GHS Custodial Parents and Stepparents Questions

1.   In most states, child support ends when the child is 18, although if the child has      not completed high school by that age, some jurisdictions allow support      until the age of 19 or graduation from high school, whichever occurs      first. As a matter of public policy should state legislatures provide for      child support beyond the age of 18 years, for example, to age 20, in order      to reflect economic realities? Is there sufficient justification to impose      this additional obligation on a non-custodial parent? Should (could) the      legislature impose this same rule on parents within an intact family, who      might otherwise seek to emancipate their children when they reach the age      of 18 years?

2.   College, or similar post-secondary educational training, qualifies for an extension of  support in some states. Is there an equal protection problem when college      students have greater rights to financial support than the needy      19-year-old who cannot attend college?

3.  Stepparents  traditionally have no obligation to support a child once they terminate      their relationship with the child’s biological parent. As a corollary,      they have no right to demand visitation or custody. In some respects,      these limitations on rights and obligations may be similar to those      involved in technologically assisted reproduction. Are the public policy      justifications also similar? Should the two categories of “parents” be      treated similarly or should legislatures and courts distinguish between      them?

1.   Most state courts are required to use the legislature’s best interests of the child      standard for parent-versus-parent custody disputes. In parent-versus-nonparent  custody or visitation disputes, the process tips in favor of the wishes of      a fit parent, according to the U.S. Supreme Court. What might support the argument  that close family members, such as grandparents, should be judged under      the best interests standard for visitation? Are the better arguments based      on situational factors or legal rights?

2.   For the most  part, custodial parents are free to relocate and thus jeopardize the      visiting rights of the non-custodial parent. The states have various      approaches to this dilemma of competing interests. What is the best      approach to resolve this issue? Should we begin by prioritizing rights,      and if so, what is the proper hierarchy of the rights of the custodial      parent, the non-custodial parent, and the child? Instead of a legal rights      approach, should this process begin from a social or psychological approach?      Once a priority of rights and/or concerns is determined, which factors      would weigh in favor of one decision over another?

3.  In her article, Eliminating Consideration of Parental Wealth in Post-Divorce      Child Custody Disputes,Frantz writes that courts should not base      custody decisions on the financial status of the respective parents. In      what ways, if any, might the financial well-being of each parent be      relevant to a more accurate determination of the best interests of the      child? In what ways, if any, do the rules on child support affect this      issue?

Economic Policies for the
Support of Children
or ten years dunng his mamage to Angera. Ju,in wo:”ed at a factoryt it
was kOO•’Vn for ,ts horsh vvork;ng CO’ld1•10ns. It was also loca!ea 40 m•cs
from their home andrequlfcda 0110./Jour commute t1i1ch way, e ell 1ongc
whentra-‘fic was not running smoothly_ Two years before theirrrn1rriagetroubl”s
began. Juan and Angeia agreed to tighten their budget so Juan could takea
lower paying10b ma different business His workinq conditions were better, tfie
commute was shortened to 15 mmure:; each way, ar.d Jwn haCI more t,me arid
energy to spendwith thefamily, part1ct1/arly his four c/J//drer, Theyadapted to tho
d1ffrculry of getting b’I wilh $400 less eacnn onth
When the couple divorced. Angela argued thac the cotJrt should calculate
ch Idsupport accord,·g to the ,nc;o’lJP Juan toad maoe cwo ydars oar/,er The uial
/lldge agreed and1mpllted $400 of addiuona/ income to Juan and then used the
stare’s gu,o nes 10 oe:crrr’ne his ch,ld supper. obl;ga1K>1
F
Anthony’s dnnk1ng problem wasof tong dvratJOn As a result. he was not able to
mamtam employment When he was employed. he received low wages and h9
spent most of his wages on alcohOI Consequently. he was behind in his child
support pavments The court had held l’llm i’I concen pt of court on several
occasions. but the legal conseqvences had failed co cure his add1ctron, which
allivays resurfaced ea:;h t,-r:e thegovernment 11:11.,,,sed h·m from iJ•I
His former wife agreed 10 a reduction in his child support ob/igation. /:ventuall’I, she stopped asking the court oe force payr ienr of even that sm” I
amounr. Sha made the decision to stop asking for, and co stope,peccmg, any
suppon money from Anlho,,y
150
Cbu11ter 5 F.conomic Policic.< ror lhe Support of Onldren NECESSITY FOR GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION Legislative and Judicial Roles in Child Support This chapter focuses on policies relat.ed to the monetary $Upport of children. Child support is more crucial today than iL might have been 100 or more years ago. Historically. children did not have the luxury or Lhe societal nonnof many yearsof timeconsuming schooling. a process that requires extended dependence on parental resources. lnslcad, parenLSex:pecLed children to quickly become Cinuncial assets to the family unlt and.shorLly thereafter. to become financially independent. Children could work in the fields.or perform a variety ofdomestic tasks, or be sent toserve as apprentices at a relalively young age. According to historian Stephanie Coontz. when society became more indusLrialized-and moved beyond employing children in factories-families discovered Umt the cost of raising children increased dramatic:ally. Moreover, the possible benefiLS lo be gained from a child's labor diminished as regulations on child labor and the need for long-term schooling took hold.1 Consequently, children today need financial support until age 18. and often beyond, and ouJ legal system has evolved to make thissupport obligation uniform, efficient, and rcarlily enforceable. Child support rarely comes l-0 the attenl.ion of the court system if the child resides with both parents, unless both the motJ1er and father are seriously neglect• ing the child For example, 1f neighbors or teachers notice a child is suffering from lack of nourishment or lacks protective clothing given the local weather. they may contact child protective services. The remedy may involve finandul supportperhaps the family needs public assistance-but the problem may also be willful parental neglect. which requires foster careand possibly the termination ofparental right.$. Similarly. a single-pa.rent household or a blended family situation will not be subjected to court decrees related to children unless some individual or agency seeks that mvolvement Reports t.o child welfare agencies obviously begin the process of government oversight. However, the more likely way for a family to end up in courL is when one parent eeks government assistance Lo establish and enforce a child support order applicable Lo the other parent Therefore, smgleparent homes, whether they begin that way or come about through divorce, are more likely Lo become part of a judicial proccs_ . fn situations of separate parental households. parents can initiaUy make their own arrangements for the support of their children. When a,,oreement is not forthcoming. the Juclicial brnnch can provide a forum to determine the amount due. Lo enforce the support obligation, and to maintain official records of the payments. Notably. parents can dt.'C1de that thenon-custocbal parent-theonenotliving with the child for the maJority of the time-can pay less than the amount required bylaw. However, a11 agreement on this lower amount cannot be legally binding because parents cannoL contract to eliminate or diminish a child's legal right to supportfrom both parents.Thus.if the custodial parent-theonewith whom the child is residing !. Su,phanie Coonl7 Th, 11'd, or is c·aring for a child of the partie under the age of five yearer I, 1979. On Febntary 25, 1980. Dennis nppearcd before the circuil court at an order to show cnuse hearing for contempt. ..• As a result of that hearing. U1e court reduced his support obligation lo Sl5 per month, which was $5 per child per month. and ordered payment of $5 monthly toward arrearagcs of S5