Arizona child support Final public comments

Child Support Guidelines Review Compilation of public comments received on Arizona Supreme Court web page Dates submitted: 8/22/14 through 10/22/14

Date submitted

First name Last name Email Do you reside in Arizona?

If yes, in what county?

What is your current parenting time arrangement?

Do you pay or receive child support?

1. 8/22/2014 Heather Figueroa [email protected] Yes Yavapai N/A N/AComment or suggestion:

The only change I would request is if the Parenting Time Table tab can be a “required” feature?

2. 8/26/2014 Wendy Dunn [email protected] Yes Maricopa Essentially Equal Receive

Comment or suggestion:

I am curious as to how the consumer price index really plays into this calculation. The cost of food and gas has increased dramatically. Add to that clothing, shoes, and the cost of health insurance. Decree says we have them 50/50 but in all reality I have had them 100% since February 2014. Family law has failed me in this state, the judge signed off on a decree with black and white mistakes (I was per se.) I feel as though I have no rights being the petitioner and this "no fault" divorce state. This update to child support means nothing in comparison to protecting my kids from an ex who is in contempt of multiple items on the decree and has broken about 3 ARS laws. What we need are family court judges educated in people with NPD and who will upload the laws in relation to family court to where a petitioner doesn’t have to jump through hoops to be heard.

3. 8/26/2014 Jemima Schmidt [email protected]


I am so glad that the child support guideline formulae are being revised. I support this. I am struggling to support two children and work full time. The current guidelines do not adequately allow me to pay for childcare and the needs of my children. If you need any examples please look at my case or ask for more information.

4. 9/3/2014 Torrance Martin [email protected] Yes Maricopa Mostly with Mother Pay


The mother of my child has alienated me from my son over 10 years. The child support obligation they set for me is over half of my income. I tried to modify through DES but they send back letters telling me to show proof that I support my children in home and show them birth certificates with mine and my in home child's name on it. This child support leaves me living in poverty. I work full time and still have been left homeless, starving and disoriented. My entire tax return has been extracted from me since I was 23 years old. Arizona child support took my life away from me since I was 23 years old and are relentlessly extracting and placing liens on everything I have. The mother of my son never gave me the opportunity to help care for my son, and lawyers want money that I cannot afford to pay because of the child support payroll extraction in order to get court ordered visits and a modification.

5. 9/4/2014 C J [email protected] Yes Maricopa Essentially Equal N/A


Can you please send me an email address where I can send my comments and suggestions regarding the proposed child support schedule. I was unable to write all of my comments in the provided box. Thank you.

Date submitted





6. 9/4/2014 Justin Hertel [email protected] Yes Maricopa Mostly with Mother PayComment or suggestion:

Why are these guidelines always reviewed and modified in secret, without any input from the general public? Why does every modified child support calculator give MORE money to the custodial parent? When do NCPs ever get a break? What has changed to warrant this increase? My ex‐wife already gets almost 1,000 a month for ONE child and with this calculator, she will get even more. To add insult to injury, the money I already pay is clearly NOT spent on my child. When I ask to spend more TIME with my child, the courts deem my request unreasonable, but when my ex‐wife wants more money, the courts happily hand it over. When are the courts going to make the custodial parents be accountable for how child support is spent?

7. 9/9/2014 Shebli Geegieh [email protected] Yes Maricopa Essentially Equal Pay In my opinion this new child support is neither fair or just. First of all, it failed to adjust for inflation.for the sake of numbers let us take

one parent who use to make 100K in 2011 and 100K in 2014 while the other parent makes "0" in 2011 and "0" in 2014. They have 50%if you put the numbers in the new work sheet the parent in 2014 will pay higher child support. how is the possible when1) Social security taxes increases from 4.2 to 6.2 (in this case $2000 a month). i.e. the disposable income for the parent in 2014 is less than that in 2011 by 2000.2) The cost of living increased exponentially. it cost much more money to put roof in top of the children. having a house is the more important than food. kids can't live on streets, but they can live with less food.3) the parent who used to make 100K is now having lower standard of living (2000 ) less in tax, how come the standard of the living for the children increases then? this is mathematically wrong.

8. 9/9/2014 Shebli Geegieh [email protected] Yes Maricopa Essentially Equal Pay


This work sheet failed to distinguish between parents who work under 1099 and those who work under W2, it failed to include the costs required to generate income.For the sake of the argument let us this caseboth parents makes 100K and they share the kids equally, However, one parent work from home under his own business paid using 1099 forms, while the other parent works for a company under W2 and he is required to travel 100 miles a day to get to work.The first parent under 1099 has the choice to pay or to skip Social security taxes and medicare, while the other parent must pay it. what that means that the parent with W2 gross income is 7% less than the parent on 1099. To add to that, the parent who drives 100 miles a day to work is required to pay extra money for gas, if (s)he doesn't drive to work (s)he will not be able to make income. such cost must be added and treated just like daycare, it must be subtracted from the parent gross income.

9. 9/13/2014 Jemima Schmidt [email protected] Yes Receive


I fully support the proposed child support guidelines being reviewed. As a single parent of two who is employed full time my out of pocket costs for childcare medical transportation and school currently far exceed the calculated suport. Please adopt these guidelines they are long over due. Please do not allow the fathers rights groups to strike this down like they did last time. Both fathers of my children do not pay enough child suport ore even the court ordered guideline support commensurate to child support costs.they are banking of my lack of funds to pursue enforcement.

Date submitted





10 9/15/2014 Lisa Gervase [email protected] Yes Maricopa Mostly with Mother Receive


The current guidelines provide for woefully inadequate support unless the primary parent earns at least $100,000/year. For any reasonable lifestyle, particularly once children reach the age of being in activities such as music, sports, etc., the absolute minimum support for each child must be $500/month. There is no way any child can have any reasonable life for less. That should be the starting minimum point, and the support amount should go up from there depending on the guidelines and other relevant factors. The law also should require continued support post high‐school for education, medical, etc. for children who continue post‐high school education and are not fully independent. In most other areas of life, children are not 'cut off' at age 18 as long as they're in school. Benefits then continue usually to age 23.

11. 9/16/2014 RONALD RYAN [email protected] Yes Pima Mostly with Mother Pay


I have standard visitation and pay child support for my 17 year old daughter. My issue has to do with the 3 biological children of my 30 year old son. My son goes along with whatever the mother says. I do not get to see the kids and the rules for grandparent visitation do not apply because no parent has disappeared nor does another exception exist. But those kids are being abused, in effect, by not having an ongoing relationship with their grandfather, i.e., me. The law should be changed to account for unreasonable parents whose decisions pertaining to grandparents works substantiallyto the detriment of the children.

12. 9/19/2014 Glenn Halterman [email protected] Yes Maricopa N/A N/A


Re: Section 27 of the Child Support Guidelines. The allocation of the dependency exemption should be contingent on an obligor being current on child support AND spousal maintenance. An award of spousal maintenance results in a reduction of the obligor's child support payment. In many cases, the receipt of spousal maintenance is far more important to the recipient to being able to support their children than the actual child support amount. Under the current Guidelines, the obligor can preserve the ability to take the exemption by ensuring that at least the child support obligation continues to be paid, while neglecting the spousal maintenance payments (which may be of far greater importance). This is not equitable. If the right to claim the tax exemption is to be conditioned on the payment of support, ALL support due to the recipient spouse—including spousal maintenance—should be considered. Thank you for your consideration. Glenn D. Halterman, Certified Family Law Specialist.

13. 9/19/2014 Ken Sanders [email protected] IV‐D Commissioner, Pima County Superior Court

Yes Pima N/A N/A


The"Arizona Child Support Guidelines Review," prepared by the Center for Policy Reserach (CPR) recommends that the self‐support reserve test be raised to $1,115.00 per month, thus mirroring the current poverty level for a single person. (p. 25) Nonetheless, the 2015 Proposed Child Support Calculator sets the self‐support reserve test amount at $973.00, $142.00 less than recommended by CPR. No explanation is provided for the decision to apparently reject CPR's recommendations and create an artificially low poverty threshold. The self‐support reserve test should accurately reflect the minimum amount of income one must earn to "escape" poverty. To do otherwise will result in artificially inflated and unrealistic child support orders. Thank you.

Date submitted





14. 9/24/2014 Larue Sanchez [email protected] Yes Yuma N/A N/A


I am just really concerned about how Fathers who cannot afford and attorney and appear in court standing alone against an attorney hired by the ex in‐laws, and he knows nothing of the law, therefore, cannot properly defend himself and is totally unaware as to the proceedings and what is taking place. And the courts order him to pay an outrageous amount of child support that goes above and beyond his gross monthly income, He will never be able to make set payments, but he has no idea what to say or do, he is no attorney, The judge does not remove himself from the proceedings even though the defendant voices his concerns that the judge personally knows the in‐laws and feels that he will not get a fair court proceeding. The plaintiffs attorney moves everyone of her child support cases to this same judge every possible court proceeding she represents, and more that 85% of her cases are won in this judges court room. But the main concern, is how does the state of Az. allow a judge and the attorney for the plaintiff, legally allowed to merely set an amount of support to be paid by a Father who doesn't make enough money to pay the set payment? How can they legally set a man up to fail? This is not right and Az really should look into these child support cases much closer. Then maybe they wouldn't have so many Fathers failing to pay child support payments, or failing to be able to make the entire payment. Yuma, Az sickens me the way they handle their court proceedings. It's a good ol boys town and it has nothing to do with justice here, only about who you know. Defendants seem to be the real victims here and I will get some public attention on this here real soon. Someone has to alert the public to the unjustice being done to Fathers.

15. 9/25/2014 Mike Hughes [email protected] No Apache Mostly with Mother Pay


I recently retired from the military, and now reside in Utah. My 6 year old daughter lives with my ex‐wife in Arizona, and to which I pay child support. With my retiring, my financial situation has changed enough to merit amending CS. My question/issue is my ex‐wife is self employed (Social worker/child counselor) and only pays herself a very minimal salary, which if used in CS calculations, creates a disparity in CS paid by each party. During the divorce case, the judge did not factor anything other then my ex‐wifes salary into CS calculations. How can I ensure it's going to be fair when I submit a modification request; is there anything I can submit/request with the package? Very respectfully, Mike Hughes

16. 9/28/2014 Gary Robbins [email protected]


I recommend that the Guidelines go up to at least $50,000 gross income per month. Past $20K a month, you could use Adjusted Gross Income in $500‐$1000 increments instead of $50 increments. And yes, I have a client whose gross income in $50K a month. Professional athletes make far more money, and in many cases spousal maintenance isn't available because the parties were not married. Perhaps it would make sense to provide an algorithm or reference as to how to calculate the basic support guidelines.

17. 9/29/2014 Deborah Varney [email protected] Yes Maricopa N/A N/A


How will the tax exemption be allocated due to the federal requirement in the Affordable Care Act that the person who pays the medical insurance receives the tax exemption, and the current guidelines provide that the tax exemption is based proportionate to income? Deborah Varney, Family Law Attorney

Date submitted





18. 10/5/2014 Lori Sucharski [email protected]


My name is Lori Sucharski. I have witnessed the impacts of child support; as a payroll supervisor at a large corporation, by attending support groups for single and divorced parents, by attending continuing education courses alongside professional educators from multiple school districts and as a step parent in a high conflict divorce case. I have concerns around the proposed child support calculations. According to data on Department of Numbers website based upon US Census data median Arizona income has dropped almost 3% since 2010 and over 8% since 2005 the timeframe of the last 2 updates to the child support calculations and guidelines. Despite lower income levels the recommendation has been to raise child support percentages. I fail to see the logical reasoning of raising the mandated costs for a child when the families do not have as much. Wouldn’t the logical course of action be to stabilize the calculations and allow Arizona families to improve their overall fiscal health? I would also like to verify that the upcoming discussions about child support guidelines will include extensive brainstorming to resolve the issue brought about by the implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). ACA dictates that the person who provides health insurance is entitled to the tax exemption. Arizona Child Support Guidelines have provided guidance on how to equitably divide the exemptions based upon gross wages and the inclusion of insurance costs in the child support calculations. The following example is a situation that could occur and is highly concerning: Parent A and B share decision authority and have equal parenting time. Parent A gross wage is $2000. Parent B gross wage is $3500. If Parent A is ordered to provide health insurance, Parent B will never be allowed to claim 2/3 of the child exemption that would be appropriate based upon providing more than 60% of the insurance costs. If Parent B is ordered to provide the health insurance the lower earning parent will not ever be provided the benefit of the tax exemption put in place to provide relief of the cost of raising a child. The child support calculators currently provide calculations for parenting days. Perhaps a similar calculation can be devised to allow a reduction of child support amounts based upon what would have been the tax exemption awards. Allowing this reduction for the parent paying for but not providing the health coverage for the child and following the ACA mandate for tax exemption award. Thank you for your attention and support in this matter. Lori Sucharski, M.Ed.

19. 10/8/2014 Tim Mionske [email protected]


SEE SEPARATE COMMENT – INCLUDES RESPONSES FROM DR. JANE VENOHR

20. 10/9/2014 Shebli Geegieh [email protected]


I am writing to you to urge you not to pass the new 2015 child support. While the people in this country are no longer having the same life style as before, economic inflation, Social security increase gas and food increase, yet the current child support increase the child support amount. The same income in 2011 will pay higher amount of child support in 2015 (although his net disposable income decreased, for example Social security tax went from 4.2% to 6.2%). That is not right. The fact is, it costs more to keep a roof in top of the children. The State of MA for example lowered the child support amount, because they realize that life standard of the Americans

is no longer the same. I urge you not to sign the bill and to ask the legislator to look at what the State of MA had done and understand it, instead of hiring a company from Colorado to do math for the state of AZ. Time had changed, this is no longer America that put Armstrong on the moon, this America who is in debit to China. Regards, Chandler, AZ Shebli Geegieh

Date submitted





21. 10/9/2014 Kevin Wasson [email protected]


Attached is a Word Document that helps to voice my opposition to accepting the proposed 2015 Child Support Schedule based on the BR4 model. SEE SEPARATE DOCUMENT INCLUDED

22. 10/9/2014 Ingrid Wissemann [email protected] Yes Maricopa


This letter is in response to the News Release, dated August 21, 2014, inviting public comment on child support calculations. It is very interesting that I found this News Release late last night, being that today, October 9, concludes the open public comment period. Today is also the date my divorce was final in 2013. I have much to say regarding child support, but more specifically child support enforcement. This Monday, October 13, will be my seventh time in the Maricopa County Superior Court. I was awarded child support, but do not get it as ordered. While it might concern the Superior Court to raise a calculation twenty dollars, what does it matter if the child support is not sufficiently enforced? I am not belittling the effort to get the child support calculations correct, but does it really matter if it is correct when it does not get paid because the laws regarding the enforcement of child support are insufficient? There are websites devoted to the numerous loopholes that exist in the system for integrity lacking adults who do not want to pay child support. No doubt the statistics of child support that actually gets paid is alarmingly low. Perhaps I will eventually get the child support owed to me. I am not getting it now, when my children need it, even though I have been awarded it. My ex‐husband makes approximately $55,000 annually as an electrician subcontracted to work at Intel. In addition to that, he makes between $1,500 and $2,000 monthly, off the books doing side jobs, as was proven during divorce proceedings. He also lives in an apartment free of charge because he is considered to be the electrician for a company in Phoenix/Scottsdale that owns many property rentals that he works on as the electrician. He paid no child support during the summer leaving me to pay 100% of the going back to school expenses. One month he paid a total of $175. He has given me zero dollars towards the $20,000 debt accrued during the marriage, even though he was ordered to pay half. He has given me zero dollars towards medical bills and orthodontist expenses for two children even though he was ordered to pay 66% of the medical expenses. He wrote down the wrong social security number on the QDRO papers for the pension plan division. Then had it notarized, but not stamped, delaying the division as long as possible. I cashed in half of my pension as soon as I could in order to pay the bills. I was married for over 20 years and was a stay at home mother. Now I am a substitute teacher. I invite you to look at my case FC2013‐002667, Atlas 001327537800. You will see where Judge Kiley awarded overnight visits of my children with my ex‐husband before the child mediation meeting was even conducted. The child mediator stated that overnight visits were NOT recommended. My ex‐husband even claimed that a woman living in Laveen was his Aunt. She is not his Aunt. She lied under oath. My children do not know her. He did all this to lower his child support. He was awarded visits for 25 hours a month. He sees his daughters for two to three hours a month while he lives five miles away, and he wants to pay “0” dollars for child support as stated in the last papers he filed. I write this letter to you knowing that you are the contact for the child support calculations, but again, what does it matter if the calculations go up twenty dollars if child support is not

enforced? My case is not the only case where one parent did everything in their power not to pay child support. There are many cases in Maricopa County. I have talked to many parents who have had no help getting child support that is owed. I have talked to family and friends in New York, Massachusetts, California, Tennessee and Kentucky. All of them are baffled by how easy it is for a person to get out of paying child support in Maricopa County. I hope that in the next meeting you attend, you would mention the topic of enforcing child support. If you know of other people I could contact regarding this issue that would be of some help, I would greatly appreciate that information also. I am sure we would agree that it is important for our children and society to make every effort we can to improve the areas in which deficiencies and problems are found. It is quite obvious that there are many issues that need to be corrected and adjusted in the area of child support and child support enforcement. I will be in the Maricopa County Superior Court before the Honorable Roger E. Brodman in downtown Phoenix this Monday, October 13, at 9 am, once again trying to get the child support awarded to me.

Date submitted





23. 10/9/2014 Helen Davis [email protected] Yes Maricopa N/A Family Law Attorneys


I am submitting the following comments on the proposed changes to the child support guidelines on behalf of the attorneys whose names appear at the end of the comments, which are submitted successively due to the character limitations in this comment field.1. The current and the proposed child support guidelines do an injustice to the lower income parent when there is equal custody and disparate incomes. Under the old and new guidelines, (a) the child support is calculated for each parent, (b) the lower amount is then subtracted from the higher amount, and (c) the resulting figure is cut in half. See current guideline 12 on equal custody. continuation of prior comment Part 2: We understand that this was supposed to generate some form of equality of contribution (or something to that effect). However, the result is that the lower income parent is required to expend a similar dollar amount on the children despite having a lower level of income. This seems unjust. We suggest this possibility: do not split the final amount. In other words, in the example, the higher income parent would pay the lower income parent $500, rather than $250 (per the example in the guidelines). Part 3 of comments:Another issue is 25‐530. This statute prohibits considering Title 38 disability benefits for spousal maintenance purposes. However, the income is not excluded from the child support guidelines. This can result in a higher spousal figure, but then a much lower child support figure ‐ thereby eliminating or circumventing the intended benefit of 25‐530. Part 4 of comments:Many of the family law attorneys who specialize in family law and practice in this area at the highest level, including certified family law specialists and members of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, are disappointed in and object to a process whereby the child support guidelines are updated without the benefit of any workgroup or committee of interested professionals analyzing and reviewing the economic and other data that go into the development of the guidelines. This should not be a process whereby an economist is retained, they update the numbers and the numbers are rubberstamped. These guidelines have an important and far‐reaching impact on the family and, most importantly, the children of Arizona. We all feel strongly that a work group should be put into place to look at these updates, including the economic and other data in light of the practice and policies this state so. Part 5:The comments submitted by Helen Davis are joined by the following attorneys: John Herrick, Barry Brody, Marty Boyte‐Henderson, John Bolt, Sandra Tedlock, Kathleen McCarthy, Jim Stroud, Erika L. Cossitt‐Volpiano, David

Lieberthal, Len Karp, David Lieberthal, Lee Richard, Tom Griggs Robert Jensen Dana Levy Aris Gallios Lisa McNorton,Steve Ellsworth Annalisa Moore Masunas, Barry Brody, Laura Balleu

Date submitted





24. 10/21/2014 Jacqueline Anderson [email protected] Yes Maricopa Mostly with Mother Receive


The age of maturity in Arizona needs to be raised to age 21. No child is ready to face the world at the age of 18 and should not be placed in a situation where they feel guilty about growing up. The need to have a year or so of college under their belts, get a job and a car. I am still driving 18 year old children to community colleges. They are forced to take out loans to buy a car and I am still teaching them how to drive. How can they work, pay insurance and go to college when they are worried about us just making rent. I am disabled and we relied on support for our most basic needs. I cannot go back to work until they are stable. Or else they would not have rides. Wake up people. Other states have already adapted this. (not to mention my ex has refused to ever release his W2's, knowing I do not have the ability to take him to court for contempt of court) so he payed 1/2 of what he ever had to, no state Child Support agency ever looked at his W2's.

25. 10/21/2014 Jeannette Stevens [email protected] Yes Maricopa N/A Third party obligee


Community state effects the wife or husband for child support. I currently operate / run a business and because I'm married to my husband who has an open child support case & we are married my income is included into his child support case while I have 3 kids of my own to support. Rules of child support guidelines state the biological parent is responsible for support but yet I'm included

26. 10/22/2014 J S [email protected] Yes Maricopa Mostly with Mother Pay


Child support guidelines 2. PREMISESB. The child support obligation has priority over all other financial obligationsSo if the courts give you a ridicules amount like they did in my case 1,500 a month with no proof of my income than the above guidelines generally say your bills to also survive doesn't matter and if you can't pay your freedom is taken you should stay down not progress because a kid needs 1.500 a month ...... Clearly the amount is funding others i.e. mother Wow such crap also this is my scenario right now

From: Tim Mionske [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 8:41 AM To: Murphy, Heather Subject: Proposed Child Support Schedule The Economic Review of the Arizona Child Support Schedule (2014) uses an economic formula designated as Betson-Rothbarth Four (BR4) to establish a new method for calculating child support in Arizona. The BR4 formula is based on economic data from 2004 – 2009. The Betson-Rothbarth method itself is well documented as over-estimating costs since it; • Assumes infinite income, i.e. that there will always be additional income to achieve an equivalent standard of living after becoming a parent • Fails to account for the costs of maintaining two households • Fails to consider for duplicative costs between two households COMMENT FROM DR. VENOHR: Mr. Mionske is confounding measurement issues with the guidelines models. Post-standard of living is an issue that concerns the guidelines model, which is a state policy decision. The Income Shares model is based on the presumption that the children shall receive the same standard the children would have received had the parents lived together and shared financial resources. In contrast, the COBS model considered the relative standards of living of the parents. The measurement of child-rearing expenditures used in the Income Shares model is from examining actual expenditures in households collected by the Consumer Expenditure Survey, which is conducted by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The methodologies for separating the child’s share from the adult’s share of household expenditures varies. In 2013, the State of Massachusetts, adopted new Child Support Guidelines, also based on the Betson-Rothbarth methodology, and it concluded a reduction in child support for all income levels and family sizes. The Massachusetts analysis concluded that the BR Methodology greatly over-estimated child-rearing costs. COMMENT FROM DR. VENOHR: The Commonwealth of Massachusetts is NOT based on the Betson-Rothbarth measurements and has never been. Massachusetts did reduce its schedule amounts in 2013 because they were some of the highest in the nation. The six years of data used to create BR4, uses nearly 4 years of economic data when the AZ economy was artificially robust and only a marginal time frame after the 2008 Great Recession began. The 2013 USDA Report, Expenditures on Children by Families, revealed that the 2008 BR estimates were at least 10% higher than 2011 BR estimates because of factors related to the national economy. COMMENT FROM DR. VENOHR: Several economists have examined whether the proportion of total family expenditures devoted to child-rearing expenditures varies with recessions and/or over time. This includes the Betson studies and the New Jersey

study, which are referenced in the CPR report. In general, the answer is that there are not significant differences. With regard to the purported 10% difference between 2008 and 2011, if there is difference, it may be because of price increases. The use of over 5 year old data forces all of the BR estimates to be overly inflated. The second report, AZ Child Support Guidelines Review w/ Findings from Case File Data, clearly states that most AZ families are living “paycheck-to-paycheck”. COMMENT FROM DR. VENOHR: If I wrote that in the case file report, it was taken out of context. Usually when I say “paycheck-to-paycheck” it is used to explain the difference between the BR4 and BR3 methodologies. BR4 considers installment payments and payments toward second mortgages and home equity loans. BR3 only considers interest payments on the first mortgage and both consider rents, utilities, HOA fees, and other housing-related expenses. With regard to installment payments, consider a family that buys $4,600 of kitchen appliance using a 24-month payment plan of $200 per month. BR3 would include the $4,600 as an expenditures while BR4 would only include the months in which a payment was made (e.g., if survey period and installment payments overlap for 10 months, there would be $2,000 included.) Once new CS Guidelines are enacted, they cannot be changed for the next 4 years. To hope that the AZ economy will catch up to the inflated BR4 amounts is ludicrous. When considering how different the economy is in rural AZ compared to the Phoenix Metropolitan area, it becomes even more relevant that the most current economic data should have been used. COMMENT FROM DR. VENOHR: See earlier comment about economic evidence about changes over time and during recessionary periods. For single-child families with a Gross Family Income from $13,400 to $17,250 per month, the BR4 tables show an increase in child support. Single-child families with a Gross Family Income outside of that income range would see a decrease in child support. It is unjustifiable to have an increase in child support for such a small and specific portion of families. COMMENT FROM DR. VENOHR: As explained to the committee, the BR4 schedule is more reflective of current economic data. When compared to the existing amounts there are some decreases, which is counter-intuitive and a bothersome policy outcome for some. Most economists believe that the Rothbarth estimator understates actual child-rearing expenditures. Adopting BR4 would essentially be institutionalizing that as policy. This is why two updated schedules were developed. Using the BR4 methodology, in most cases, families with multiple children would see an increase in CS over the same income range where a single-child family would see a decrease. The increases under BR4 for multiple-child families exceed the 2013 USDA Guidelines. The USDA Guidelines are considered to be economic maximums. Why the BR4 formula was prepared in such a manner to force an increased burden on multiple-

children families or why it exceeds the USDA guidelines is unjustifiable and will only result is extreme harm to AZ families. COMMENT FROM DR. VENOHR: This is what the evidence reflects. It is not a preparation issue. From BR4 Proposed guidelines; • two children cost on average 51% more than one child • three children cost on average 81% more than one child • four children cost on average 102% more than one child • five children cost on average 122% more than one child • six children cost on average 141% more than one child From USDA 2013 estimates; • two children cost on average 50% more than one child • three children cost on average 75% more than one child • four children cost on average 94% more than one child • five children cost on average 109% more than one child • six children cost on average 121% more than one child When the BR4 Child Support Schedule is graphed, the bizarre nature of the BR4 formula becomes easier to see. An Appropriate Child Support formula would result in a smooth curve with no abrupt changes over the range of incomes. The BR4 CS graphs clearly show large inconsistencies, abrupt changes in values and anything but a smooth curve. COMMENT FROM DR. VENOHR: See previous comment. From this basic analysis of the BR4 formula and the resulting Child Support Schedules, it should be readily evident that BR4 has several problems that will only result in harming the families of Arizona. As such, the proposed 2015 Child Support Schedule that was developed using BR4 needs to be scrapped. Any reasonable economic formula used to develop AZ child support amounts needs to be; • based on current AZ economic factors • based on public input during the development • based on values within USDA Guideline amounts

Heather,

I am writing to provide feedback into the Quadrennial Child Support Guidelines Review. Four years ago

I was shocked to find that the State Supreme Court had initiated a Child Support Review and avoided any

representation from the general public on the committee that performed the work. Only system

stakeholders were permitted to work on the committee. That committee produced COBS and was set to

implement COBS without any material public comment. Fortunately, the Legislature and the Public did

not agree with the back-room dealings of the Child Support Guidelines Committee and the

implementation of an entirely untested and unvetted child support model in Arizona was averted by

concerned citizens like myself.

Fast-forward 4 years and I have been actively reviewing the State Supreme Court's Website and the Child

Support Guidelines Review Committee site to determine when the work would be initiated for the current

Quadrennial Review.... Crickets... not a peep to be found.

Recently, I received information that the Surpreme Court was seeking public input on the guidelines that

have already been packaged and slated for implementation. Frankly, the process is a sham. The

committee again made no effort to seek active participation from the public during the guidelines review

and they are proposing to establish policy without any legitimate debate.

The problem with the practice around the guidelines is that a crazy assumption is made that the cost of

raising a child increases as a percentage of the income shares each and every time that the guidelines are

reviewed. At this rate, the percent of income allocated to the child will exceed 90% of the parents'

combined incomes within our lifetime!

This is simply voodoo economics with no basis in reality. It is not reasonable to increase the percentages

across the board for the obligor every year. The end result is a weakening of the family. The creation of

unnecessary conflict among the parents, and a substantially worse outcome for the children who simply

want to have a strong relationship with both parents. That, instead is replaced by the state strong-arming

one or both parents and compelling them to work things out even if the finances are completely

irreconcilable.

The contractor that was brought in to prepare the report made specific recommendations that were

rejected out of pocket by the committee with no explanation as to why those recommendations were

rejected. For example, they recommended increasing the self-support reserve test, and they recommended

reducing the income shares rates for low income families. There were other recommendations that appear

to have been rejected by the committee again with no explanation as to why.

Ultimately without a full public review and vetting of this policy work, the Supreme Court has again

over-stepped it's authority by excluding the public from the review process. It is unconscionable that the

Supreme Court did this again.

I will be sending a copy of this note to my legislators and the leadership of the State House and State

Senate and I will be asking them to take action in the event that the State Supreme Court continues to rail-

road the implemenetation of this newly proposed child support calculation.

Sincerely,

David S. Hamu

Mesa, AZ

Dear Senators and Representatives,

The State Supreme Court has again committed a great malfeasance upon the citizens of Arizona. Please

read this brief history of the shenanigans of the Child Support Guidelines Quadrennial Reviews

conducted by our State Supreme Court four years ago and again just recently.

I am requesting that the legislature take action and demand of the State Supreme Court that this guideline

review be fully transparent and open to the public. It has not been thus far and I believe that Laws are

being broken.

Four years ago the Arizona State Supreme Court attempted to pull a fast one and implement a wholly new

and un-vetted child support model in Arizona. The Child Support Guidelines Review Committee at that

time was operating in secret without public participation or public comment. In fact they were not even

shy about it, by their own statements they plotted to include only "system stakeholders" in the review

process and exclude the public until the 11th hour. Meeting minutes and correspondence between

committee members support this statement. The State Supreme Court's Child Support Guidelines Review

Committee was attempting to make public policy in absence of the public.

At that time, many concerned citizens, including myself objected. We brought this issue to the attention

of our Legislators and you were also concerned about the State Court's conduct. The proposal from the

Child Support Guidelines Review Committee was strongly rejected by our Legislators who demanded

that the State Supreme Court allow the public to weigh in on the matter. The Arizona Judicial Counsel

held public hearings and ultimately determined that it was best not to implement the proposal of the

Guidelines Review Committee.

Now, four years later, the State Supreme Court has again announced that a guidelines review has been

completed without any participation from the general public. They are ready to implement their updates to

the child support calculator and only after the fact are they asking for public comment. The conduct of

the State Supreme Court is shameful. How soon they forget!

Please take action to let the Supreme Court know that when the State Legislature entrusted the

Quadrennial Review to the State Supreme Court that this was not what was intended. Under the

circumstances is it also appropriate for the State Legislature to revisit the statute that delegated this

responsibility to the State Supreme Court. It is clear that the State Supreme Court cannot be entrusted

with this responsibility. When the responsibility was held by the Legislature, the process was open and

transparent and public comment was encouraged. The State Court has now proceeded with Guidelines

Review two times without the oversight of a legislative committee and both times it has failed to honor

the public trust.

I have attached my e-mail to Heather Murphy at the Arizona State Supreme Court.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions or

concerns.

Sincerely,

David Hamu

Mesa, AZ

Phone: 480-540-3282

Dear Representative, You previously received a letter from an individual interested in the child support guideline process. I was also provided with a copy of the letter and find it necessary to clear up some misconceptions contained within the letter. I also anticipate receiving questions regarding how the Court reviews the child support guidelines and believe it beneficial to outline the process. Contrary to what is stated in the letter, review of the guidelines is not a pre‐determined closed exercise. Review of child support case files and calculations every four years is mandatory under state and federal law. Child support case files are examined for deviation from the current established guidelines. This review involves an expert third‐party analysis of a random sampling of case files from four different counties. The Child Support Calculator is updated every four years using the most current mathematical inputs such as data from the Consumer Expenditures Survey administered by We are simply performing an update of the numbers using current economic data. This review, as required by law, is currently underway. Instead of just publishing a set of final data we are offering the public a helpful internet‐based test calculator so that the process can be transparent. Numbers generated from the test calculator have not been approved. The test calculator is published to aid people in understanding the impact of the proposed changes to the updated schedule of basic support obligations. The amount generated from this tool is for comparative purposes and to inform the public. There are no policy changes or shifts in the way child support is calculated being considered. The update process underway now uses current state policy. The proposed guidelines and any changes will be ultimately presented to the Arizona Judicial Council for public comment and review. The Judicial Council holds open public meetings. It is too soon in the process to identify a date at which changes might be considered and become effective. Any changes resulting from this process do not affect those whose child support amounts have been set by the courts in a case that is now closed. We would be happy to provide you with some sample calculations using the current calculator and the proposed test calculator if that would be useful. We also have prepared a helpful diagram to show where we are in the review process. Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions. Our legislative liaison, Amy Love is extremely familiar with the process as are members of Court Services staff. We will be more than happy to answer any questions. Sincerely,

Jerry G. Landau Government Affairs Director

1

History of the Income Shares Methodology

Income Shares child support tables are not based on actual spending on children but on indirect and highly questionable estimate theories. Income Shares assumes that child support tables should be based on the spending necessary to restore a family’s standard of living back to the same level it was before having a child or additional children. These indirect measures were developed by economists in the late 1800s to answer the academic question: How much income is needed for different family types (differing numbers of adults and children) to have the same standard of living? These are known as “Income Equivalence Measures” and were never intended nor designed to measure the cost of rearing children but to compare standards of living.

In the early 1990s, David Betson of the University of Notre Dame, was contracted to revise the Income Shares methodology. Betson also used an income equivalence approach, borrowing a technique from Erwin Rothbarth. The Rothbarth methodology compares the changes in household spending on purely adult goods to estimate child(ren) costs. The Rothbarth premise is that by looking at only adult goods reduces the problem of shifts between adult and shared goods after having a child or an additional child. For measuring child costs, Betson specifically used a particular collection of adult goods to measure a household's level of well-being. The areas that Betson used were adult clothing, alcohol, and tobacco. Betson replaced the food-only indirect measure, used by Espenshade-Engel, with spending in three adult-only areas and switched from shares of consumption to levels of consumption. Because the cost tables are based on Betson’s interpretation of Rothbarth’s estimates, they are sometimes referred to as Betson-Rothbarth (BR) tables.

The Betson-Rothbarth definition was based on the assumption that becoming a parent does not change adult spending for alcohol, tobacco, and adult clothing. This leads to greatly overestimating child costs, similar to the problem with the Espenshade-Engel definition, as it completely ignores how a household’s spending habits change after having children. Specifically, the majority of families reduce their alcohol and tobacco consumption and re-directs a significant portion of their spending on adult items to spending on child items.

In the late 1990s, the Betson-Rothbarth methodology was modified to use only adult clothing and no longer included alcohol or tobacco.

Any variation of Income Shares leads to an overstatement of child costs by:

Non-recognition of finite financial constraints. That is, it makes the assumption there will somehow be additional income to create an equivalent standard of living after becoming a parent.

Administrator

Typewritten Text

KEVIN WASSON 10-09-14

Administrator

Typewritten Text

- Public comment

2

The choice of adult clothing consumption as a target definition in the newer version of Income Shares. The use of intact households to estimate child costs ignores the fact that when going from an intact family to two separate

households, that there is increased overhead (two houses) and much less money to spend on children. The economic base model is not focused on costs related to child rearing, but on an indirect correlation of how adults

spend money on themselves.

Background information/material on the Income Shares Model can be found in:

“Child Support Guidelines: Economic Basis and Analysis of Alternative Approaches,” by Robert G. Williams, Improving Child Support Practice, Volume One, The American Bar Association, 1986.

Development of Guidelines for Child Support Orders, by Robert G. Williams, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Child Support Enforcement, September 1987.

Estimates of Expenditures on Children and Child Support Guidelines, Lewin / ICF, submitted to Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, October 1990.

Judicial Mandates for Child Support Guidelines

States are required to enact presumptive guidelines that are economically appropriate. (45 CFR 302.56)

Several court opinions have specifically stated general requirements for economically appropriate child support awards, and for child support guidelines to meet constitutional analysis. One of the first decisions to state how to derive an economically appropriate child support amount was Smith v. Smith, 626 P.2d 342 (Or. 1980). This case specifically stated that it is inappropriate and unjust to apply a welfare case guideline to non-welfare cases. Secondly, the case delineated how the court should allocate child costs between both parents. Cases that have provided definitions for constitutionally sound child support award processes are Meltzer v. Witsberger, 480 A.2d 991 (Pa. 1984) and Conway v. Dana, 318 A.2d 324 (Pa. 1985).

These cases established several key principles. The father and the mother are responsible to pay child support and that responsibility should be based on their income and financial standing. Child Support may be for more than just the basic needs of the child, such as entertainment, but the amount paid for child support may not outweigh the need for a parent to meet their own basic living expenses. Child Support may not be used for any purpose except to meet the reasonable needs of the child. Child Support may not impose hidden spousal support, additional property division, or a redistribution of wealth.

Assumes each parent has an equal duty of support.

3

Each parent’s obligation should be proportional to that parent’s available financial resources that are above self-support needs.

As part of the total Child Support obligation, each parent receives full credit for direct contributions toward child costs in the child support award.

Child Cost tables should be based on actual data on child costs rather than on indirect measures such as changes in spending on adult goods.

Child-related tax benefits should be credited as a partial offset to supporting the children. Ensures the Child Support amount leaves each parent with enough income to meet the parent’s basic living needs.

Analysis and Review of the 2015 Proposed Child Support Schedule

The Economic Review of the Arizona Child Support Schedule compared several methods for calculating child support and comparing them to the current child support amounts from the 2011 AZ Child Support Guidelines. The Betson-Rothbarth (BR) formulae are referred to in the report as BR3 and BR4. The BR3 methodology is based on economic data from 1998 through 2004. The BR4 methodology uses economic data from 2004 through 2009. There are other differences between the BR3 and BR4 methods which are detailed within the report.

According to that report, the BR4 formula is supposed to be a better estimation of the costs for raising a child. Second, it is supposed to be a better representation of the current AZ economy.

The report’s main recommendations are; 1) Use BR4 when it results in higher Child Support (CS)

2) Ignore BR4 when it would lower CS compared to the existing 2011 CS schedule

3) In order to comply with the Affordable Care Act, the parent who pays for the children’s insurance will also get 100% of the child dependent deduction every year.

Analysis of the BR4 table results in glaring inconsistencies, disproportionate child support values and an aberration of the base concept that Child support is to meet the basic needs of the child(ren).

4

The BR4 economic period used, 2004 – 2009, uses nearly 4 years of economic data when the AZ economy was artificially robust and only a marginal time frame after the 2008 Great Recession began. By using this economic time frame, BR4 is based on economic data that is over 5 years old and cannot be reasonably expected to reflect the current economic conditions.

The proposed CS Schedule, once enacted cannot be changed for at least 4 years. Using economic date from 2004 – 2009 to approximate CS amounts for 2015 through at least 2018 instead of using more current economic data is unjustifiable.

Massachusetts Child Support Guidelines, like AZ, are based on the Betson-Rothbarth formula as incorporated within the Income Shares Model. With a similar economic evaluation, in 2013, the state of Massachusetts adopted an across-the-board decrease in child support; in recognition that the base tables used inflated values and more importantly the Massachusetts economy. http://www.mass.gov/courts/docs/child-support/2012-task-force-report.pdf http://www.mass.gov/courts/docs/child-support/economist-report.pdf

Several 2013 and 2014 articles written on the AZ economy indicate that the average family is living “paycheck-to-paycheck” and thus any increased cost in any area would create an undue hardship, thus detailing the fragility of the average AZ household. This weakness in the AZ economy is repeated in the AZ Child Support Guidelines Review w/ Findings from Case File Data. www.azcourts.gov/Portals/31/GuidelinesReview/AZChildSupportGuidelinesReviewFindingsfromCaseFileData082014RED.pdf

BR4 for one child creates an increase for a Gross Family Income only between the range of $13,400 to $17,250 per month. Gross Family Incomes below $13,400, or higher than $17,250 would see a decrease in child support, (or none if the panel recommendation to ignore decreases occurs).

Using the BR4 methodology, in most cases, families with multiple children would see an increase in CS over the same income ranges where a single-child family would see decreases. The reasoning for this difference is not explained in the report.

BR4 for two children creates an increase for gross family incomes between $6,950 to $9,000 and a decrease from $9,050 to $9,300; then an increase from $9,350 and up. BR4 is very inconsistent over various income ranges. Example, a gross family income of $8,650 increases CS by $44 whereas a gross family income of $9,150 is a decrease in CS of five dollars.

BR4 for three to six children creates an increase in CS for a Gross Family Income of $4,600/month and up. The amount of change under BR4 is very inconsistent. Examples;

a) Three children, gross family income of $8,650, CS increases by $100; a gross family income of $9,150, CS increases only $43.

http://www.mass.gov/courts/docs/child-support/2012-task-force-report.pdf

http://www.mass.gov/courts/docs/child-support/economist-report.pdf

http://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/31/GuidelinesReview/AZChildSupportGuidelinesReviewFindingsfromCaseFileData082014RED.pdf

5

b) Four children, gross family income of $8,650, CS increases by $112; a gross family income of $9,150, CS increases only $48.

c) Five children, gross family income of $8,650, CS increases by $123; a gross family income of $9,150 CS increases only $52.

d) Six children, gross family income of $8,650, CS increases by $134; a gross family income of $9,150 CS increases only $57.

On pages 19-20 of the 2013 USDA Report, Expenditures on Children by Families;

“What is striking is the range in estimates resulting from the various studies. For one child, the estimates ranged between 21 to 32 percent of household expenditures being spent on the child; for two children, 31 to 47 percent; and for three children, 38 to 57 percent (almost a 20-percentage-point difference). When using the marginal cost method in estimating expenditures on children, a researcher’s choice of an equivalency scale is crucial because different measures yield different results. Even using the same equivalency measure can result in different estimates, depending on the years of data used and model specification. For example, the 2011 study based on the Rothbarth estimator found that for two-child families, 37 percent of total family expenditures went to goods and services for children (Judicial Council of California, 2011), while the 2008 study using the Rothbarth estimator found that 47 percent of expenditures went to goods and services for two children (McCaleb et al., 2008). The 2008 study found the Rothbarth estimator to be the most sensitive to underlying data and sample restrictions. Also, the 2011 study calls into question the validity of the Engel approach.”

The analysis from the USDA report clearly shows that the 2008 Rothbarth estimator, which was used to create BR4, yields an exaggerated CS value for families of multiple children.

From 2011 Child Support Guidelines;

two children cost on average 43.01% more than one child three children cost on average 66.45% more than one child (23.44% more than 2) four children cost on average 85.93% more than one child (19.48% more than 3) five children cost on average 104.52% more than one child (18.59% more than 4) six children cost on average 122.31% more than one child (17.79% more than 5)

6

From BR4 Proposed guidelines;

two children cost on average 50.91% more than one child three children cost on average 80.51% more than one child (29.60% more than 2) four children cost on average 101.64% more than one child (21.13% more than 3) five children cost on average 121.80% more than one child (20.16% more than 4) six children cost on average 141.10% more than one child (19.30% more than 5)

From USDA 2013 estimates;

two children cost on average 50% more than one child three children cost on average 75% more than one child (25% more than 2) four children cost on average 94% more than one child (25% more than 3) five children cost on average 109% more than one child (16% more than 4) six children cost on average 121% more than one child (11% more than 5)

The USDA estimates are considered as economic maximums, as the USDA estimates are based on all factors related to child rearing costs, including assumed medical costs, insurance costs, average educational costs between private and public education, child care costs, etc.. The AZ Child Support Schedule excludes child care costs, tuition costs and insurance costs thereby must always be below the USDA amounts.

The BR4 values clearly exceed the USDA values for families with multiple children. The negative impact of accepting the BR4 values is further amplified when one considers that the USDA estimates are based on intact, one-household families and the AZ Support Schedule is for non-intact families with dual households.

When the BR4 based Child Support Schedule is graphed over the range of family income levels, the bizarre nature of the BR4 formula becomes easier to see. An Appropriate Child Support formula would result in a smooth curve with no abrupt changes over the range of incomes. The 2011 CS graphs, shows some small inconsistencies at certain income levels, but overall are fairly uniform. The BR4 CS graphs clearly show large inconsistencies, abrupt changes in values and anything but a smooth curve. See graphs attached.

7

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

75

0

95

0

11

50

13

50

15

50

17

50

19

50

21

50

23

50

25

50

27

50

29

50

31

50

33

50

35

50

37

50

39

50

41

50

43

50

45

50

47

50

49

50

51

50

53

50

55

50

57

50

59

50

61

50

63

50

65

50

67

50

69

50

71

50

73

50

75

50

77

50

79

50

81

50

83

50

85

50

87

50

89

50

91

50

93

50

95

50

97

50

99

50

Bas

ic C

hild

Su

pp

ort

Existing CS vs BR4 - One Child$750/month to $10K/month

Existing CS

BR4

Gross Income

8

1000

1100

1200

1300

1400

1500

1600

1700

1800

10

05

0

10

30

0

10

55

0

10

80

0

11

05

0

11

30

0

11

55

0

11

80

0

12

05

0

12

30

0

12

55

0

12

80

0

13

05

0

13

30

0

13

55

0

13

80

0

14

05

0

14

30

0

14

55

0

14

80

0

15

05

0

15

30

0

15

55

0

15

80

0

16

05

0

16

30

0

16

55

0

16

80

0

17

05

0

17

30

0

17

55

0

17

80

0

18

05

0

18

30

0

18

55

0

18

80

0

19

05

0

19

30

0

19

55

0

19

80

0

Bas

ic C

hild

Su

pp

ort

Existing CS vs BR4 - One Child$10K/month to $20K/month

Existing CS

BR4

Gross Income

9

100

300

500

700

900

1100

1300

1500

1700

75

0

95

0

11

50

13

50

15

50

17

50

19

50

21

50

23

50

25

50

27

50

29

50

31

50

33

50

35

50

37

50

39

50

41

50

43

50

45

50

47

50

49

50

51

50

53

50

55

50

57

50

59

50

61

50

63

50

65

50

67

50

69

50

71

50

73

50

75

50

77

50

79

50

81

50

83

50

85

50

87

50

89

50

91

50

93

50

95

50

97

50

99

50

Bas

ic C

hild

Su

pp

ort

Existing CS vs BR4 - Two Children$750/month to $10K/month

Existing CS

BR4

Gross Income

10

1600

1700

1800

1900

2000

2100

2200

2300

2400

2500

2600

100…

103…

105…

108…

110…

113…

115…

118…

120…

123…

125…

128…

130…

133…

135…

138…

140…

143…

145…

148…

150…

153…

155…

158…

160…

163…

165…

168…

170…

173…

175…

178…

180…

183…

185…

188…

190…

193…

195…

198…

Bas

ic C

hild

Su

pp

ort

Existing CS vs BR4 - Two Children$10K/month to $20K/month

Existing CS

BR4

Gross Income

11

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

20007

50

10

00

12

50

15

00

17

50

20

00

22

50

25

00

27

50

30

00

32

50

35

00

37

50

40

00

42

50

45

00

47

50

50

00

52

50

55

00

57

50

60

00

62

50

65

00

67

50

70

00

72

50

75

00

77

50

80

00

82

50

85

00

87

50

90

00

92

50

95

00

97

50

10

00

0

Bas

ic C

hild

Su

pp

ort

Existing CS vs BR4 - Three Children$750/month to $10K/month

Existing CS

BR4

Gross Income

12

1800

2000

2200

2400

2600

2800

3000

3200

100…

103…

105…

108…

110…

113…

115…

118…

120…

123…

125…

128…

130…

133…

135…

138…

140…

143…

145…

148…

150…

153…

155…

158…

160…

163…

165…

168…

170…

173…

175…

178…

180…

183…

185…

188…

190…

193…

195…

198…

Bas

ic C

hild

Su

pp

ort

Existing CS vs BR4 - Three Children$10K/month to $20K/month

Existing CS

BR4

Gross Income

13

300

500

700

900

1100

1300

1500

1700

1900

2100

23007

50

95

0

11

50

13

50

15

50

17

50

19

50

21

50

23

50

25

50

27

50

29

50

31

50

33

50

35

50

37

50

39

50

41

50

43

50

45

50

47

50

49

50

51

50

53

50

55

50

57

50

59

50

61

50

63

50

65

50

67

50

69

50

71

50

73

50

75

50

77

50

79

50

81

50

83

50

85

50

87

50

89

50

91

50

93

50

95

50

97

50

99

50

Bas

ic C

hild

Su

pp

ort

Existing CS vs BR4 - Four Children$750/month to $10K/month

Existing CS

BR4

Gross Income

14

2100

2300

2500

2700

2900

3100

3300

10

05

0

10

30

0

10

55

0

10

80

0

11

05

0

11

30

0

11

55

0

11

80

0

12

05

0

12

30

0

12

55

0

12

80

0

13

05

0

13

30

0

13

55

0

13

80

0

14

05

0

14

30

0

14

55

0

14

80

0

15

05

0

15

30

0

15

55

0

15

80

0

16

05

0

16

30

0

16

55

0

16

80

0

17

05

0

17

30

0

17

55

0

17

80

0

18

05

0

18

30

0

18

55

0

18

80

0

19

05

0

19

30

0

19

55

0

19

80

0

Bas

ic C

hild

Su

pp

ort

Existing CS vs BR4 - Four Children$10K/month to $20K/month

Existing CS

BR4

Gross Income

15

300

500

700

900

1100

1300

1500

1700

1900

2100

2300

2500

75

0

95

0

11

50

13

50

15

50

17

50

19

50

21

50

23

50

25

50

27

50

29

50

31

50

33

50

35

50

37

50

39

50

41

50

43

50

45

50

47

50

49

50

51

50

53

50

55

50

57

50

59

50

61

50

63

50

65

50

67

50

69

50

71

50

73

50

75

50

77

50

79

50

81

50

83

50

85

50

87

50

89

50

91

50

93

50

95

50

97

50

99

50

Bas

ic C

hild

Su

pp

ort

Existing CS vs BR4 - Five Children$750/month to $10K/month

Existing CS

BR4

Gross Income

16

2300

2500

2700

2900

3100

3300

3500

3700

100…

103…

105…

108…

110…

113…

115…

118…

120…

123…

125…

128…

130…

133…

135…

138…

140…

143…

145…

148…

150…

153…

155…

158…

160…

163…

165…

168…

170…

173…

175…

178…

180…

183…

185…

188…

190…

193…

195…

198…

Bas

ic C

hild

Su

pp

ort

Existing CS vs BR4 - Five Children$10K/month to $20K/month

Existing CS

BR4

Gross Income

17

300

500

700

900

1100

1300

1500

1700

1900

2100

2300

2500

2700

75

0

95

0

11

50

13

50

15

50

17

50

19

50

21

50

23

50

25

50

27

50

29

50

31

50

33

50

35

50

37

50

39

50

41

50

43

50

45

50

47

50

49

50

51

50

53

50

55

50

57

50

59

50

61

50

63

50

65

50

67

50

69

50

71

50

73

50

75

50

77

50

79

50

81

50

83

50

85

50

87

50

89

50

91

50

93

50

95

50

97

50

99

50

Bas

ic C

hild

Su

pp

ort

Existing CS vs BR4 - Six Children$750/month to $10K/month

Existing CS

BR4

Gross Income

18

2500

2700

2900

3100

3300

3500

3700

3900

4100

100…

103…

105…

108…

110…

113…

115…

118…

120…

123…

125…

128…

130…

133…

135…

138…

140…

143…

145…

148…

150…

153…

155…

158…

160…

163…

165…

168…

170…

173…

175…

178…

180…

183…

185…

188…

190…

193…

195…

198…

Bas

ic C

hild

Su

pp

ort

Existing CS vs BR4 - Six Children$10K/month to $20K/month

Existing CS

BR4

Gross Income

Government & Nonprofit

Arizona child support Final public comments