M. Travis Robbins of the The Online Lawyer blog recently posted an article, Child Support: He’s Hiding Assets, which discusses the subject of a parent concealing assets and the impact this had on his child support obligation. In the case discussed by Mr. Robbins, the mother petitioned the Court reassess the father’s finances to potentially increase his child support obligation. The issue was that the father had several real estate holdings which had skyrocketed in value but were not considered in the child support analysis.
Mr. Robbins points out that most states have statutes which set uniform guidelines for awarding child support and allow the court to periodically increase or decrease a child support award when the finances of the paying parent change and that the uniform guidelines primarily base the child support amount on the parents’ monthly income. In his client’s case, he petitioned the Court for an equitable adjustment to the child support based on the increased value of the father’s assets, but he acknowledges that it is unlikely that his client will prevail.
I can understand both sides of this issue, and good arguments can be made in support of each. On the one hand, the person receiving the child support wants to make sure that the other parent pays his/her “fair share,” which is often times defined by that person as “the most I can squeeze out of him/her.” At the same time, the person paying the child support wants to pay his/her “fair share,” which is often defined as “the minimum I can get by with paying.”
South Carolina’s Child Support Guidelines take the following factors into account when calculating the child support obligation:
- Father’s gross monthly income;
- Mother’s gross monthly income;
- Amount of work-related child care expenses;
- Amount paid for health insurance on the child(ren);
- Amount of extraordinary medical expenses for the child(ren);
- Number of other children living in each parent’s home; and
- Amount of alimony paid and received between the parents.
The Court has the ability to deviate upward or downward from the amount calculated under the Child Support Guidelines, but it is unusual for the Court to actually do so. The above-listed factors were chosen because they are more objective and easier to verify than other items such as assets. For instance, the mother in Mr. Robbins scenario wants the Court to factor in the appreciate of the father’s real estate, but how would the amount of appreciation be conclusively determined? Certainly, each parent would produce different appraisals, perhaps drastically different. Also, what happens if the property value plummets? Would the mother be willing to accept a drastic reduction in the father’s child support obligation? I suspect not.
I guess that the point of this post is that there is no perfect way to calculate child support, nor is there any method that encompasses all the variations and nuances of every case. I believe that the best method is calculating the obligation per the “guidelines,” treating that amount literally as a guideline and not set in stone, and giving the Court discretion to deviate from that amount if the specific situation warrants it. However, I am interested in hearing your thoughts on this subject and invite you to post your comments.