Thoughts on Child Support Reform

Anyone who has read any work on Child support in New Hampshire, or anyone who has been "victimized" by the system would agree that some change is definitely called for. However, discussion of child support reform is often treated like religious heresy by those who would benefit directly from maintaining the status quo. Merely mention opposition to child support, and one is labeled "selfish", "greedy", "child-hater", and of course the dreaded "dead-beat parent".

So before commencing any treatise on reform, it is necesssary to address these criticisms. Basically, there are two fundamental principals I believe must remain in the forefront:

1. No responsible parent would fail to support their child financially to the best of their ability. Thus, support contributions are a mandatory obligation of both parents.

2. Basing the level of support on parents' incomes is the most equitable method for determining what obligatory support should be.

The first serves to dispel any question that child support advocates argue reform simply to avoid paying support for their children. The second shows that meaningful reform can be achieved under the current system (which is already income-based), rather than through a radical restructuring of the entire system. One would hope that these principles would at least mitigate some of the concerns of reform opponents.

Finally, before tackling a solution to any problem, it is usually a good idea to state what the problem is that is trying to be fixed! Here is a list of what I feel are the major problems with our current system, gleaned from the thoughts and writings of others along with my own personal experience:

• Support calculation
  
• Lack of accountability of obligee parent
• Mandatory wage garnishment
• Administrative conflict of interest
  
• No legal support for obligor

Over the next few posts, I will discuss the above issues, and suggest some solutions.