The following tries to clarify the facts from myths have been communicated by the administrators responsible for Wisconsin child support standard.
A. The amounts needed to raise one child is between 20-25%, and each additional child about 50% of the amount needed for the previous child. The amounts defined by the DWD 40 child support standard have been discounted to 17%, 25%. 29% etc. to consider the non-custodial parents child related expenses in exercising standard visitation.
Since, every credible economic study on the cost of raising children recognize that families with different incomes spend a different portion of their income to raise their children, this information is a myth in many cases. (See How much does it cost to raise a child?)
1. In lower income families (up to $30,000 combined annual gross family income) where both parents are involved in caring for the children, this statement appears to be true.
2. In average income families($30-50,000 combined annual gross family income) the amounts defined by the DWD 40 standard are about the same as the amount defined by the most widely accepted data on the cost of raising children. In these cases there is no discount.
3. In above average income families (combined annual gross family income exceeds $50,000) the amounts defined by the DWD 40 standard exceed the amounts defined by the most widely accepted data on the cost of raising children. In these cases there is no discount, but rater an excess amount of support .
B. The 30% (109.5 days per year) threshold for the application of the shared time payer formula exists because the primary placement parent does not begin to see a change in variable expenses until after this threshold.
This is a myth because:
1. When both parents make a commitment to be involved with the raising of their children, both parents need suitable homes and transportation to accommodate the children. These fixed expenses are incurred by both parents regardless of whether a parent spend 15% or 100% of the time caring for the children. They do not start changing only after a 30% threshold.
2. The variable expenses for food, entertainment, incidentals and vacations change from the first day a lesser placement parent cares of the children. The greater placement does not have to incur these costs, and can therefore use these funds for themselves instead of the children. Rather than being allowed to keep some of his or her obligation to pay for these expenses, the lesser placement must incur these additional costs in addition to paying the child support.
C. The standard determines the minimum amount each parent is expected to contribute to the support of their children. It expects the custodial parent shares his or her income directly with the children.
This is also a myth in many cases because:
1. In above average income families (exceeding $50,000 combined annual gross family income) the amounts defined by the DWD 40 standard exceed one parent's portion of the children's expenses as defined by the most widely accepted data on the cost of raising children. As a result, the other parent doesn't have to contribute as much and is allowed to escape his or her equal share of the obligation to support the children.
2. In shared placement cases, where the lesser placement incurs similar fixed expenses plus many of the variable expenses for the children, in addition to paying child support per the DWD 40 standard, this parent usually is required to pay a greater portion of his or her income. The greater placement parent is allowed to escape his or her equal obligation to support the children.
D. Overnights is a good measure of child related expenses and must be used in the shared time payer calculation.
This information is also a myth.
As discussed above, the cost of fixed expenses for housing and transportation do not vary with placement. Additionally the variable child related expenses are incurred not while the children sleep but rather during the day. In cases where one parent cares for the child during the day and the other at night, counting overnights for calculating child support is a poor way to provide for the children's economic needs.
As discussed below, the court may use equivalent overnights to consider daytime care as an equivalent overnight.
DWD 40.02 (25) "Shared–time payer" means a payer who provides over-night child care or equivalent care beyond the threshold and assumes all variable child care costs in proportion to the number of days he or she cares for the child under the shared–time arrangement. Note: There are physical placement arrangements in which the payer provides child care beyond the threshold and incurs additional cost in proportion to the time he or she provides care, but because of the physical placement arrangement he or she does not provide overnight care (e.g., payer provides day care while the payee is working). Upon request of one of the parties the court may determine that the physical placement arrangement other than overnight care is the equivalent of overnight care.
E. The courts must apply the DWD 40 standard in all cases.
This is a myth because the standard is only presumed to define a correct amount of child support. The court may or even must deviate if a requesting party demonstrates that a child support order defined by the DWD 40 standard is unfair to the children or either party.
1. The directive to apply the DWD 40 standard are in Wis. 767.21(1J):
Except as provided in sub. (1m), the court shall determine child support payments by using the percentage standard established by the department under s. 49.22 (9). ( DWD 40 child support standard)
The court may deviate from this amount per 767.25(1m)
Upon request by a party, the court may modify the amount of child support payments determined under sub. (1j) if, after considering the following factors, the court finds by the greater weight of the credible evidence that use of the percentage standard is unfair to the child or to any of the parties:
(a) The financial resources of the child.
(b) The financial resources of both parents.
(bj) Maintenance received by either party.
(bp) The needs of each party in order to support himself or herself at a level equal to or greater than that established under 42 USC 9902 (2).
(bz) The needs of any person, other than the child, whom either party is legally obligated to support.
(c) If the parties were married, the standard of living the child would have enjoyed had the marriage not ended in annulment, divorce or legal separation.
(d) The desirability that the custodian remain in the home as a fulltime parent.
(e) The cost of day care if the custodian works outside the home, or the value of custodial services performed by the custodian if the custodian remains in the home.
(ej) The award of substantial periods of physical placement to both parents.
(em) Extraordinary travel expenses incurred in exercising the right to periods of physical placement under s. 767.24.
(f) The physical, mental and emotional health needs of the child, including any costs for health insurance as provided for under sub. (4m).
(g) The child’s educational needs.
(h) The tax consequences to each party.
(hm) The best interests of the child.
(hs) The earning capacity of each parent, based on each parent’s education, training and work experience and the availability of work in or near the parent’s community.
(i) Any other factors which the court in each case determines are relevant.
2. Wisconsin courts have ruled that it is appropriate to deviate from the standard if a requesting party demonstrates that the amount defined by the standard exceed the realistic needs of the children. ( Parrett v. Parrett (1988), Huber v Huber (1990), and Nelson v Candee (1996))
3. Wisc Stat. 765.001(2) establishes the intent of Wisconsin's child support policy as "Each spouse has an equal obligation in accordance with his or her ability to contribute money or services or both which are necessary for the adequate support and maintenance of his or her minor children and of the other spouse. No spouse may be presumed primarily liable for support expenses".
Since 765.001(3) further states " Chapters 765 to 768 shall be liberally construed to effect the objectives of sub(2).", if a requesting party can demonstrate that one party is allowed to escape his or her obligation, the court is obligated to deviate to effect the objectives of this legislative intent.
LAST UPDATED: 7/25/01