Kenya N. Rahmaan
South Dakota is one of the most recent states to embrace the thought of enacting legislation supporting shared parenting in the United States. Shared parenting, by definition, Shared parenting is a method of parenting that allows both parents the chance to actively parent their child (CustodyXChange).
Numerous studies have reported that children benefit when raised by two parents while residing in single-parent homes. The laws governing joint custody and shared parenting are similar to child support guidelines in that state officials write and regulate them. These policies become complicated when deciding custody and visitation schedules and calculating child support payments that benefit the parents and, most importantly, the children.
A study by Linda Neilson of the Stanford Custody Project (2014) revealed that 51 out of 1,406 children chosen randomly made better grades, were less depressed, and were more well-adjusted behaviorally than the 355 adolescents who lived primarily with their mothers. With this information being available and relevant in proving that children are overall more emotionally stable, there is no reason that a solid shared-parenting plan is not a mandate in all child support and custody decisions. One could deduce that custody and child support are equally important, so judges should consider both issues simultaneously. That is not true in the US. Every state has policies identifying child support and custody topics as separate issues. For example, the law clearly states that child support and visitation are unrelated in Ohio.
According to Brian D. Watts (2007), the duty to pay support is separate and distinct from the right to parenting time with a child. While it is true that both parents are financially responsible for their children, the expenses accrued by non-custodial parents during visitation and overnight stays are often ignored by the government when it pertains to child support and visitation. Even though South Dakota has updated its legislation, researchers have not recognized one state with outstanding shared parenting policies, nor has any severe legislation been considered to decrease or eliminate child support. Almost all states have a shared parenting plan that allows adjustments to child support payments based on time spent with the children. Eighteen states adjust child support amounts based on the non-residential parent’s time with their child.
According to the National Conference of State Legislation,tion or NCSL, in Alaska, the government offers a reduction based on a cross-credit formula of a 1.5 multiplier based on a 30% shared parenting time threshold. The cross-credit formula is the most commonly used method, and this formula can be incredibly beneficial to the non-custodial parent. Jo M. Beld and Len Biernat explained in the Family Law Quarterly (2003) that states apply a multiplier, usually 1.5, to the base support order before making an adjustment based on additional visitation to offset fixed costs of the residence when the child is not home. The 1.5 approach adjusts for costs the non-custodial parent expends while recognizing the costs of maintaining two households. Using this method, the child’s best interest can truly be appreciated.
The parents can maintain adequate and comfortable households wherever the child has a ‘sleepover,’ and the livelihood of the non-custodial parent is not threatened by paying child support/fixed costs to the custodial parent. Additionally, it has been proven that as the amount of overnight time they ( the child and the parent) spent together during adolescence increased from 1% to 50%, the young adults’ favorable ratings of their relationships with their fathers also increased (Neilson, 2014). More overnight stays positively influence children, so the federal and state governments should strongly consider implementing more robust and more meaningful shared parenting plans. The government needs to apply reductions to payments so that both parents can provide financially and emotionally for their children.
Sometimes, a visitation credit may be applied in states that recognize the per diem method when deviating from custody and child support orders. This method and the per diem shared parenting time formula are utilized and supported in Missouri. The visitation credit is a percentage of the base child support amount that excludes any additional expenses (Matt Allen, 2011). It only makes sense that parents should receive reductions in child support when they spend adequate time with their children. The more time a child spends in the homes of their other parent, with the exclusion of fixed costs like rent, the more money the parent could pay directly to the child.
With the per diem method, a parent is credited with an obligation for the number of days the child spends with the parent (David M. Betson). Using this method, the non-custodial parent receives some financial relief while actively raising their child. When children are involved in a co-parenting situation, they are less likely to experience some of the issues that children raised in single-family homes tend to endure. The Neilson Analysis found that when 83 children (35 shared parented and 58 sole residences) were tested, the shared children were better adjusted emotionally (Neilson, 2014). A
If lawmakers introduce legislation to promote nationwide shared parenting plans, they must include these findings. These pos tive outcomes show that children who benefit emotionally should be worth more than a parent who helps financially by receiving child support payments from the non-custodial parent. Some stat s, like Kentucky and Mississippi, do not have such thresholds, but most offer thresholds ranging from 10% to 40%. Missouri, on the other hand, does offer threshold deductions.
The ‘Show Me State’ is on the low end, reporting a 10% threshold, but this percentage is subject to increase in certain situations. Missouri guidelines allow for a deviation when children spend ‘substantially’ equal time with both parents (NCSL). The benefit of a possible variation, coupled with Missouri being one of 24 states that requires a “friendly parent” factor when deciding parenting plans, only earns an average grade when litigating child custody issues. The “Frie dly Parent” factor, as defined by The National Parents Organization (2007), means that states have language in a custody statute that recognizes and rewards a parent’s willingness and ability to facilitate and encourage a closer and continuing relationship between the other parent and the child.
It is unclear why every state does not require courts to implement a friendly parent factory when deciding on shared parenting plans. This rul should be at the forefront in all custody cases, especially since children are more stable when raised by both parents, even in separate homes. The modi ed Betson approach is another method that states utilize when determining deductions to child support obligations based on shared parenting time. This meth d is less common, as only New Jersey and Arizona practice this formula when determining parenting plans.
Based on Arizona guidelines, the Betson Method can be used after a court official has determined that no additional costs have accrued when choosing a shared parenting plan instead of the joint custody option. According to David M. Betson, a credit is computed based on the number of overnights spent with the parent with the obligation. Arizona d es not consider a shared parenting threshold when calculating the child support obligation about a percentage of time spent with the non-custodial parent.
Instead, the size of the credit is the product of the obligation times the percentage found in the lookup tables based on overnights spent (Betson). The modified Betson would be an ideal solution in the eyes of most because the best interests of the child and the parents are being met and possibly exceeded. The child will spend more time with the non-residential parent while the parent can adequately provide when the child is in their custody. Too often, society expects parents to provide child support and maintain a standard of living for themselves and another family in cases where the parent remarries.
The days of reducing a parent to nothing to satisfy unrealistic child support debt must quickly become a thing of the past. By sharing parental responsibilities (excluding money), the child(ren) can experience better emotional and physical outcomes. Surprisin ly, several arguments support denying shared parenting even when there are no reports of violence, which would, and should, prevent both parents from raising their child(ren). One argum nt is that shared parenting leads to different inconsistencies for the child. Shared pa enting proponents argue that disciplinary consistency is almost impossible when a child is divided between two households.
Individuals can raise and discipline their children as they feel appropriate if they abide by the law. The stand rd should apply to all parents, no matter where the child resides. It is a p rsonal decision on how to raise children. One parent has no right to tell another how to discipline or when to discipline their child.
Equal protections enter the arena, as the question should be asked: Are married parents forced to disclose and negotiate their parenting styles to appease one another? Short of ehaving illegally, the answer is no. Another a gument against shared parenting is the issues that may arise when parents choose to remarry. According to Families.com, parents who manage to co-parent peacefully are taken aback when the other parent remarries.
The other parent’s reaction, whether negative or positive, should have no impact on their ex’s relationship with their child. Nor shou it prohibit the child from being raised by both parents. The real y is that many parents remarry, and if the residential parent can remarry and move a new adult person into the household without recourse or judgment, the non-residential parent should enjoy that same opportunity. Research has shown that shared parenting is more likely to decrease the negative impact of high ongoing conflict than sole residence parenting plans (Neilson, 2014).
The arguments against shared parenting will continue to grow as more states embrace the reality of changing separated family dynamics. If there re no signs and proof of abuse, there should be no restrictions placed on parents who choose a shared parenting plan, no matter who initiated the action. The gover ment bashes the American ‘fatherless’ society while perpetuating the rise of single-parent homes. Parents should have child support payments reduced based on the amount of time and money they spend with the child(ren). https:// utu.be/OfRU7XV1xuk
Unfortunately, too many parents rely on child support payments as a source of income. Because o this fact, any reduction in the support amount may force residential parents to seek gainful employment. The other parent’s monthly income is another reason why naysayers of shared parenting plans refuse to adopt this reinvented co-parenting option. Non-custo ial parents often beg to spend time and help raise their children; however, they are often labeled as deadbeats if they happen to be unemployed and unable to pay child support debt
.
Professionals have overstated that children need both parents. Studies a d research have proven that being raised by both parents is in a child’s best interest, yet states refuse to mandate shared parenting plans across the country. Less than 25 states currently require ‘friendly parent’ factors in their statutes. The Natio al Parents Organization recently conducted a study to grade states on their shared parenting plans.
There were no states that scored an A. The other states earned grades ranging from a B in states like Arizona and Minnesota to an F, which New York and Rhode Island received. The famil courts, child support enforcement, and parents relying on children as paychecks will continue to oppose any legislation favoring robust parenting plans that ultimately favor the non-custodial parents and the child. There is oo much money involved in executing these biased systems. Until we orce the government to mandate effective, shared parenting plans and child support reform legislation, the fatherless generation will linger, and children will continue to grow up without the presence of their fathers. Any second that We, the People, do not take action is a second that we are failing children nationwide.
References:
Allen, M. (2011, April 1). What is a visitation credit? – St. Louis divorce support | Examiner.com. Retrieved from http://www.examiner.com/article/what-is-a-visitation-credit
Beld, J. M., & Biernat, L. (2003). Federal intent for state child support guidelines: Income shares, cost shares, and the realities of shared parenting. Family La Quarterly, 37(165). Retrieved from www.alacourt.gov/pdfppt/FEDERAL_INTENT.pdf
Betson, D. M. (n.d.). Work prod ct of Indiana judicial council review for support guidelines- Shared parenting, visitation and child support. Retrieved from http://www3.nd.edu/~dbetson/research/documents/SharedParentingFinal.pdf
Brown, P. R., & Brito, T. (2007). Character stics of shared-placement child support formulas in the fifty states. Retrieved from Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development, Bureau of Child Support website: http://www.irp.wisc.edu/research/childsup/cspolicy/pdfs/Brown_Brito_Task11.pdf
<
p id=”a0″>Custody XChange. (n.d.). Shared pa enting – How can child custody work when it’s shared? Custody X Change: The Trusted Software for Parenting Schedules. https://w w.custodyxchange.com/topics/custody/types/shared-parenting.php
Families.com. (n.d.). The Case gainst Joint Physical Custody Parents Families.com. Retrieved from http://www.families.com/blog/the-case-against-joint-physical-custody
National Conference of State Legislatures. (n.d.). S ates’ t eatment of shared parenting time. Retrieved from www.ncsl.org/research/human-services/states-treatment-of-shared-parenting-time.aspx
National Parents Organization. (2014, No ember 10). 2014 shar d parenting reporting card a new look at child welfare a state-by-state ranking. Retrieved from https://nationalparentsorganization.org/docs/2014_Shared_Parenting_Report_Card%2011-10-2014.pdf
Nielson, L. (2014). Shared ph sical custody: Summary of 40 studies on outcomes for children. Journal o Divorce & Remarriage, 55, 614-636. Retrieved from DOI: 10.1080/10502556.2014.965578
Watts, B. D. (n.d.). Child cus ody and parenting. Retrieved from http://www.brianwattslaw.com/Family/childcustody.html
