Children and Divorce: Overview and
Analysis
Richard E. Behrman and Linda Sandham
Quinn
Over the past two decades, more than one million children
each year have experienced a family divorce, and the proportion of children
affected by divorce is expected to grow substantially in the twenty-first
century. Most of these children experience significant changes in their living
arrangements, and the poverty rate for children of divorce is about twice the
rate for all children in the
Introduction
(2 of 7)
In the
Divorce receives a great deal of attention in the
professional and academic literature as well as in other media. The journal's
goal is not to repeat this literature, but rather to highlight key issues in
divorce that are particularly significant for the well-being of children. These
issues include the actual process of divorce, custody and visitation decisions,
and the financial support of children following divorce, all of which we focus
on in this Overview and Analysis. However, it is important first to appreciate
the dimensions of divorce in this nation: how many children are affected by
divorce, who they are, what living arrangements are
made for them, and how these arrangements relate to other major trends in
domestic situations for children. It is also helpful to put this problem in
historic perspective. And of great import is the need to appreciate what is
known and not known about the impact of divorce itself on the psychological and
emotional development of children.
About 26% of all children under 18 years of age (17
million) live with a divorced parent, a separated parent, or a stepparent,
according to the most recent available data (1988) summarized by Shiono and Quinn. In 1990, about 9.5% of all children (6
million) were living with a divorced single parent. In comparison, 7.7% (4.9
million) were living with a single, never-married parent. About 90% of these
single parents are mothers. Generally, when single-parent families are compared
by race, significantly higher proportions of white children are found to be
living with divorced or separated mothers, and African-American children are
found to be living with never-married mothers.
The trends in marriage, divorce, remarriage, and
out-of-wedlock births which have resulted in these living arrangements for
children are analyzed and discussed in the articles by Shiono
and Quinn and by Furstenberg. Since the mid-1940s, annual first-marriage rates
have declined from about 14% to about 7% of single women. In addition, between
the 1960s and 1980s, the proportion of women marrying after becoming pregnant
declined by about 50%, and the number of unmarried couples living in the same
household increased fourfold. In general, women today are marrying at older
ages, and African- American women are less likely to marry than white women.
Divorce rates have been increasing since the 1860s (about
10 per 1,000 married women per year), although there have been considerable
fluctuations over the decades. There was a peak after World War II (24 per
1,000), followed by a trough in the 1950s (15 per 1,000). Through the 1970s,
the rates rose dramatically to reach an all-time high of 40 per 1,000. Divorce
rates have leveled off since the late 1980s (37 per 1,000 in 1988); however, at
least 40% of young adult women today are likely to divorce sometime in their
lives. An increase in divorce rates during the early years of marriage has
resulted in a higher proportion of divorces occurring among parents with young
children. Many believe the increased employment of married women outside the
home has been a significant concomitant societal change related to the divorce
rate (see the article by Furstenberg). This relationship is probably not a
causal one in which either divorce or employment outside the home has caused
the other, but rather a complex one in which both employment and divorce are
influenced by an entire spectrum of social changes as well as by each other.
The rate of employment of married women with preschool children has been
particularly noteworthy; it rose from 11% in 1949 to 58% in 1988. Economic
stress and deprivation also increase the risk of divorce.
Remarriage and the resulting restructured family have
important consequences for many children. In the late 1960s, remarriage rates
soared to an all-time high. Sixty percent of white women whose marriage ended
in divorce between 1965 and 1984 had remarried by 1988. This was almost twice
the rate occurring among divorced African-American women. Today, at least 30%
of young adult women who divorce are likely to remarry. In general, younger
women are more likely to remarry than older women, although this age
differential does not occur among divorced men. During the first few years of
remarriage, the risk of divorce is increased over that of first marriages.
Similar trends in marriage, divorce, remarriage, and
cohabitation have occurred in many population subgroups in this country and
Western
Given that more than a quarter of all children in the
United States have experienced the divorce or separation of their parents and
that, at current divorce rates, this proportion is expected to grow to 40%,
careful attention must be given to the direct effects of divorce on children.
Perhaps the most obvious effects are changes in children's living situations
and economic status. In 1991, 39% of divorced women with children lived in
poverty, and 55% of those with children under six years of age were poor (see
the article by Teachman and Paasch).
In this same year, the poverty rate for all children was 22%. These issues are
reviewed below in the context of custody and child support. There is also
related and crucial concern about the effects of divorce on children's
emotional and psychological well-being, and on their successful development and
transition to adulthood.
Divorce and events related to divorce, including marital
conflict and separation, are almost universally very stressful events in the
life of a child. Most children exhibit a variety of signs of disturbance in the
months after the separation, including anxiety, sadness, anger, aggression, noncompliance, sleep disturbances, and disrupted
concentration at school. The length of this initial period of distress varies
from child to child. Most children adapt reasonably successfully after this
initial period, and most apparently evidence no long-term ill effects. However,
children who experience divorce, as compared with children in continuously
intact two-parent families, are at somewhat greater risk for symptoms of
psychological maladjustment, behavior and social problems, negative self-image,
and low academic achievement (see the article by Amato). Similarly, when
comparing these two groups as adults, those adults who experienced parental
divorce as children are more likely to evidence poorer psychological
adjustment, lower socioeconomic attainment, and greater marital instability.
However, the differences between the two groups, either as children or as
adults, with respect to these untoward effects seem, in light of current
research, to be small.
Further, there is considerable variation in each
individual child's reaction to divorce: an affected child's psychological
well-being can range from poorer to better than it was before divorce.
Variables that are believed to account for children's adjustment to divorce
include the amount and nature of involvement of the noncustodial
parent, the custodial parent's adjustment to divorce and his or her parenting
skills, interparental conflict before and after
divorce, economic hardship, and other life stresses (for example, moving,
changing schools, parental remarriage). Little is known about how these factors
interact to affect a child's response to divorce, what the variations are in
the response to divorce among children of different ethnic and racial
backgrounds, what the long-term effects are on individual children, and how
various legal and therapeutic interventions influence the outcomes for
children.
Knowledge about the effects of marital conflict and
divorce on children is limited by both the quantity and quality of available
research. It is difficult to design and carry out research projects involving
these families. Long-term follow-up studies are especially problematic.
Further, there is a paucity of funding for such investigations.
Although many children adjust well to divorce without the
need for therapeutic intervention, a minority have significant adjustment
problems which warrant counseling. Interparental
conflict after divorce (characterized by verbal and physical aggression, overt
hostility, and distrust) and a high level of custodial parent emotional
distress place children at high risk for emotional and behavioral maladjustment
and disturbed parent-child relationships (see the articles by Amato and by Johnston).
In general, evaluations of therapeutic intervention programs for children
having adjustment problems related primarily to divorce have been favorable,
although only a small number of studies are available. There is need for more
research to improve the efficacy of treatment of these children.
Marriage and the Process of Divorce
(3 of 7)
The trends in divorce law, division of labor between
husband and wife in marriage, the family's right to privacy, and the family's
responsibility for children have changed significantly over the past four
decades. Laws and public policy relating to marriage and divorce, reflecting
some of these changes, have gradually moved away from the concept of marriage
as a state-sanctioned, husband-dominated, hierarchical institution, toward the
view of marriage as an economic partnership of autonomous individuals, although
not necessarily of equals (see the article by Katz). Under the earlier concept,
a divorce was granted only after an often adversarial adjudication to find one
party at fault for having done something wrong during the marriage, such as
being cruel or adulterous. Katz indicates that all 50 states have now enacted
some changes in divorce laws to incorporate the more recent concept,
that is, over the past 40 years, states have generally expanded the
grounds for divorce and simplified the process of terminating a marriage. Most
states now grant "no-fault" divorces, but only a few states have
entirely done away with fault as a basis for divorce.
There is controversy about some of the effects of these
widespread changes in divorce laws (see the articles by Furstenberg and by
Katz). To the degree that no-fault divorce has decreased the acrimony and
hostility between spouses, as is generally believed to be the case, children
have benefitted. There is, however, a difference of
opinion as to whether laws permitting no-fault divorce have increased the
divorce rate. The advent of no-fault divorce legislation is associated with
increased divorce rates in some states but not in others. However, an increase
in marital disruption preceded the change in public opinion favoring more
liberal divorce laws, and the laws enacted were, in part, a response to public
demand and also may have engendered some demand for divorce (see the article by
Furstenberg).
Much of the current emphasis in divorce law is on defining
the marital assets and determining how they should be distributed to the economic
partners of the shared enterprise of marriage when it is terminated. Katz
points out that changes in statutory law have, to a
certain extent, limited judicial discretion as to this distribution and given
more consideration to the noncash contributions of
wives and to the financial needs of children. Although there is difference of
opinion as to whether no-fault divorce systematically favors one spouse over
the other, there is no question that, despite changes in the law, divorce
itself has greater negative social and financial effects on women than on men
(see the articles by Teachman and Paasch,
by Carbone, and by Thompson).
The increased demand for and availability of divorce have
focused attention on the dramatic rise in the financial costs of divorce and
some of the serious limitations of terminating a family relationship in a court
setting using a judicially managed adversarial process (see below).
Alternatives to traditional divorce proceedings include summary dissolutions
(where children are not involved) and simplified divorce procedures (also
called summary process or divorce by mutual consent). These
streamlined procedures are being used in a few states because they are more
expeditious and less costly for both the parties and the court system than
traditional divorce procedures (see the article by Katz).
Divorce through mediation is another alternative for
making decisions about property division, spousal maintenance (alimony), child
support, and custody. Most states have laws encouraging or requiring mediation
to resolve conflicts over child custody and visitation rights. The advantages
of mediation over adversarial proceedings are lower costs and, what is more
important, the direct involvement of the parties speaking for themselves and
actively participating in the decisions affecting children for whom they share
concern. However, unfair agreements can result if spouses possess unequal
bargaining or negotiating power or skills. All of these alternatives to an
adversarial divorce proceeding deserve critical evaluation. Unfortunately,
little research on these issues is currently available.
Of primary importance, there is need for education about
divorce (see the article by Kelly). Parents need to be educated about the
effects of family conflict on children. They need a range of educational and mediational services to diminish rather than escalate
conflicts, to focus on what is best for their children at various developmental
stages, and to increase the chance for mutual agreement between parents about
custody, visitation, and the financial arrangements for their children.
Educational and mediational services should be
available to prevent divorce. Not only parents, but judges, lawyers, and
mediators involved in determining the best interest of a child need a better
appreciation of child development, including information about attachment,
separation anxiety, the importance of continuity and nurturing relationships
between children and adults, and the needs of children during and after
divorce. The costs of education about divorce need to be planned for and funded.
Custody and Visitation
(4 of 7)
Because the well-being of a child is critically dependent
on parenting received from adults throughout childhood, the issues of custody
and of continuing relationships with the noncustodial
parent after divorce are of paramount importance (see the article by Thompson).
Historically in the
As Kelly and Furstenberg discuss, this shift in preference
to the mother reflected and was reinforced by a number of societal changes.
These included a gender-based division of family responsibilities in which the
father was viewed as the wage earner and the mother was viewed as the child
nurturer, primarily as a consequence of the industrial revolution, which caused
fathers to seek work away from home; an improvement in the legal status of
women; psychoanalytic theory arguing for the unique role of a mother as love
object; and research on the development of infant attachment to mothers.
The maternal presumption for custody remained firm until
the 1960s and 1970s when there began a transition to gender-neutral laws (see
the article by Kelly). This change was influenced by the entry of large numbers
of women into the work force, the gradual realignment of some gender roles
within the family, the increased divorce rate, fathers' claims of sex
discrimination in custody decisions, the feminist movement, and psychological
research on the importance of a child's attachment to both parents and the
father's continuing contribution to his child's development. Kelly further
points out that the idea of basing custody decisions on the child's needs and
interests is a relatively new one that emerged about 20 years ago and
eventually became embodied in the "best interests" of the child
standard. Subsequently, support for the related idea of awarding joint custody
to both parents evolved rapidly so that, by 1991, almost all states had
recognized this latter concept in some form.
The prevailing standard for courts to determine custody is
the "best interests of the child." We concur with Kelly that it is
the most appropriate legal standard for making decisions in custody disputes
because it is "centered on children's developmental and psychological
needs rather than parental demands, societal stereotypes, or legal
tradition." Under this standard, there is a case-by-case determination of
the best way to meet the unique needs of each child. This process is also
potentially responsive to changing social or legal trends outside custody law.
For courts to make the best custody judgment with respect to the child's needs,
this standard should employ multiple variables about the family, such as
information about the loving and emotional relationships between parents and
child, information about the parents' mental and physical health, the child's
age and developmental stage, and the pattern and quality of the primary
caretaking arrangements. Unfortunately, this approach can result in a lack of
uniformity from one case to the next about the weight given to these different
variables and how to take into account children's changing developmental needs.
However, on balance, the advantages of using "the best interests of the
child" standard appear to outweigh the disadvantages of relying on a
single more uniform standard such as a determination of the "primary
caretaker" during the marriage (also see the articles by Carbone and by Thompson).
Exactly what custody arrangements are being decided upon
and implemented in divorce decrees is difficult to determine nationally because
of considerable variation in definition of legal, physical, and joint custody
among the states and difficulty in collecting data from individual divorce
decrees (see the article by Kelly). Joint legal and sole maternal physical
custody is probably the most common legal arrangement, followed by awarding
sole legal and physical custody to the mother. Only 10% to 15% of divorced
fathers have their children living with them more than half of the time. Thus,
mothers continue to be primarily responsible for their children during marriage
and after divorce, although shared physical custody arrangements and paternal
visitation time are increasing.
The majority of these arrangements are made by private
agreement between parents when parents are unable to agree on their own, and nonadversarial mediation is increasingly being utilized.
Research does not support the concern of some commentators that mothers are
systematically disadvantaged in such forums (see the articles by Katz, by
Kelly, and by Carbone). Mediation has significantly
reduced the use of adversarial proceedings with their high financial costs and
often substantial disruption of the lives of children and parents. Kelly points
out that, at whatever level custody decisions are made, they are subject to
powerful statutory, judicial, cultural, educational, and research influences.
Efforts to educate parents, attorneys, and judges about the impact of divorce
and conflict on children and the needs of children for continuity in the
relationships with fathers and mothers should be priorities, even though the
effectiveness of such efforts is unknown.
As mentioned, access of the noncustodial
parent, usually the father, to the children through visitation has increased
over the past two decades. Although no general relationship has been found
between visit frequency and lack of the adjustment problems of children to
divorce in the near term, some studies suggest that continued involvement of fathers
with their children after divorce is beneficial to the children under certain
circumstances (see the articles by Amato and by Thompson). There is, in
addition, a definite economic advantage to continued
paternal involvement as it is associated with an increased likelihood of
payment of child support. More research, however, is needed on the long-term
effects on children of continuing contact with the noncustodial
parent.
After the divorce decree and custody award are final,
modifications of child custody and visitation arrangements are sometimes needed
to adapt to the changing circumstances of parents, and to the changing
developmental needs of children, including their own wishes. Adjustments to
custody and visitation arrangements should be able to be made in a timely and
inexpensive manner. Custody and visitation arrangements are obviously in the
best interest of children when they facilitate effective coparenting.
Mediation should be widely available and mandatory, with
certain exceptions, as the initial step for all parents disputing or modifying
child custody and access arrangements before continuing adversarial
proceedings, but settlement of the disputes via mediation should not be
mandatory (see the articles by Katz, by Carbone, and
by Thompson). Mediation results in 50% to 75% settlement rates,
and the costs are substantially less than with litigation. Those who mediate
are more likely to reach an agreement than those who do not mediate (which, in
part, reflects self-selection), and both parents are more likely to be
satisfied with the agreement than those who litigate. However, exceptions to
required mediation are needed for those who are unable or afraid to negotiate
on their own behalf, such as women subjected to or at risk of domestic violence,
families in which there has been child neglect or abuse, parents who are
substance abusers, and parents who are mentally incapacitated. Racial, ethnic,
cultural, and socioeconomic factors also need to be taken into consideration in
structuring fair and effective mediation policies, procedures, and safeguards.
Further, mediators (including attorneys) need specialized training and
experience in divorce and custody matters, in assessing domestic violence, and
in the process of mediation itself.
Mediation up to this point has not generally been
available to resolve the financial disputes of divorce, with most states
requiring that financial matters be settled in a separate proceeding. However,
as Katz points out, with the adoption of federal guidelines for child support
by states, the custody and financial conflicts become more closely linked.
These guidelines also reduce the potential for bargaining inequities in which
women may feel the need to reduce their child support demands to avoid losing
custody. Simple support matters might also lend themselves most appropriately
to the mediation process.
The Financial Consequences of Divorce and
the Support of Children
(5 of 7)
The primary social and financial responsibility for
children in the
Divorce results in a significant decline in the income of
women compared with that of men after divorce. However, there is some
improvement in the economic well-being of divorced women if remarriage occurs
relative to the divorced state (see the article by Teachman
and Paasch). Family income after divorce drops on the
average by more than 20% and, as previously indicated, a substantial number of
divorced women with custody of children live in poverty (39%). Poverty is not
only more prevalent in these families, but it starts immediately after marital
disruption, and it lasts longer than for two-parent families living in poverty.
The substantial increase in the percentage of mother-child
families living below the poverty line following divorce results, in part, from
the fact that a large fraction of these families were close to the poverty line
as intact families before divorce. This situation occurs in a larger proportion
of African-American families because they generally have lower income levels.
Conversely, in single-parent families, the substantial
increase in family income with remarriage is immediate and significantly
reduces the incidence of poverty. The current trend of lower remarriage rates
probably increases the duration of poverty, but the countervailing trend for
increased cohabitation of unmarried parents may decrease the poverty rate.
Teachman and Paasch
point out that employment of divorced mothers may not be "an
effective buffer against economic deprivation." The number of mothers with
children who are employed outside the home increases after divorce, but the
average amount they earn declines, although it constitutes about 60% of women's
postdivorce income. Over time the proportion of these
working mothers declines to just above what it was
before marriage disruption. As discussed by Teachman
and Paasch, this decline is probably the result of a
number of factors, including lack of prior continuous work experience;
employment in low-status and part-time jobs, usually without career advancement
opportunities; low wages; discrimination against single mothers in the
workplace; the costs and constraints of child care; and the availability of
public assistance benefits, especially those that erode with earned income.
Public assistance plays a substantial role in the
financial well-being of divorced women and children. Immediately
following divorce, the number of children living in families receiving public
assistance through the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program
doubles and the number receiving food stamps triples. These numbers
continue to increase slightly over time. According to Teachman and Paasch, the
proportion of average family income constituted by these benefits increases
from 18% before divorce to 25% to 30% after divorce. These benefits go
to those most in need. Mothers in the lowest third of the income distribution
before divorce are 18 times more likely to receive these benefits after divorce
than those in the highest third of income distribution before divorce.
Taken together, the major cash (such as AFDC and earned
income tax credits) and noncash (such as food stamps,
Medicaid, and housing subsidies) public assistance programs are critical to
decreasing the effects of poverty on divorced women who are awarded child
custody, although many of these families remain in poverty even after these
benefits are taken into account. However, these programs were not intended to
provide long-term support for raising children. They are based on the premise
that this responsibility remains with both parents. Thus, child support from
the noncustodial father is central to maintaining the
financial status of children after divorce and also has a significant effect on
welfare costs.
Historically, state laws have established the responsibility
of the noncustodial parent to provide child
support under general guidelines of reasonableness, delegating the
implementation to local courts (see the article by Garfinkel,
Melli, and Robertson). State court judges were given
considerable discretion in determining what constituted an adequate amount of
money for noncustodial child support and in approving
the support settlements negotiated by the parties' lawyers. These private
agreements were usually approved. The rules which judges developed focused on
the needs of the child and on the ability of the noncustodial
parent to pay. However, the application of these rules and the exercise of
judicial discretion resulted in considerable variation in the awards from case
to case, even given similar family circumstances. Furthermore, these awards
have generally been regarded as inadequate to cover a fair share of the
reasonable costs of raising the children.
In contrast to this traditional approach to child support,
as a result of federal legislation passed in 1984 and 1988, court-ordered child
support awards over the past decade have had to conform to standardized
numerical formula guidelines or judges have had to provide appropriate reasons
for deviation from the standards. This federal legislation was enacted, in
part, to have more child support (including available medical insurance)
provided by the noncustodial parent, usually the
father, and to contain the growing costs of the AFDC program. The states were
required to adopt a numerical formula guideline to determine the amount of
child support awarded as a condition for receiving federal funds for their AFDC
programs and were authorized to initiate automatic wage withholding for AFDC
cases. States were also authorized to withhold wages of noncustodial
parents to provide child support in non-AFDC cases starting in 1994.
Almost all of the states have adopted variants of one of
two approaches for income sharing between custodial and noncustodial
parents to support their children: either the income shares formula or the
percentage of income formula, both of which are discussed in the article by Garfinkel, Melli, and Robertson.
Issues which receive special attention are the inclusion of actual child care
costs in support awards; the provision for ordinary and extraordinary medical
care expenditures; the treatment of higher education costs; the way in which
child support orders are updated for changing child needs and parental income;
the ways in which remarriage and multiple support obligations are taken into
account; and the effect of dual residence on child support obligations.
Even with the implementation of federal guidelines for
determining awards, substantial problems persist. Child support awards continue
to be small, much less than the reasonable costs of child rearing, and the
pattern of payments is often irregular (see the articles by Teachman
and Paasch, and by Roberts). The average amount of
support received by divorced mothers in 1989 was $3,138 per year for a family
with an average of slightly more than 1.5 children. In addition, the receipt of
support payments declines over time. Further, a large
proportion (28%) of divorced mothers do not have a child support award
at all. Of the 72% who do have awards, 25% do not receive any payment.
Nevertheless, the receipt of child support payments, even at a low level, can
make a significant difference in the economic well-being of divorced low-income
mothers with children. In 1989, although child support payments represented 17%
of the total income of all divorced mothers who received them, they made up 38%
of the total income of divorced mothers and children living in poverty because
of their low income.
As discussed by Teachman and Paasch, research to determine how much child support absent
fathers can reasonably afford to pay suggests they can afford three to four
times the amounts they are currently paying or two to three times what they are
currently obligated to pay under child support awards. If this increase were
received by custodial parents, children would be benefited economically and,
possibly, by the absent father's increased involvement in their lives (see the
article by Thompson). However, a substantial reduction in welfare cost would
not necessarily result because payments would not be distributed equally among
divorced mothers; those at higher income levels are more likely to receive a
greater proportion of the increased payments.
All mothers, whether divorced or never married, who have
custody of their children may be awarded child support. However, about 42% of
all custodial mothers and 56% of all poor custodial mothers are not awarded
child support. The reasons for the absence of awards are varied and include a
mother's decision not to pursue an award, often to get custody without dispute;
privately arranged settlements for support; inability to establish paternity or
locate the known father; and the inability of the father to pay or the mother
to afford the costs of legal proceedings to enforce awards. Marital status is
the most important factor in being awarded child support; as noted above, 72%
of mothers who were married receive child support awards on divorce while only
24% of never-married mothers receive support awards from their children's
biological father. However, having a court-ordered award, which is an important
determinant in obtaining payment from many fathers, does not guarantee payment.
Payment compliance, which is not public and somewhat insulated from normative
and legal pressures, is highly dependent on the father's motivation and ability
to pay. Teachman and Paasch,
Garfinkel and colleagues, and Roberts analyze a
number of additional factors that have a significant influence on mothers'
obtaining awards and receiving payment. The children of low-income women,
whether divorced or never married, are especially disadvantaged under the
present system of obtaining support from a noncustodial
father.
The enforcement of child support award orders
presents additional problems such as locating the noncustodial
parent, serving legal papers on the parent, scheduling timely hearings,
undertaking discovery, obtaining and implementing health insurance orders, and
collecting arrears in payments (see the articles by Roberts, by Carbone, and by Thompson). The inadequacies of the current
enforcement system have obvious serious consequences for the specific children
who would have been the immediate beneficiaries of the awards that are not
paid. They also have broader policy implications by contributing to the
increasing number of children who live in poverty and the untoward effect of
this trend on our society.2
Roberts makes a number of very specific recommendations to
strengthen some aspects of the state system and suggests complementary federal
responsibilities. We believe a number of these changes could be beneficial. At
the state level, these include offering parents easy means to routinely
establish paternity of newborn infants and children by voluntary agreement;
streamlining the legal processes for determining contested paternity at low
cost, including the provision of appropriate genetic testing; developing a
greater capacity to locate parents through access to federal records such as
tax returns and a sharing of this database among all the states; having the
states continue to be responsible for establishing and modifying custody,
visitation, and child support orders but requiring that a national guideline be
used as a rebuttable presumption of the level of
child support to be paid; and requiring states to deal with interstate cases under
the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA) that has been approved by the
National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws.
At the federal level, Roberts recommends adoption of a
national guideline, percentage of income, to determine the economic
contribution of the noncustodial parent because of
its basic fairness and ease of administration and because it does not create
work disincentives. In addition, she proposes the creation of a national
registry for child support orders within the Internal Revenue Service (IRS);
the gradual transfer of responsibility for enforcement of child support orders
from the states to the IRS; and the authorization of the IRS to withhold wages
for child support, collect quarterly payments from the self-employed for child
support, and routinely apply all of the other IRS collection mechanisms against
those who do not pay. The IRS would also be charged with the responsibility for
keeping records and dispensing payment to custodial parents.
All of the efforts to increase the number of child support
awards, have the amount of the awards represent an appropriate contribution
toward the costs of caring for children, and assure payment of awards will
accomplish little when the noncustodial parent does
not earn enough to make the required payments. A direct government payment to
make up the difference between what the noncustodial parent can reasonably be required to pay and a basic level
of child support has been proposed. This idea is usually incorporated in what
is referred to as a Child Support Assurance program (see the articles by Teachman and Paasch, by Garfinkel and colleagues, and by Roberts). This difficult
and controversial issue also needs to be considered within the context of
providing financial support for neverdivorced
families who live in or near poverty. Poor divorced families are a special
subset of this problem because of the complex state and federal systems which
currently exist to provide support for these children. Thus, child support
assurance relates closely to a variety of proposals for welfare reform, job
training, and creation of employment opportunities. It should not be considered
in isolation.
Conclusion
(6 of 7)
As discussed in this analysis, divorce and separation of
parents affect millions of children in the
Richard E. Behrman
End Notes
(7 of 7)