OTHER EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF SHARED PARENTING AND JOINT CUSTODY
Article by Ron Henry in Family Law Quarterly: Much evidence that the child support system is not working.
Papers From Other Sources“Why Georgia's Child Support Guidelines Are Unconstitutional.” [HTML]
“Supporting Georgia's Children: Constitutionally Sound Objectives and Means,” [HTML]
Georgia Bar Journal, Oct. 2000, by Rebecca A. Hoelting. A rebuttal to the above article by William C. Akins.
Improving State Child Support Guidelines, By Donald J. Bieniewicz. [PDF]
This paper is in response to a written request from Joseph S. Crane, Chairman, 1999 Virginia Child Support Quadrennial Review Panel, for a submission setting forth the author's method and suggestions for guidelines for determining child support amounts. The author was an appointed member of an expert panel that provided advice on the general nature of the research and made recommendations that appeared in Evaluation of Child Support Guidelines, prepared by CSR, Inc, for the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) in 1996. He is also author of a model child support guideline that appeared as Chapter 11 in Child Support Guidelines: the Next Generation, which was published by the OCSE in 1994.
NCSEA Research Clearinghouse
This website includes a searchable database of citations, abstracts, and full documents of child support related articles, books, book chapters, dissertations and reports to federal, state, and local governments. The database is updated continuously and is searchable by use of any keyword or phrase including the names of authors, journals, or topical subjects. The site is developed and maintained by the Indiana University Institute for Family and Social Responsibility (FASR) on behalf of the National Child Support Enforcement Association (NCSEA).
“Child Support at a Crossroads: When the Real World Intrudes Upon Academics and Advocates” [HTML]
by Ronald K. Henry, Family Law Quarterly, Spring 1999, pp. 235-264.
A New Zealand and an Australian economist published an article in Agenda (Vol 10, No 2) that applies the economic principles of horizontal and vertial equity to child support.
The Father of Today's Child Support Public Policy: His Personal Exploitation of the System, and the Fallacy of His “Income Shares” Model [MSWord]
by James R. Johnston, August 1998.
Recommendations for Modification of Child Support Guidelines and Reform of their Use Corresponding to the Views of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court [PDF]
by Jay H. Todd, Jr. and Roger F. Gay and Jay H. Todd. Sixteen pages.
Low-Income, Non-Residential Fathers: Off-Balance in a Competitive Economy, In Initial Analysis [HTML]
By Kathryn Edin, Laura Lein, Timothy Nelson, September 28, 1998.
The Solution to the Child Support Guideline Problem [PDF]
By Roger F. Gay.
New Equations for Calculating Child Support and Spousal Maintenance [PDF]
With Discussion on Child Support Guidelines by Roger Gay .
Noncustodial Fathers: Can They Afford to Pay More Child Suppor [HTML]
by Elaine Sorenson, the Urban Institute.
Smith v. Smith [MSWord]
Oregon Supreme Court opinion limiting child support guidelines designed for welfare cases to welfare cases. Also that child support should not be so burdensome as to deny the obligor the ability to meet basic living needs. Smith v. Smith, 626 P2d 342, (No. 71-3146, CA 16098, SC 27080) Supreme Court of Oregon, En Banc, Argued and submitted Sept. 8, 1980. Decided March 24, 1981.
What Where They Thinking? The Development of Child Support Guidelines in Canada [PDF]
Written Brief, 2000, by Paul Millar and Anne H. Gauthier, CANADA.
The working paper version of an article published in the Canadian Journal of Law and Society [Vol. 17, No. 1, p. 139-162]. Examines the historical development of the child support guidelines adopted for Canada in 1997, and the assumptions that underpin them. The original goals of the guidelines are compared with their apparent and likely results to provide a map for future adjustments and policy revision.
Presentation to the Senate Committee on Child Support Guidelines [HTML]
Written Brief, April, 1998, by Karen Selick, CANADA. A critical evaluation of the underlying philosophy of Canada's child support guidelines by a practicing attorney. Applicable to guidelines in the U.S. and other countries.
Are you concerned about father's rights? Fathers are routinely discriminated against in family court, the district attorney, and the office of child support enforcement. Parenting includes much more than writing a check once a month. The best interest of the child is served most effectively by shared parenting. It is the position of ANCPR that father's rights is actually a subset of the broader issue of parents rights, or parental rights. Yet courts all across the nation continue to ignore the importance of fathers in family court. The District Attorney looks upon fathers as mere pay checks.
CHILD SUPPORT MODIFICATION
>C. S. modification should be much simpler. The best interest of the child is not served by ignoring the benefits of joint custody. Courts should respect the needs of children by de-emphasizing c.s. enforcement and stressing shared custody. Parents rights to and ongoing relationship with their children are continually ignored by courts. Parenting is hard enough as it is. Parenting would be much easier if the noncustodial parent were not being driven into poverty by the district attorney and the office of child support enforcement. Our Modification Handbook, comes free as a benefit of membership in ANCPR. It will help you modify custody, modify visitation or modify C. S. Our Membership Resources help you to understand how family courts work so you can protect your parents rights.