| CLICK HERE TO READ
TEXT OF JUDGES DECISION CLICK
HERE TO READ AN EXCELLENT ANALYSIS OF CHILD SUPPORT INEQUITIES
DARYL G. LECROY
ATTORNEY AT LAW
4609 WIEUCA ROAD, N.E.
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30342
(404) 256-0918 • (404) 256-1978 (FACSIMILE)
PRESS RELEASE
Georgia Superior Court Judge Declares
State’s Child
Support Guidelines to be
Unconstitutional
On February 25, 2002, a courageous Superior Court Judge in the Alapaha Judicial Circuit,
by the name of C. Dane Perkins, granted the motion of Michelle L. Sweat, which declared
the Georgia Child Support Guidelines to be null and void as the guidelines violate
numerous provisions of the constitutions of both the United States and the State of
Georgia. Michelle Sweat was divorced on November 12, 1998, and had agreed to allow the
father to have custody of the three minor children of the parties while she received
visitation, and a provision of the agreement of the parties was that she not be obligated
to pay child support. On or about July 14, 2000, Monica Houseal, an agent with the Georgia
Child Support Enforcement Agency in Nashville, Georgia, forwarded to Michelle Sweat a
written request for "possible modification" of her child support obligation and
requested certain financial information. At the time of trial, Michelle Sweat's
approximate monthly gross income was $1,862.00, and the father's gross monthly income was
approximately $2,650.00. Ms. Sweat was requested by the Department of Human Resources to
pay $452.00 in child support and up to $79.00 per month for insurance for the minor
children for a total of $531.00 per month. After this request by DHR, Ms. Sweat filed her
challenge to the constitutionality of the Georgia child support guidelines.
Judge Perkins noted in his order that in a study conducted in 14 South Georgia counties
between 1995 and 1997, it was found that 82.2% of contested custody cases resulted in
custody being awarded to the mother and that guideline support had an impermissibly
discriminatory affect upon men based upon their gender.
The Georgia child support guidelines were enacted by the legislature in 1989 in order to
qualify for approximately $25,000,000.00 from the Federal government for child support
enforcement. While the originators of the guidelines no doubt had good intentions, they
were extremely rushed and adopted guidelines from the state of Wisconsin, which were based
upon poverty cases where the total income of the parents was $12,000.00, which would be
approximately $21,000.00 in the year 2000. They were based upon the assumption that the
custodial parent had no employment and that the non-custodial parent had no visitation
with the children. They were never intended to be applied to higher income families and
they had a built-in cap in that they were only intended to recover welfare payments to the
custodial parent.
The Federal mandate required that a study be performed as the basis of the guidelines so
that an equitable amount could be determined. In the trial of Ms. Sweat's case, Monica
Houseal testified that in Georgia no studies were done to establish the cost of caring for
a child in Georgia. In accordance with Georgia law, there is to be a commission to examine
the guidelines every four years. In the commissions that have been established to review
the guidelines, in only one year, 1998, included an economist on the commission, Mr. Mark
Rogers. Mr. Rogers testified in the Sweat trial and stressed there are no economic studies
which show that the cost of care for a child increases as a percentage of the gross income
of the payor of child support. In fact, the opposite is true. The cost of child support
decreases as a percentage of the obligor’s income as it rises. His testimony further
pointed out that there is no economic data to justify the guidelines. It has further been noted by Judge Perkins that by
requiring the non-custodial parent to pay an amount in excess of that required to meet the
child's basic needs, as the economic analysis has shown, the Guidelines impermissibly
interfere with parental decisions regarding financial expenditures of children.
Once the economic necessities of a child are covered, the government has no right to say
how much money should be spent for the care of children. Mr.
Bill Atkins, of Stephens County, an advocate for child support reform, stressed that if
the guidelines were in fact accurate, Georgia's statute concerning cruelty to children
should be revised so that a parent would go to prison if they did not spend a certain
percentage of their gross income on their children. Most states in the United States have
formulas for determining child support which include, not only the income of both parents
but also the amount of time each parent spends with the children during which they expend
their funds directly for the children's benefit. In addition to Daryl G. LeCroy, of
Atlanta, who assisted Ms. Sweat in the case, Ms. Sweat was represented by Mr. Kontz
Bennett, of Waycross, Georgia, who originally filed the motion in behalf of Ms. Sweat.
Judge Perkins further noted that the guidelines do not take into account the large tax
benefits that the custodial parent receives. He noted that custodial parents typically
receive $200 to $350 per month in extra, after-tax, income just for having custody.
He concluded that Michelle Sweat would not be required to pay any child support based upon
the income of the parties and the fact that she has at least 20% of the parenting time.
She will be required to continue paying approximately $70.00 per month for health
insurance for the children, plus 14.3% of any unreimbursed medical expenses that exceed
$250.00 per year based upon her share of the parents' combined income which is over a base
amount required for the parents support.
Submitted by,
Daryl G. LeCroy, Esq.
|
