THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, October 15, 1995 TAG: 9510130023
SECTION: COMMENTARY PAGE: J4 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Letter
LENGTH: Short : 50 lines
Regarding ``Get the facts about the reality of divorced parents' days'' (letter, Oct. 1):
Virginia's child-support guidelines are flawed in two respects: They were derived from economic data on the cost of raising children in two separate homes, and the schedule of monthly basic child-support obligations assumes that the support obligor has zero visitation time with the child.
In 1992, the General Assembly recognized that in those cases where the noncustodial parent has significant periods of time with the child (i.e., more than 110 days per year), the support guidelines should take into account the shared economic effect of raising the child in two homes and provide a mechanism for equitable allocation of these costs between the parents.
As a result, the legislature enacted the ``shared custody'' provisions. In these computations, the ``schedule'' amount is first increased by 25 percent to account for certain fixed costs like mortgages and automobiles that are unaffected during the time that the child is with the other parent. But the shared custody rules rightfully consider the fact that costs like clothing, transportation and entertainment are incurred for the child by the secondary custodial parent when the child is with him or her.
Ms. Ewing correctly notes that she does not get a discount on her ``mortgage or electric bill or school fees or dance lessons'' while the child is with the father. What Ms. Ewing failed to realize is that Mr. Ewing's share of these expenses is built into the child-support amount. Without the shared-custody support provision, the law fails to acknowledge that Mr. Ewing has additional child-rearing costs and the present law fails to acknowledge that he too has expenses for the 110 days of visitation.
If child-support guidelines continue to be applied so support does not follow the child, then we should change the name to ``parent support'' (tax-free alimony). The appellate court's outrageous decision in the Ewing case not only failed to understand the economic reality of child rearing by divorced parents, it also was an assault on the commonwealth's public-policy goal of promoting shared parental responsibilities.
The Court of Appeals decision effectively nullified the ``shared-custody'' child-support law and serves to discourage shared parenting by fathers.
MURRAY L. STEINBERG
President
Family Resolution Council
Richmond, Oct. 3, 1995 by CNB