The Workgroup makes the following recommendations regarding the residential schedule credit:
The Workgroup recommends that there should be a residential schedule credit to adjust the transfer payment, and that credit should be based on the number of overnights. There should be a mechanism to adjust the credit when necessary. The credit should be available in both the courts and the administrative forum, and the credit should not be granted if doing so would result in insufficient funds in the custodial parent’s household.
The Workgroup recommends that there should be an adjustment of the child support obligation – not a deviation – based on the child’s residential schedule. This concept is referred to as a residential schedule credit.70 While recognizing that there are many approaches to calculating a residential schedule credit, the Workgroup recommends that the easiest method for determining the credit or adjustment would be a method based on the number of overnights which the child spends with each parent. Although there are some family situations which would not fit nicely into the “overnights” scenario, the Workgroup members believed that the majority of cases would be amenable to such a calculation. [Page 23, Worksheet Study Group Report]
Left in this form, the proposed legislation would retain existing RCW 26.19.075(1)(d), thus eviscerating any hope that a mechanism other than arguing for a "deviation" might be available for obtaining a residential credit.
In an attempt to be the honest broker, Washington State Representative Bruce Chandler (R), District #15, Granger, introduced an Amendment to HB 2279 to the House Ways and Means Committee on Thursday, February 7, 2012, at 1:30 PM PST, stating, "the situation we have now with non-custodial and custodial parents and child support is that courts employ what is called a deviation, which is a departure from the standard formula. Those are subjective; they are highly variable. They have been variable from county to county, from court to court, and from judge to judge. It's an approach that few other states use. The lack of consistency in the courts compromises the assurance on the part of both custodial and non-custodial parents that they're treated fairly. Under the current system, courts are being allowed by this Legislature to essentially make law for the state. This Amendment accomplishes the challenge of putting some consistency and predictability into this process, allowing more credibility by giving more direction to the courts." [Source: http://www.tvw.org/index.php?option=com_tvwplayer&eventID=2012020083A#start=3000&stop=3405]
ReplyDeleteSadly, an opportunity to repeal Washington's Unconstitutional Postsecondary Support Statute (RCW 26.19.090) was missed.
DeleteA child lucky enough to be from an intact family is by no means Automatically Guaranteed to have parents who can, or will, support his or her postsecondary education. Thus, postminority students from broken homes or intact homes may have parents unwilling (or unable) to provide financial assistance for college, too.
Yes, the Washington State Legislature arguably has a compelling interest in the education of its children. However, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Pierce v. Society of Sisters, held that a state's interest in educating its populace is not more compelling than a parent's Fundamental Right to raise his or her children. See: Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925) (invalidating a state law requiring all children to attend public schools because it interfered with parents' fundamental rights to raise their children).
While "minimizing the disadvantages to children of divorced parents" is an often-cited and certainly a laudable goal, the heretofore unanswered question remains: "Are children of Divorced Parents the ONLY children whose supposed disadvantage is legitimate enough to compel state involvement?"
The appropriate answer to that non-rhetorical question is a resounding, "No!"
The determination of a child's best interest with regard to postsecondary educational support shall be the sole and exclusive prerogative of that child's natural parents and, further, that it is the inalienable Fundamental Right of those natural parents to structure the kind, amount, and timing of such support, based on the parents' singular and superior knowledge of their child's individuality, in a way that maximizes the child's individual potential.
RCW 26.19.090 unreasonably interferes with Divorced Parents "Fundamental Right to Parent" recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court, which characterized this parental right "in the care, custody, and control of their children . . . [as] perhaps the oldest of the fundamental [emphasis added] liberty interests recognized by this Court." See: Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65 (2000).
...back to the crux of your original post, the Residential Credit piece, and to the vocal critic of the Amendment to HB 2279...
ReplyDeleteIn her rebuttal to Representative Bruce Chandler (R), District #15, Granger, who introduced and supported the Amendment to HB 2279 to the House Ways and Means Committee on Thursday, February 7, 2012, at 1:30 PM PST, Washington State Representative Mary Lou Dickerson (D), District #36, Seattle, tossed in two 'red herring' comments, the first about funding (a non-starter in that prior testimony revealed that federal IV-D funding would cover the associated costs of this legislation) and the second that "the Amendment [to HB 2279] would give an incentive to child support-obligated parents to ask for more time so that they could reduce their child support payments, not because it would be in the best interests of the child." [Source: http://www.tvw.org/index.php?option=com_tvwplayer&eventID=2012020083A#start=3000&stop=3405]
Rep. Dickerson's comments fly in the face of the commonly-held belief among child development experts and among parents in general that children need both parents in their lives.
Respectfully requested Rep. Dickerson's clarification on her Direct Testimony to the House Ways and Means Committee on Tuesday, February 7, 2012, at 1:30 PM PST, to wit: A Proposed Amendment to HB 2279 (no response yet).
DeleteRep. Dickerson's testimony made reference to $377,000 of projected costs to AOC, and $1.7 Million dollars to the local courts. [Source: http://www.tvw.org/index.php?option=com_tvwplayer&eventID=2012020083A#start=3147&stop=3173].
However, the day before, Monday, February 6, 2012, at 10:00 AM PST, House Ways and Means Committee Staff Member Alex MacBain gave direct testimony that the costs (on the high side) were $300,000.00, to which he said, "...and I would note that 66% percent of the costs would come from [federal] Title IV-D Funds...and the Courts report minimal impact." [Source: http://www.tvw.org/index.php?option=com_tvwplayer&eventID=2012020086A#start=3525&stop=3561].
Which is the accurate depiction of these costs?
Let us hope that the original deviation language can be introduced in the senate next year.
ReplyDeleteWhat is wrong with this outdated and antiquated system? There is no reason a standard residential credit should not be implemented into law. I have my children 50% of the time and was flat-out denied a residential credit in King County Superior court. The current system allowing commissioners and judges to make "judgement" calls based upon their demeanor of the day is flat out unfair to all parents.
ReplyDeleteAfter the November elections I will be aggressively pursuing this issue with my representatives. If they cannot get it done in Olympia, then perhaps it time for a ballot initiative...
ReplyDeleteDonovan, I agree and have been trying to enagage with some legislators on this issue, most recently Sen Adam Kline (D 37th) who is on the Law & Justice committee, but he is unwilling to help. We need to start to unite our efforts to get some attention...I am hoping that the folks on the blog can get us in touch...my email is ga1699@yahoo.com. Gurvinder Singh.
ReplyDeleteCORRECTION: its gs1699@yahoo.com NOT ga1699@yahoo.com.
ReplyDeleteWhat are the primary reasons they rejected the proposal? I do not understand.
ReplyDelete