BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
Senator Noreen Evans, Chair
2011-2012 Regular Session
AB 2393 (Davis)
As Amended March 29, 2012
Hearing Date: June 12, 2012
Fiscal: Yes
Urgency: No
NR
SUBJECT
Family Law: Child Support Formula
DESCRIPTION
Existing law establishes statewide uniform guidelines for
calculating court-ordered child support. These guidelines
provide that if an obligor's net disposable monthly income is
less than $1,000, there is a rebuttable presumption that the
obligor is entitled to a low-income adjustment that reduces the
child support amount.
This bill would increase the net disposable income threshold to
$1,500 per month. This bill would require the Judicial Council,
on March 1, 2013, and annually thereafter, to determine the
adjustment amount based on the change in the annual California
Consumer Price Index, as specified.
BACKGROUND
Existing law provides that parents of a minor child are
responsible for supporting the child. The statewide uniform
guidelines for calculating child support provide that if an
obligor's net disposable monthly income is less than $1,000,
there is a rebuttable presumption that the obligor is entitled
to an adjustment that would reduce the child support to be paid
thereby increasing the obligor's ability to remain compliant
with the order.
Federal and state laws require the Judicial Council to review
the statewide uniform guidelines at least every four years and
issue a report (hereinafter "Report") with its recommendations
(more)
AB 2393 (Davis)
Page 2 of ?
to the Legislature. (Judicial Council, Review of Statewide
Uniform Child Support Guideline, Nov. 2010, <
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents /20110429iteme.pdf> �as of
June 6, 2012].) The primary purpose of the Report is to ensure
that the guideline and resulting child support amounts are
appropriate. The findings of the 2010 Report indicate that the
low-income adjustment (LIA) may be a barrier to compliance with
child support orders. The Report indicates that the cost of
living has increased nearly 50 percent since 1994, the year the
low income adjustment was established, yet the adjustment
threshold has not changed. In April of 2011, the Department of
Child Support Services and the Administrative Office of the
Courts convened a workgroup to discuss and evaluate the Report,
and confirmed that the low-income adjustment under the
California guideline is inadequate.
This bill would adopt recommendations from the Judicial
Council's Report and increase the low income adjustment from
$1,000 net disposable income per month to $1,500 and make the
adjustment subject to an annual adjustment based on inflation.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
Existing law establishes a uniform statewide guideline for
calculating child support. This mathematical formula is based
on the income of both parents and the amount of time they each
spend with the child. (Fam. Code Sec. 4055.)
Existing law creates a rebuttable presumption that an obligor
with net disposable income of less than $1,000 a month is
entitled to a low-income adjustment to his or her child support
obligation. This presumption may be rebutted by evidence
showing that application of the adjustment would be unjust or
inappropriate in the particular case. (Fam. Code Sec.
4055(b)(7).)
Existing law requires the Judicial Council to periodically
review the guideline to report to the Legislature appropriate
revisions, as specified. (Fam. Code Sec. 4054.)
This bill would increase the low-income adjustment in the child
support guideline from less than $1,000 net disposable income
per month to less than $1,500 net disposable income per month.
This bill would require the Judicial Council, on March 1, 2013
and annually thereafter, to update the low-income adjustment
AB 2393 (Davis)
Page 3 of ?
based on the California Consumer Price Index, as specified.
COMMENT
1.Stated need for the bill
In support of this bill the author writes:
The current formula used by the California Department of
Child Support Services that determines child support orders
is outdated. In an effort to improve compliance for
low-income parents that are obligated to pay child support, a
work group including the DCSS and the Judicial Council of
California's Administrative Office of the Courts, concluded
that a revision to the low-income adjustment threshold of
$1,000 needed to be increased to $1,500.
The sponsor of this bill, the Western Center on Law & Poverty
writes:
According the California Department of Child Support
Services, consistent payment of support by low-income
obligors is better met if the order is "right-sized." A
right-sized order would enable obligors to successfully meet
their obligations and provide more consistent child support
payments, improving the income stream for families, promoting
family self-sufficiency and improving overall wellbeing of
children living in single-parent households.
2.The Legislature is responsible for revising the uniform child
support guideline
Existing law authorizes the Legislature to adjust the uniform
child support guideline. The Judicial Council is required to
periodically review the guideline and report to the Legislature
appropriate revisions. This bill, in addition to raising the
low-income adjustment threshold (LIA) from $1,000 to $1,500,
would have the Judicial Council annually determine the
appropriate adjustment to the LIA based on the annual California
Consumer Price Index (CPI). Thus, this bill represents a
departure from the typical procedure in which only the
Legislature is authorized to revise the state support
guidelines. Regarding the annual LIA adjustment, the Judicial
Council writes:
The current $1,000 amount dates to 1993. If updated for
inflation, it would be $1,576 today, so an increase to $1,500
AB 2393 (Davis)
Page 4 of ?
is an appropriate way to bring the level up to current
dollars. In addition, the requirement that the adjustment be
revised each year based on the California CPI will prevent it
from becoming out of date in the future. Making the adjustment
more accurately reflect the cost of living in California will
ensure that low-income child support obligors have orders that
will not leave them unable to sustain their basic needs and
will therefore be more likely to continue working and
complying with the court's orders.
Although it would allow increases without the full consideration
of the Legislature, an annual adjustment based on the cost of
living and inflation could keep the LIA current and arguably
result in more reasonable support obligations for low-income
obligors. Research indicates that reasonable obligations
promote consistent support payments to custodial parents. (See
Comment 3.) In addition, authorizing the Judicial Council to
make this determination maybe appropriate considering that it is
the entity entrusted with reporting on support guidelines, and
therefore familiar with the subject area.
However, because the Legislature is responsible for adjusting
the support guidelines, the committee should consider whether it
is appropriate to delegate this authority or allow automatic
adjustments. Inevitably, an upward adjustment of the LIA will
result in lower support obligations for many families. That
lower support obligations will result in more consistent
payments has yet to be proven on a state-wide basis. Therefore,
until the benefits of an annual LIA adjustment are shown, the
Legislature may wish to maintain control over support guideline
revisions. Amending this bill to include a five-year sunset
would allow the Legislature to consider the Judicial Council's
next Review of Statewide Uniform Child Support Guideline in 2015
and an additional three years of state-wide data in in
evaluating the effectiveness of the provisions of the bill.
Suggested amendment:
Add a five-year sunset date to the proposed increase to the
LIA and the annual adjustment to the LIA based on the CPI.
3.Updating the low-income adjustment
The Judicial Council reports that the California guideline
amounts for low-income obligors are high compared to other
states, and that California's income presumption policy (which
AB 2393 (Davis)
Page 5 of ?
presumes that all obligors who do not provide employment
information are employed for 40 hours per week at minimum wage),
exacerbates the guideline problems for low-income parents
because the obligor's income is often presumed to be more than
it actually is. Relative to other states, the Judicial Council
and advocates for low-income families agree that California's
low-income adjustment is inadequate. (Judicial Council, Review
of Statewide Uniform Child Support Guideline, Nov. 2010,
< http://www.courts.ca.gov /documents/20110429iteme.pdf> �as
of June 6, 2012].) Most state guidelines consider a variety of
factors in their income attribution provision. For example, the
Alabama Rules of Judicial Administration provide:
If the court finds that either parent is voluntarily
unemployed or underemployed, it shall estimate the income
that parent would otherwise have and shall impute to that
parent that income; the court shall calculate child support
based on that parent's imputed income. In determining the
amount of income to be imputed to a parent who is unemployed
or underemployed, the court should determine the employment
potential and probable earning level of that parent, based on
that parent's recent work history, education, and
occupational qualifications, and on the prevailing job
opportunities and earning levels in the community. The court
may take into account the presence of a young or physically
or mentally disabled child necessitating the parent's need to
stay in the home and therefore the inability to work. (Ala.
Rules Jud. Admin., Rule 32(B)(5).)
According to the Report the "California guideline does not
specifically mention any of these considerations, a pattern
replicated in few other states." (Judicial Council Report at p.
77.) Failing to consider a variety of factors may result in
support orders which are unrealistic for obligors. For example,
in California, an obligor earning minimum wage for 35 hours per
week would not qualify for the current low-income adjustment.
After payment of child support at the unadjusted income amount,
the obligor would likely be left with insufficient funds on
which to live. Research further indicates that if support
obligations are too high for low-income obligors, severe
consequences may result. Obligors unable to meet support
responsibilities may have a reduced incentive to work, or cease
working in the mainstream economy. They may also be unable to
make child support payments and have higher arrearages balances.
These consequences may also lead to strained parent-child
relationships.
AB 2393 (Davis)
Page 6 of ?
Raising the low-income adjustment in the statewide guideline
will arguably enable low-income obligors to make more consistent
child support payments, thereby allowing custodial parents to
better care for children. The Judicial Council, in support,
writes that AB 2393 "will lead to more appropriate and
enforceable child support orders."
Support : Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations,
Inc.; The Executive Committee of the Family Law Section of the
State Bar (FLEXCOM); Feeding America San Diego; Judicial Council
of California
Opposition : None Known
HISTORY
Source : Western Center on Law & Poverty
Related Pending Legislation : None Known
Prior Legislation :
SB 541 (Hart, Chapter 1156 Statutes of 1993) adjusted the
statewide uniform guideline in high-income cases.
AB 923 (Speier, Chapter 906 Statutes of 1994) gave courts
discretion to lower the amount of child support to be paid in
all cases where the net disposable income per month of the
obligor is less than $1000 and the court finds that a low income
adjustment should be made.
Prior Vote :
Assembly Floor (Ayes 73, Noes 0)
Assembly Appropriations Committee (Ayes 17, Noes 0)
Assembly Judiciary Committee (Ayes 10, Noes 0)
**************