Some noncustodial parents are greatly bothered by the fact that their child support money goes to car payments, meals at McDonald’s and other items that they deem frivolous. In fact, expenditures such as these are evidence that the system is working. The purpose of child support is to equalize the standard of living between the two families. That philosophy is one of the primary reasons that Texas is one of only nine states, and the District of Columbia, that uses the percentage-of-income model when determining the amount of child support.
Another advantage of this system is that it’s predictable and easy to determine. Divorcing parents know how much the monthly child-support amount will be long before the issue goes before the judge or jury. And there’s no dragging out the case, and spending hundreds of dollars on legal fees, fighting about the child support amount. The judge has some discretion to deviate from the guideline amount, but there’s not very much wiggle room.
If you get a divorce just across the border in Louisiana, the child-support amount will probably be much different. That’s because The Bayou State is one of 39 states to employ the income-shares model. Here are the major differences:
Three states – Montana, Delaware and Hawaii – use the Melson Formula. It’s a very complicated formula based on a Delaware family law case.
Just because a person is ordered to pay child-support does not necessarily mean that it will be paid. Sometimes, additional enforcement is needed. The state has also set up a collection system that has the verifiability that obligors want, and the ease of access that obligees need. These will be discussed in a subsequent post.
The bottom line is that child support is for kids.