P.O.P.S. v. Gardner – Child Support
P.O.P.S. v. Gardner, 998 F.2d 764 (9th Cir. 1993).
NATURE OF THE CASE: This family law case involved a dispute over the constitutionality of a Washington State Child Support Schedule.
FACTS: The United States Congress mandated that each state develop presumptive child support guidelines. Washington State created a task force to recommend a schedule and the schedule was passed into law. The schedule created support guidelines based on combined family net income and the number of children in the household. The basic support obligation is allocated between the parents based on each parent’s share of the family’s net income. Deviation from the schedule is permitted provided that written findings of fact to explain such a deviation are given.
The Washington based non-profit organization P.O.P.S. challenged the constitutionality of the schedule on the basis that it violated due process and equal protection and that it created an irrebuttable presumption that violated procedural due process. POPS claims that because the state has not revealed the underlying assumptions of the tables’ individual cost components, parents cannot demonstrate that the table under or overstates their basic support obligations. POPS argues that non-custodial parents cannot determine what percentage of their basic support obligation is deemed to be housing cost and therefore cannot determine the basis of fairness that is used. The district court held that the schedule is rebuttable and not unconstitutional and this appeal resulted.
ISSUE: Is an implementation of a substantive rule of law violative of procedural due process?
RULE OF LAW: No. An implementation of a substantive rule of law is not violative of procedural due process.
HOLDING AND DECISION: The economic tables at issue are an implementation of substantive law in that has declared it to be irrelevant whether the non-custodial parent actually spent more or less than that stated on the table to support their children prior to divorce. The table indicated what parents ought to spend. It is a substantive rule of law based on the determination that divorcing parents will be required to sustain their children at a certain standard of living determined by the parents’ income. The schedule therefore is not in violation of procedural due process.
POPS’s claim that the schedule violates the substantive due process rights of parents is based on the public policy notion that the schedule alienates non-custodial parents from their children, causes divorces between non-custodial parents and their new spouses, deters new marriages, and prevents non-custodial parents from having more children with their new spouses. The schedule does not directly interfere with family relationships although some non-custodial parents may feel discouraged because of obligations created by the schedule. The schedule does not discourage parents from spending time with their children and the schedule has provisions that allows deviation if such time is significant.
We cannot agree with POPS that the schedule is an irrational means of achieving the goals of achieving adequacy of child support, increasing the equity of the awards, and reducing the adversarial nature of the proceedings. As these presumptive levels are not arbitrary and are open to debate as dependent on policy and value judgments we must approve them as they pass the rationality test. As the schedule permits deviation for the children of non-custodial parents, the schedule does not discriminate against them.
DISPOSITION: Affirmed.