Child support wage withholding and father–child contact: parental bargaining and salience effects
Past research on child support finds that father–child contact increases as support payments increase. Enforcement policies such as wage withholding also may affect father–child contact even when the amount of support paid is not affected if they change bargaining power between parents or the salience of fathers’ child support obligations. I develop a model of the salience of child support obligations which predicts that introduction of automatic withholding will reduce contact between noncustodial parents and children independent of payment amount. I then examine whether paying child support via wage withholding affects fathers’ frequency of contact with their children and their provision of in-kind support using instrumental variables and bounded OLS techniques for selection on unobservables. Withholding appears to decrease father–child contact. Withholding effects do not occur when payments are made to government agencies or courts but are present when payments go directly to the mother, consistent with bargaining models. More frequent payment schedules are associated with more contact, consistent with salience effects.
KeywordsChild support Father–child contact Payment method Salience Bargaining
JEL ClassificationD0 H7 I38 J1
I am very grateful to Charlie Brown, Brian Cadena, Adam Cole, Josh Congdon-Hohman, Sandy Danziger, Taryn Dinkelman, Naomi Feldman, Ann Ferris, Ben Keys, Joel Slemrod, Jeff Smith, two anonymous referees, and many seminar participants for helpful comments and suggestions, and Tim Marshall at the Census for data assistance. All errors and omissions are my own. This research was supported in part by a University of Michigan Rackham One-Term Dissertation Fellowship.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The author declares that she has no conflict of interest.
- Argys, L. M., Peters, E., Cook, S., Garasky, S., Neopmnyaschy, L., & Sorensen, E. (2007). Measuring contact between children and nonresident fathers. In S. L. Hofferth & L. M. Casper (Eds.), Handbook of measurement issues in family research (pp. 375–398). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Chetty, R. (2009). The simple economics of salience and taxation. In NBER working paper 15246.Google Scholar
- Comanor, W. S., & Phillips, L. (2002). The impact of income and family structure on delinquency. Journal of Applied Economics, 5(2), 209–232.Google Scholar
- DeNavas-Walt, C., & Proctor, B. D. (2014). Income and poverty in the United States: 2013, US Census Bureau, September, Current Population Reports, P60-249. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
- Furstenberg, F. F, Jr. (1992). Daddies and fathers: Men who do for their children and men who don’t. In F. F. Furstenberg Jr, K. Sherwood, & M. Sullivan (Eds.), Caring and paying: What mothers and fathers say about child support (pp. 34–56). New York: Manpower Research Demonstration Corporation.Google Scholar
- Gordon, A. R. (1994). Implementation of the income withholding and medical support provisions of the 1984 child support enforcement amendments. In I. Garfinkel, S. S. McLanahan, & P. K. Robins (Eds.), Child support and well-being (pp. 61–92). Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.Google Scholar
- King, V., Harris, K. M., & Heard, H. E. (2004). Racial and ethnic differences in nonresident father involvement. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 1–21.Google Scholar
- Lerman, R. I. (2002). Impacts of marital status and parental presence on the material hardship of families with children. Report to the US Department of Health and Human Services, Offices of Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.Google Scholar
- McLanahan, S. S., Seltzer, J. A., Hanson, T. L., & Thomson, E. (1994). Child support enforcement and child well-being: Greater security or greater conflict? In I. Garfinkel, S. S. McLanahan, & P. K. Robins (Eds.), Child support and child well-being (pp. 239–256). Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press.Google Scholar
- Office of Child Support Enforcement (2014). FY 2013 Preliminary Report, April 1. Available at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/css/resource/fy2013-preliminary-report.
- Oster, E. (2015). Unobservable selection and coefficient stability: Theory and evidence. In Working paper, Brown University.Google Scholar
- Raghubir, P., & Srivastava, J. (2008). Monopoly money: The effect of payment coupling and form on spending behavior. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 14(3), 213–225.Google Scholar
- Seltzer, J. (2000). Child support and child access: The experiences of marital and non-marital families. In J. T. Oldham & M. S. Melli (Eds.), Child support: The next frontier (pp. 69–87). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
- Seltzer, J., McLanahan, S. S., & Hanson, T. L. (1998). Will child support enforcement increase father–child contact and parental conflict after separatation? In I. Garfinkel, S. S. McLanahan, D. R. Meyer, & J. A. Seltzer (Eds.), Fathers under fire: The revolution in child support enforcement (pp. 157–190). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
- US Census Bureau (2013). “America’s Families and Living Arrangements: 2013. Table C2: Household Relationship And Living Arrangements Of Children Under 18 Years, By Age And Sex: 2013.” Available at http://www.census.gov/hhes/families/data/cps2013C.html.
- Zhang, Y. (2013). Consumption responses to pay frequency: Evidence from ‘Extra’ Paychecks. In Working paper, Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, November 7.Google Scholar