Child-Support Guidelines

In response to “Lifestyles and New Wives Should Come After Kids,” Opinion, June 13:

In her article, Kay Mills states that the Coalition of Parent Support is pushing legislation, including my AB 1400, to weaken the child-support guidelines while children’s interests go begging. She further contends that AB 1400 will deny kids money they need, citing horror stories of children starving while a negligent father is out buying a new pickup truck. Since Mills has not contacted me regarding AB 1400, I would like to respond to her allegations regarding the intent and effect of my legislation.

The child-support guidelines which took effect in July, 1992, raised child-support levels significantly. Parents who have been faithfully paying their court-ordered amount and who, based on that amount, have remarried, had additional children and incurred additional financial obligations, have been hit with dramatic increases in their child-support payments. Parents know their payments can be increased if their income increases. However, they never imagined or anticipated their support levels would be raised significantly even when their income and obligations have not changed! To order support amounts that cannot be met without allowing time for financial adjustments can devastate second families both financially and emotionally. It simply does not serve the interests of children to create more deadbeat parents. Allowing parents time to adjust their finances in order to meet their new child-support obligations is the protection children need.

The bill gives parents this opportunity by allowing the court to phase in an increase in child support resulting from the new guidelines. The bill further protects children by giving judges strict parameters for determining which cases merit a phase-in based on hardship and for setting the time allowed to accomplish the necessary financial changes. More importantly, AB 1400 requires the court to weigh the hardship to the paying parent against the hardship to the child. It is ludicrous to think that a judge would place a parent’s desire for a new truck above food for a hungry child.

TRICE HARVEY

Assembly, R-Bakersfield