws that are coming and why NPO gives the legislation a very mixed review.
The Good
First, this new legislation for the first time creates an appropriate self-sufficiency reserve, which attempts to ensure that child support obligations do not make it impossible for low-income obligors to support themselves. Imposing impossible child support obligations on parents does not benefit children; instead, it results in obligors defaulting on their child support obligations and not providing any support for their children. NPO has long supported reasonable self-support reserves. Finally, Ohio’s Office of Child Support and Ohio’s legislature have recognized that imposing impossible child support obligations is short-sighted and counter-productive.
Second, and relatedly, the new legislation create more reasonable child support obligations for those who are lower-income but above the point at which the self-sufficiency reserve kicks in. This, too, is a welcome change.
Finally, the bill puts a cap on an obligor’s responsibility to pay for child care, preventing the custodial parent from selecting child care that is far above the median cost and imposing these excessive costs on the child support obligor.
The Bad
Not surprisingly the new legislation raises the child support tables. Some people, apparently even some legislators, seem to believe that child support tables should rise with inflation. We frequently hear claims like: “The child support tables in Ohio haven’t been raised since 1992 and you know how much more it costs to raise a child now than it did then.” This is poppycock! The child support tables are based on the parents’ income. When inflation is high, incomes and expenses rise and parents who are earning more will pay more without the tables rising. Imagine how far someone would get with the argument that income tax tables have to be raised to reflect the increased cost of running the government!
The increases in the tables are modest compared to those recommended by the Office of Child Support in previous years. But they will result in most moderate- and higher-income child support obligors paying more.
The new legislation does, for the first time, recognize the direct child expenses of non-residential parents with a parenting time adjustment. Previously, 100% of the combined child support obligation was placed in the residential parent’s household. This new adjustment is intended to reduce the obligor’s child support obligation to reflect their direct expenses on the children.
Because NPO advocates for shared parenting and parenting time adjustments promote shared parenting, one might expect to see this important element of the bill under “The Good” heading. Unfortunately, the legislature has chosen to enact a version of a parenting time adjustment that is inadequate and unfair. It’s inadequate because it explicitly refuses to recognize many of the expenses that non-residential parents have on the children. The food they provide while the children are in their care counts, but the extra room in their house, the extra furniture, toys, computer for homework, and so forth, do not count. It’s unfair because it treats all of the child support recipient’s expenses on children as a shared obligation while treating the most significant direct child-related expenses of the obligor as solely that parent’s responsibility.
Combined with the increases in the child support tables, the parenting time adjustment will not result in lower child support payments for many parents, even those with very significant direct expenses on their children. So, while parenting time adjustments, in general, are a good thing, the parenting time adjustment in Ohio’s new legislation is not!
In fact, the new legislation contains not just one, but two, parenting time adjustments: one to handle “standard parenting time” and one that kicks in when obligors have the children in their care at least 147 overnights (approximately 40% of the overnights) per year. The standard parenting time adjustment is inadequate; the extended parenting time adjustment is vague and misleading. It simply directs the court to “consider a substantial deviation” in child support when the obligor has the children at least 147 overnights per year and, if the court chooses not to grant such a deviation, to explain why it did not. What it doesn’t do is define ‘substantial deviation’. The legislators left it to the judges to determine what that was, even though the judges explicitly asked the legislators to give more guidance on this.
Well-designed parenting time adjustments kick in gradually, avoiding “cliff-effects”. As you might suspect from what has already been said, Ohio’s legislation is not well designed. Obligors who have their children for fewer than 90 overnights a year, are not entitled to the standard parenting time adjustment; those with more overnights are. Obligors with fewer than 147 overnights per year are not entitled to special consideration of a “substantial deviation”; those with more are. If you want a recipe for lawyers to fight hard over insignificant differences in parenting time, you could hardly do better than this. When presented with a proposed schedule, good attorneys advocating for their client’s interests will, first of all, count the overnights. And, courts will be confronted with arguments over parenting schedules that are very similar except that one is slightly over the threshold and the other is slightly below it..
The Ugly
Okay, “The Bad” was pretty ugly. But there’s worse. Here’s how the new legislation calculates the “standard parenting time adjustment”. It assumes that children spend 30% of their time with the obligor parent. This is fictitious; county parenting time rules vary widely. Then, it estimates that 35% of the expenses of raising a child “travel with the child”. These are the only expenses of the obligor parent it considers relevant. It multiples 35% by 30% and gets 10.5%, which is rounds down to 10%. So, it concludes that a 10% reduction in child support is appropriate for standard parenting time.
We’ve already seen why this handles parents’ expenses unfairly--all expenses of the child support recipient are treated as shared expenses, while most of the expenses of the obligor are treated as solely the responsibility of that parent. But it gets worse. Even following this (flawed) methodology, the reduction should be 10% of the combined child support obligation--the obligation of the mother and the father combined. Calculating it as a percentage of only the obligor’s portion of the child support obligation is a blatant mathematical error.
The error was pointed out repeatedly by NPO during the legislative hearings. Indeed, the very reports produced by the Office of Child Support in 2009, 2013, and 2017 all said that the adjustment should be based on the combined obligation of the two parents. But, in introducing and defending the legislation, the Office of Child Support based the calculation on just the obligo’rs portion of the child support obligation.
When confronted with this deviation from its own methodology and previous recommendations, the only response from the Ohio Office of Child Support offered was to say that they felt that calculating it based on the combined obligation would be too much of a downward adjustment. One wonders what the point is of having a methodology and rationale in the first place if, in the end, the legislation will be based on what simply “feels right” to the bureaucrats in the Office of Child Support.
The Bottom Line
This new legislation will help some low-income non-residential parents. And, it’s likely to benefit their children because it’s likely to promote more compliance with child support obligations for these parents because it’s more realistic about what they can pay. It will be harmful to middle- and upper-income non-residential parents--especially those who are highly involved in their children’s lives and incur significant direct expenses on the children. And, by harming them financially, it will harm their children.
Perhaps the worst consequence of the passage of this legislation is that it will, in the minds of our legislators, take the parenting time adjustment issue off the table. By instituting a bad parenting time adjustment, it will undermine efforts to create an appropriate and fair parenting adjustment for the foreseeable future.
Links to detailed NPO comments on Ohio Senate Bill 125, as introduced, which is substantially similar to its companion bill in the Ohio House HB 366 and the final Ohio child support legislation signed into law by Governor Kasich in June of 2018:
● National Parents Organization Response to SB 125 ● National Parents Organization Proposed Amendments to SB 125 ● National Parents Organization Written Testimony Opposing SB 125 ● National Parents Organization Oral Testimony Opposing SB 125
Don Hubin is the Director for the Center for Ethics and Human Values at the Ohio State University. He is a Member of the Executive Committee of the Board of Directors at National Parents Organization and the Chair of the Ohio Affiliate. |
Don, you must have read a completely different bill than I did. So may false statements that you made about the changes that this new child support law brought about and so many things that you missed.
Did you even read the list of flaws that I gave you or were you too busy with your new attorney buddy that not only opposed the “presumption during temporary orders” but thought that the Judges had prefect discretion and thought nothing of the Courts taking full control of people just because they dissolved their personal relations?
Questions for all Sponsors of HB366/SB125
1. Did you read the entire Child Support Review Report?
2. Did you read the attached Economic Study?
3. Do you realize that the suggested tables are not based on Ohio specific data?
4. Did Jane Venohr, Ph.D. of Center for Policy Research testify before the committee as to the validity of her research and data?
5. Did Jane Venohr, Ph.D., Center for Policy Research, Denver, CO reveal that there exists a conflict of interest to the committee since the Center for Policy Research is owned by Maximus, Inc. which specializes in selling government management software systems?
6. Did Jane Venohr, Ph.D., Center for Policy Research, Denver, CO reveal that there exists a conflict of
Interest to Jobs and Family Services since the Center for Policy Research is owned by Maximus, Inc. which specializes in selling government management software systems?
7. Do you realize that every county child support agency, the state agency, and the courts will have to invest a significant amount of money in new software?
8. Where is that money going to come from?
9. Can you explain why you support changing Ohio’s calculations from time shares which it has been since 1992 to the much less used income shares method of calculation?
10. You do know that Center for Policy Research was called Policy Studies and did the original tables and recommendations for Ohio in 1992?
11. Did you know that they admitted those tables were flawed?
12. Did you run any calculations to see how a case would be affected? We did and it was a 7% increase on the low end and up to 27% on the higher end.
Line Items changes in the bill that need to be supported (Legislators need to be pointed to specific lines in a proposed bill so they can clearly find and make the changes)
13. Line 65 – Why are we using not Ohio specific numbers in regards to the price index?
14. Line 72 – Federal poverty level is likely to change with the changes of ACH.
15. Line 80 – Tax deduction for local taxes that is taken away in the new work sheet is inconsistent with the mannerinwhichOhioandtheFederalgovernmenthandlestaxreturnsandtheirdeductions. This problem becomes greater with the self-employed.
16. Line 129 – Why are adopted child not included in the calculations? The same expenses exist for them within the household. Under the tax code they are eligible for a credit the same as a natural child.
17. Line 151 – Define ordinary medical expense. This comes into some discussions that have happened in regards to Medicaid expansion where we talked about the use of the emergency room for common problems versa less expensive clinics and physicians or nurse assistants.
18. Line 249 – The tables as created are based on data that is not state specific. The use of regional data will always skew the data of the states involved. You will get no argument from me that the tables which were created in 1992 need to be updated but they need to be updated solely on the economics of Ohio. When I previously looked at cost of living expenses of the states with what the federal government considers this region, Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin, it was found that the states of Indiana, Illinois and Wisconsin had significantly higher costs of living than Ohio and Michigan. Those higher costs of living should not be used in anything involved in calculations of Ohio law. If we apply common sense and the methods that Ohio applies to its own budget the question comes up; Do we use the needs of other states or the needs of Ohioans when creating our budget? The same principle must be applied to all aspects of Ohio law, including these tables.
19. Line 502– I am and have raised significant issues with this change from the “Time Shares” to “Income Shares” method of calculating Ohio’s child support with the significant conflicts of interest that do exist. The shift from our current time shares method to income shares method will thrown Ohio into a minority in the use of this method which was admitted by Jane Venohr when she swayed Illinois to change their methodology and admitting to their legislation that the “Time Shares” method produced more equitable results across the board.
20. Line 957 – The use of the federal level of poverty plus 16% is inconsistent with Ohio used calculation amount of 133% for Medicaid eligibility in the calculation of the child support reserve.
21. Line 1031 – This section is unclear as to where the recalculation data should come from. This needs to be specific that only Ohio economic data be used in any recalculation of the basic child support tables.
22. Line 1063 –The make-up of this child support review council remains suspect in weighting. It is nonspecific as to who or how many obligors or obliges should be appointed and by whom. The overweight in of the council by the legal communities obscures the effectiveness of this as an independent review process. While this is supposedly advertised by JFS they greatly fail to openly announce that the process is beginning and where the meetings are to be held. Even if found online on the JFS website, the materials provided to the council are not made publicly available.
23. Line 1152 –The use of a complicated formula to give credit to a paying parent falls short of giving full and proper credit for the support that a parent for which they are supporting.
24. Line 1352 –I have to seriously question why we are allowing any parent to shirk their responsibility to a child and then to do it on a discretionary basis.
25. Line 1434 – Here is that inconsistent use of the federal poverty level and the way that it is used in other sections of Ohio law. The support reserve with this suggests 116%. Medicaid expansion suggests 133%. Food stamp eligibility is set at 150% of the federal poverty level.
26. Line 1487 – There have been several suggestions made on extended time over the years. The setting of an actual base time for which the court may order a deviation is not acceptable as one day can make a huge swing in the obligation of child support. The simplest approach was put forth in 2011 when it was suggested that the deviation be automatic and be based on the percentage of time with each parent.
27. Line 1597 – It is the obligation of the legislation to establish formulas not that of the courts. Courts are for deciding legal matters not setting law. It appears that someone forgot the basic principle of separation of powers.
28. Lacking for the bill is instruction as to whether a current order is to continue to follow current tables and current law or if they have been are to be recalculated at the earlier date to these new tables.
29. Also missing is whether the agencies may or may not change the obligations of a obligor when the support order comes up for its three year review.
***********************************************************************************
Nebraska Transcript Prepared By the Clerk of the Legislature Transcriber's Office Rough Draft
CHILD SUPPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION
October 17, 2014
Walk everybody through them. [CHILD SUPPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION]
SENATOR CAMPBELL: That would be fine, thank you.
[CHILD SUPPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION]
Power Point, use
JANE VENOHR : Okay, so...thank you. Last meeting, we talked about one of the things that all states are charged with when they review their guidelines is to consider current economic data on child-rearing costs as part of their review. So the best way to do that is to take some of the economic data and put it in a format similar to what ever that state is using on their child support table. So to get from the point of looking at that study of child-rearing costs, such as the USDA, which is on-line and referenced on my Power Point, to a format similar to the table that Nebraska uses, I have to make a lot of various assumptions. So the last meeting, on September 30th, we went through what those assumptions were. The committee gave me some...the commission gave me some direction. And in short, they asked me to develop six updated tables using various assumptions, including both the USDA measurements of child-rearing costs, and some with those...with the Betson-Rothbarth measurements. The USDA and the Betson-Rothbarth measurements are the most current economic studies of child-rearing costs available. The Rothbarth estimator is known to understate actual child-rearing costs, and the USDA is considered the highest bound. And there's lots of studies out there, including one that's conducted by the federal level, that says a stake (sic) may use our...it's not a "may." They may want to consider using anything between the lower and the upper credible bound.
Is everybody following me so far?
[CHILD SUPPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION]
SENATOR CAMPBELL: Are there any questions?
Okay.
No, Dr. Venohr, I think you can proceed.
[CHILD SUPPORT ADVISORY COMMISSION]
JANE VENOHR: Okay. So, in short, there's two sets of tables, one with the USDA and the other set with the Betson-Rothbarth.
And then another consideration is the medical Support Guideline Model
***********************************************************************************
Statement made to Illinois after tell Nebraska that income shares method was better.
Flaws and Opposition to SB125/HB388, Ohio’s new child Support law.
I forgot, you were holding hands with the attorney that had just testified against your “presumption during temporary orders” failed proposed change to the law.
Ray R. Lautenschlager
National Legislative Director
Ohio Family Rights
|
|
|
Donald C. Hubin, PhD, Ohio, Interim Chair DonHubin@nationalparentsorganization.org · Director, Center for Ethics and Human Values, The Ohio State University · University of California, Davis, University of Arizona |
|
|
||
|
|
|
Philip Dyk, Connecticut · Partner, Alinda Capital Partners · Claremont McKenna College |
|
|
||
|
|
|
Robert A. Franklin, JD, Texas, Journalist for National Parents Organization · National Parents Organization's 'featured columnist' · Formerly Executive Editor, Houston Law Review · University of Houston |
|
|
||
|
|
|
Matt Hale, MBA, Kentucky · Architectural Sales, Spohn Associates · Bradley University, University of Louisville |
|
|
||
|
|
|
Benny Hau, MD, California · Medical Director, Physician Assistant Program; Assistant Professor, School of Allied Health, Loma Linda University · Yale University, Loma Linda University |
|
|
||
|
|
|
Linda Reutzel, Missouri · Owner/CFO FGR Mechanical, Inc. · Southeast Missouri State University |
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
Management |
||
|
|
||
|
|
|
Ginger Gentile, California, Deputy Executive Director · Activist filmmaker, public speaker and media strategist dedicated to building large coalitions that support making divorce and separation healthier for children. · Her previous, Erasing Dad, (Borrando a Papa, 2014) caused joint custody to be enacted in Argentina. · Third feature documentary, Erasing Family, premiering in the fall of 2019, exposes the trauma children suffer when a loving parent is erased from their lives after divorce and is told from the children's point of view. · Columbia University |
|
|
||
|
|
|
Lianna Mika, Massachusetts, Office Manager · Manages National Parents Organization's files, database, and general office |
|
|
||
|
Executive Directors Emeriti |
||
|
|
||
|
|
|
Ned Holstein, MD, MS, Founder and Chairman Emeritus · Nationally recognized expert on the effects of the environment on human health · Founded Fathers and Families, now National Parents Organization, in 1998 to reform the family courts · Harvard College, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Mount Sinai School of Medicine |
|
|
||
|
|
|
Daniel B. Hogan, JD, PhD · Management consultant and author of four books on the regulation of psychotherapists · Yale University, Harvard Law School and Department of Psychology |
|
|
||
|
|
|
Glenn Sacks, MA · Leading voice for family court reform · University of California, Los Angeles |
|
|
||
|
|
|
Rita Fuerst Adams, MBA · More than thirty years' experience in not-for-profit management, organizational development, and fundraising · Capital University, Ohio University |
|
California |
Nazly Behnia |
||||
|
Georgia |
Jason Ibarra |
||||
|
Legislative Liaison |
David James |
||||
|
Florida |
Dawn Endria McCarty |
||||
|
Hawaii |
Tina Lia |
||||
|
Idaho |
Jerry Papin |
||||
|
Illinois |
William Cozzi |
||||
|
Kansas |
Will Mitchell |
||||
|
Vice-Chair |
Chris Batcheller |
||||
|
Kentucky |
Matt Hancock |
||||
|
Vice-Chair |
Jason Griffith |
||||
|
Director of Women's Outreach |
Alexandra Beckman |
||||
|
Clinical Director of Family Preservation |
Jen Warawa |
||||
|
Maryland |
Andrew Marshall |
||||
|
Massachusetts |
Ned Holstein |
||||
|
Coordinator |
Richard Fucillo |
||||
|
Missouri |
Linda Reutzel |
||||
|
New
York |
Clayton Craddock |
||||
|
North
Carolina |
Dustin Long |
||||
|
Vice-Chair |
Michelle Capps |
||||
|
Military Liaison |
April Kirk |
||||
|
Ohio |
Don Hubin |
||||
|
Pennsylvania |
Stephen Meehan |
||||
|
Texas |
Chris Piper |
||||
|
Director of Legislative Affairs |
Dave Edmondson |
||||
|
Director of Media and Communications |
Miles Olson |
||||
|
Utah |
David Daniels |
||||
|
Chairman of Legislative Affairs |
Dan Deuel |
||||
|
Virginia |
Christian Paasch |
||||
|
Co-Chair |
Kristen Paasch |
||||
|
Washington |
Dan Hund |
||||
|
West
Virginia |
Chad Phillips |
||||
|
Vice-Chair |
Dakota Collins |
||||
|
Social Media & Women's Outreach |
Samantha Smith |
||||
|
Wisconsin |
Tony Bickel |
||||
|
California |
Nazly Behnia |
||||
|
Georgia |
Jason Ibarra |
||||
|
Legislative Liaison |
David James |
||||
|
Hawaii |
Tina Lia |
||||
|
Idaho |
Jerry Papin |
||||
|
Illinois |
William Cozzi |
||||
|
Kansas |
Will Mitchell |
||||
|
Vice-Chair |
Chris Batcheller |
||||
|
Kentucky |
Matt Hancock |
||||
|
Vice-Chair |
Jason Griffith |
||||
|
Director of Women's Outreach |
Alexandra Beckman |
||||
|
Clinical Director of Family Preservation |
Jen Warawa |
||||
|
Maryland |
Andrew Marshall |
||||
|
Massachusetts |
Ned Holstein |
||||
|
Coordinator |
Richard Fucillo |
||||
|
Missouri |
Linda Reutzel |
||||
|
New York |
Josh Blumenthal |
||||
|
Co-Chair |
Clayton Craddock |
||||
|
North Carolina |
Dustin Long |
||||
|
Ohio |
Don Hubin |
||||
|
Pennsylvania |
Stephen Meehan |
||||
|
Texas |
Dave Edmondson |
||||
|
Utah |
David Daniels |
||||
|
Chairman of Legislative Affairs |
Dan Deuel |
||||
|
Virginia |
Christian Paasch |
||||
|
Co-Chair |
Kristen Paasch |
||||
|
Washington |
Dan Hund |
||||
|
West Virginia |
Chad Phillips |
||||
|
Vice-Chair |
Dakota Collins |
||||
|
Social Media & Women's Outreach |
Samantha Smith |
||||