New Mexico Child Support
Allocation of Child Support
The allocation of the amounts determined to be appropriate under Rothbarth is extremely problematic for me. After you determine what the Rothbarth amount for the support of the child(ren) should be, you then allocate that amount to one household. Stop and consider that. If Rothbarth says that $1,000 should be used for the rearing of the children, then that amount is allocated to only one of the homes where the child resides. The parent that is paying the child support is typically called the non-custodial parent, but that is a completely inaccurate description.
In New Mexico a fairly typical timesharing plan for parents with a young child is that the “non-custodial parent” will have the child every other weekend and usually a week over winter break from school and a couple of weeks out of the summer. This adds up to 73 days out of the year and is approximately 20% of the time. New Mexico’s child support theory is apparently that one out of every five days the child should be living in a home where no money has been allocated for the care of the child. If you do not believe this, consider this case:
“Another important aspect of the basic-visitation calculation is that no consideration is given to expenses of the non-custodial parent. The underlying assumption of the statute is that if the child spends less than 35% of the year with a parent, that parent’s basic living expenses are unchanged, or at least any increase in such expenses should not be compensated. Certainly, during visitation the non-custodial parent will incur costs for food and other items that would otherwise be borne by the custodial parent; but again, these costs do not affect the non-custodial parent’s obligation for basic support.” Erickson v. Erickson 127 N.M. 140, 978 P.2d 347 (Ct. App. 1999).
The scant logic behind this legislative scheme is that there is one primary home where unique items for the child should be purchased. Housing is one expense that is recurring and does not necessarily vary with where the child spends her time. A bike, computer or bed might also be one-time purchases. The vast bulk of children's expenditures I believe varies with where the child resides. Most child support theorists do not agree with this assertion. I have read a lot of material on child support, though, and I have never seen an adequate explanation for the allocation of child support to one home.
Also, notice how the non-custodial parent gets no credit for any expenditures for the child. If the child needs items like clothes, shoes or normal recreation expenses, the non-custodial parent can say, that is why I pay the custodial parent child support. Most children do not know this and may end up viewing one of their parents as cheap, even though they are appropriately contributing. What actually happens in many cases is that the non-custodial parent also purchases items to ensure the child doesn't view them as uncaring and cheap. New Mexico's theory on child support only makes sense if you assume that the non-custodial parent has no contact with the child. Does this system make sense to you?
We also need to consider the other ramifications of this policy. Does anyone else have a problem with a system that overpays for child support. Is this an incentive for woman to have children? The system is designed to make sure that the custodial parent's welfare is the same as though the parties were living together under one roof.
- Theory Overview
- Theory Page 1 -Legislative Background
- Theory Page 2 -Statute Assumptions, Rothbarth Estimator and Equivalency Measures
- Theory Page 3 -Allocation of child support
- Theory Page 4 -Support for Allocation and Summary