The Child Support Policy Game
Imagine a policy simulation game where you control child support levels with a slider. The game claims that the default setting, 100%, represents fair and necessary support for children. You can adjust the slider from 0% to 200%.
But here’s the twist: every time you move that slider—up or down—you harm children. Let me explain why.
The Core Ethical Claim
Changing the slider, even slightly, destabilizes families.
Moving the Slider Up:
- Parents who can't pay face jail.
Incarcerated parents can’t provide emotional or financial support. - Children lose access to a parent.
This absence creates lasting emotional trauma. - Families spiral into poverty.
Parents lose jobs and homes, further destabilizing households. - Mental health declines.
Both children and parents experience stress, anxiety, and depression. - Cycles of poverty and trauma deepen.
Overburdened families are trapped in generational harm.
Moving the Slider Down:
- Children in custodial households face deprivation.
Reduced payments mean fewer resources for basic needs. - More families fall into poverty.
Lower support forces custodial parents to rely on welfare. - Educational opportunities are missed.
Children in poverty are more likely to struggle academically. - Long-term development suffers.
Poorer health and fewer opportunities harm children’s futures. - Public systems absorb the burden.
Welfare and CPS budgets strain to cover unmet needs.
The Shocking Reality Check
The game’s dark twist? The "100%" setting isn't fair or realistic. It’s closer to 200% of real child-specific costs.
Real-World Test Case
Let’s analyze a real-world scenario based on an actual family budget:
- Income: $47,000/year (gross).
- Required Child Support: $1,041.67/month (a common obligation at this income level).
- Family Food Budget (4 people): $900/month.
The child-specific portion of support exceeds what an entire family spends on food.
To put it into perspective:
- The support obligation represents 26.7% of gross income and an even larger share of disposable income.
- This is before accounting for rent, utilities, transportation, or healthcare—expenses every family must pay.
This reveals a fundamental misalignment between what the system demands and what’s realistically sustainable.
The Calculation Shell Game
Child support obligations are inflated through flawed assumptions:
Using Gross Income Instead of Disposable Income:
Gross income ignores taxes, healthcare premiums, and other deductions.Ignoring Essential Costs:
Calculations disregard mortgage or rent, which are critical expenses for any household.Double-Counting Costs:
Non-child-specific expenses (like utilities and transportation) are unfairly attributed to children.Mandating Luxury Standards as Necessities:
Support obligations assume higher-than-average living standards.
Real Child-Specific Costs
What actually increases with children:
- Food costs (marginal increases, often mitigated by bulk purchases or cheaper options).
- Extra bedroom space (shared rooms are common).
- Clothing (secondhand options reduce costs).
- School supplies and basic entertainment.
- Incremental utility increases (e.g., water and laundry).
What doesn’t increase significantly:
- Housing, transportation, and other fixed costs.
Hidden Cost Reductions
Many costs are already offset by public assistance:
- Medicaid covers healthcare for low-income children.
- School meal programs reduce food expenses.
- Public education absorbs educational costs that might otherwise fall to parents.
Despite these supports, the system mandates payments as if no assistance exists.
The True Slider Position
Evidence shows that the default "100%" setting is really 200% of real child-specific costs. The system:
- Inflates obligations far beyond sustainable levels.
- Ignores the realities of actual family spending.
- Pretends mathematically impossible demands are reasonable.
The Human Cost
This miscalibration leads to devastating consequences:
- Parents face jail for failing to meet impossible demands.
- Children lose relationships with their noncustodial parents.
- Uncollectable arrears accumulate, forcing parents into underground economies.
- Both households are destabilized, creating cycles of trauma.
The very system designed to protect children destroys the families it claims to serve.
The Real Lesson
The game’s most powerful lesson isn’t about moving the slider—it’s about recognizing that the baseline is already broken. We’re not at "100%." We’re at 200%, and we’re calling it normal.
The only ethical move is to recalibrate the entire system by:
- Basing support on real marginal costs of children.
- Using disposable income instead of gross income.
- Setting sustainable payment levels that parents can realistically meet.
- Accounting for public assistance that already reduces many costs.
- Mandating necessities, not luxuries, as the standard.
Conclusion
Until we acknowledge these flaws, we perpetuate a system that guarantees failure, trauma, and family destruction—all while pretending it’s fair. The ethical choice isn’t about tweaking the slider—it’s about fixing the system itself. Only then can we truly support children and their families.
