Abstract
One of the most formidable problems in mediation is to help a couple resolve an issue when there is not a ready yardstick to apply. If the issue is how long the wife should be permitted to live in the marital residence, and if the children are in their early teens, their graduation from high school, or at least college, will often appear to be a logical date, even if the wife may wish to live in the home longer, or the husband would like to see it sold sooner. But if the question is the amount of child support, a ready yardstick is not as easy to be found? On the face of it, it would seem sensible to say that the payment should reflect the children’s needs and each of the parties’ abilities to meet those needs. But how do you determine those needs? And how do you measure that ability?
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
See, Thomas J. Espenshade, investing in Children, (Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute Press, 1984), Chapter 2, at 11-16.
Social Security Act, section 467 (codified as 42 U.S.C. ∫ 667 et. seq.).
Espenshade, Investing In Children, Supra.
The study was based on 8,547 husband/wife families taken from the 1972–1973 consumer expenditure survey conducted by the United States Bureau of the Census on behalf of the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
In private mediation the overwhelming majority of couples will fit into this category.
The study assumed that the wives in each group had the same education as their husbands.
In every instance, where the couple had more than one child, the expenses for the first child were greater than for the second, and the second greater than for the third. Thus, the expenditure here was $99.89 per week for the first child, $91.98 per week for the second and $88.78 per week for the third. Espenshade, Investing In Children, at 26.
Id, at 28.
Id, at 3.
Id.
Id, at 4.
Id, at 35.
Id, at 41.
Id, at 48.
Id, at 5.
While this fact may not be readily apparent, it should be from the very classification of children into these various socioeconomic groups. It is also apparent from the different expenditures made for each of the children in the same group. How can we say, for example, that the needs of a child in a one-child family are greater than the needs of each of the children in a two-or three-child family, or that the needs of the third child in a three-child family are not as great as the needs of the first child? Yet if needs are predicated on expenditures, that is the conclusion we are drawn to by Espenshade’s study. Nor can you solve the problem by rejecting Espenshade’s apportionment, and by saying that the amount spent on each of the children in a two or three child family is equal, and not disproportionate as he maintains. If we do that for the first two children in a three-child family, for example, then that logic leads to the inevitable conclusion that their needs decrease when their parents have a third child, since averaging in the expenditures made for the third child will reduce the average.
Espenshade, Investing In Children, at 2.
Id.
Id, at 19.
Id, at 1.
Id, at 5.
Id.
Id.
Id.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1990 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Marlow, L., Sauber, S.R. (1990). The Cost of Raising a Child. In: The Handbook of Divorce Mediation. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-2495-7_23
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-2495-7_23
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-1-4899-2497-1
Online ISBN: 978-1-4899-2495-7
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive