CHILD SUPPORT GUIDELINES:

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/j.174-1617.1995.tb00387.x
• Published date: 01 October 1995
• Date: 01 October 1995
• Author: Erika Sussman,Steven L. Abel

CHILD SUPPORT GUIDELINES:

A Comparison

of

New York, New Jersey,

and

Connecticut-A Synopsis

Steven

L.

Abel and Erika Sussman

Since 1984, all

US.

jurisdictions have established childsupport guidelines. Using computerized

worksheets, we compared the guidelines

of

New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut (which use

the “Income Shares” model also employed by

30

other jurisdictions). We calculated how child

care, alimony

to

a

prior spouse, and subsequent children change the support obligation. We

found that, general13 Connecticut requires the most child support, New York is second, and New

Jersey third. However

if

children require child care, New York requires the most support. In

Connecticut, child care costs have virtually no impact. When a noncustodial parent is paying

alimony to a prior spouse, support

is

dramatically greater

in

Connecticut than in New Jersey,

with New York in between Only

New

Jersey reduces the

support

paid by the noncustodial parent

who has subsequent children. New Yorkk and Connecticutk mathematical guidelines do not

consider subsequent children

Since 1984, all

54

American jurisdictions

(50

states, the District of

Columbia,

Guam,

Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands) have established

guidelines to determine child support payments. In the 17-county New York

City metropolitan area, there

are

three jurisdictions (New York, New Jersey,

and Connecticut), each with its own child support guidelines. Would a

divorcing parent

be

better

off

in one or another?

For example, a spouse relocated by a major corporation might put

off

or

complete the move depending on how the guidelines of the state to which he

or she is relocated would impact on his or her pocketbook.

Although all three states follow the “Income Shares” model of child

support determination-used by

33

jurisdictions across the country-the

three

vary

dramatically.

First, they differ in what income counts toward support-New Jersey’ and

Connecticut’ exclude alimony paid

by

the noncustodial parent, whereas New

York3 usually includes such alimony. New Jersey and Connecticut clearly

exclude child support for other children, whereas New York is silent on this

point. All three states follow the wording of the definition of taxable income

used in Internal Revenue Code

$61,

but New York and Connecticut clearly

add untaxed veterans benefits, workers compensation awards, and social

security

benefits (but not supplemental security income [SSI]), whereas New

Jersey

is

silent on these forms of in~orne.~

FAMILY

AND CONCILIATION COURTS

REVIEW,

Vol.

33

No.

4,

Oaober

19%

426-445

8

1995

Sage

Publications.

Inc.

426

Abel

and

Sussman

/

CHILD

SUPPORT

GUIDELINES

427

Next, the guidelines differ in what deductions from income

are

allowed.

All deduct social security (FICA), but New Jersey and Connecticut deduct

federal, state, and local income taxes, and medical insurance premiums,

whereas New Jersey also deducts retirement contributions and union dues.

The guidelines differ in the percentages

used

to calculate child support from

the combined net income: New York uses a flat percentage based on the

number of children up to five, whereas New Jersey has a sliding percentage

with a high-low range for up to

six

children. Connecticut has a sliding

percentage for up to six children. Officially, there are three different caps on

the amount

of

combined income subject

to

the numerical guidelines: For

Connecticut,

it

is

$91,000;

for New York,

$80,000

per year; and for New

Jersey,

$52,000.

In practice, the courts

of

all three states usually apply the

guidelines to much higher income levels.

With

so

many variations, we felt that the true differences between the child

support guidelines could only be determined by taking “real-life” instances

and calculating the actual child support amounts.

How

would the actual

numbers compare, and, further, what would be the reasons for these differ-

ences?

It

was our hope that this analysis would contribute to a meaningful

understanding of the practical implications of public policy choices.

METHODOLOGY

FOR

ORIGINAL

GROUP

Our research proceeded in several stages. First, by studying the guidelines

closely, we outlined the

inclusion/exclusion/deduction

of items

in

New

York,

New Jersey, and Connecticut, creating acarefully detailed comparison of the

child support guidelines. From this comparison, we were able to pinpoint

particular items-that is, child care, alimony to a prior spouse, and the effect

of subsequent children-that we analyzed in greater depth. The differences

between the three guidelines materialized by systematically entering realistic

examples into each state’s worksheets and calculating the exact child support

obligation.

The next step was a comparison of child support obligations without any

type of manipulation (this then served

as

a point of comparison for all other

mathematical manipulations). We hoped to produce actual child support

amounts expected of noncustodial parents in New York, New Jersey, and

Connecticut without any type of “special” circumstance or additional ex-

pense incurred by the noncustodial parent. Simultaneously, we worked to

produce realistic examples that would encompass a large span of economic

circumstances.