Subject: [fapt] Fw: [crc-national] Press release of the Case finding Georgia's child support guidelinesUnconstitutional Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 02:32:20 -0800 From: "Ann Swango" Reply-To: fapt@yahoogroups.com Here is the actual press release on the effect Mark Rogers, an economist, is having in providing expert testimony regarding child support guidelines. Mark Rogers quoted much of these constitutionality issues in a report to the Kentucky Child Support Guideline Commision. This story will be all too familiar, assumptions mom get custody, moms make little to no money, there is no visitation allotment costs built into the numbers, all parents will not cohabitate or remarry therefore based upon the actual family make-up and economic picture in the court today, the guidelines do not serve the constitutional protections necessary for proper due process resulting in fair and just awards required. Therefore these presumptions to be ill designed. Check out the bills in our legislature of Kentucky in process trying to uncover all of this in our state. 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 minorchildren 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 aboutJuly 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 sup! port 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 forchild 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 ch! ild 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. Harry Prillaman, Children need parents not visitors.