Massachusetts Child Support Guidelines and Shared Parenting: Skewed Results with a Literal "Average" (Part Seven of Ten)

As I began to explore in Part Six, the 2013 Massachusetts Child Support Guidelines formula for the intermediate, shared parenting category, of 33-50 percent of parenting time, is quite poorly conceived and drafted, in that it does not specify the use of a negative number in computing the "average" where it is an average of transfers by different parents one to the other.  Literally interpreted, the formula works well, and as designed, in all cases in which the parent with less parenting time also has a higher income.

Where it doesn't work, and the results skew in the wrong direction, in a manner contrary to the rationale of the guidelines, is in the case where the parent with less parenting time also has a lower income. This was an oversight by the guidelines committee, who probably failed even to consider that situation, and most certainly failed to test the formula for that situation.  Such an oversight is unfortunate, as the lesser-time parent who most needs the "break" or "credit" for extra time is the parent who makes less income than the primary custodial parent.  But under a literal interpretation of the guidelines (and particularly the term "average"), the literal results obtained for such a parent are absurd as the effect could be to punish rather than reward the extra time.

In many cases, results under the literal average approach would be laughably ridiculous. Take this example: A couple with one child mediate their divorce, and decide Mother will have 40 percent of the parenting time and Father 60 percent. The available weekly income, after deductions, is $4500 for Father and $200 for Mother. Mother would pay $22/week to Father if he had sole custody (one third/two thirds split), Father would pay Mother $730/week if she had sole custody, and Father would pay Mother $708/week if they had equal time. With their actual 40/60 split, the literal average calculation would be $365. If the parent with less time must pay, that would mean Mother would need to pay Father $365 per week, nearly double her available income of $200! If instead we used my proposed negative sign (which should have been explicitly included in the formula) to compute the average and allowed the parent with more time to pay, we would get a much more reasonable payment from Father to Mother of $343, the perfect compromise between putative transfers in opposite directions.

It is not only in such extreme examples, but in all cases involving a parent with both less parenting time and less income, that use of the second cross-calculation with a literal average will skew in the wrong direction, as will be demonstrated in charts in the next blog in this series. Under a literal interpretation of average and a requirement that the parent with less time always pays, parents with both less time and less income would actually have a disincentive to gain more than 33 but less than 50 percent of the parenting time, as they could pay more that way, sometimes way more. In fact, they would do well to have exactly 33 percent, as they could pay more both if their time were one percent less (through upward deviation) and if it were one percent more!

One solution to this problem is to interpret the guidelines to allow the person with less time and income to receive child support from the richer, primary custodial parent, as would automatically occur if we used the negative sign as I propose to compute the average of putative transfers from different payors to each other. Guidelines calculations flow logically from the rationale of the shared-income model. The method is to add together the parents’ available incomes, then deem a portion as shared support, and finally allocate from one parent to the other relative to income. That basic approach suggests such an outcome is possible, fair and logical; furthermore, it comports with the preamble’s goal that “to the extent either parent enjoys a higher standard of living” the child should be “entitled to enjoy that higher standard.”

A second solution would be instead to deviate from, and effectively ignore, all calculations where payments from different payors are to be averaged. Effectively ignoring the literal average, perhaps by deviating in all these cases using the explicit disproportionality provision, might be the more reasonable course, as the real problem is that the guidelines failed to account for this particular situation.  There were economists who advised the guidelines committee, but they appeared to have done so only before the guidelines committee deliberated and wrote the new guidelines (this time, the committee was a small group of a few judges and lawyers who work in the system, and there were no economists or accountants serving directly on the committee, as there had been for the previous guidelines committee that created the 2009 Guidelines), and so this glaring mistake was not caught before the guidelines were completed and became final and effective.

However we interpret the new provisions, problematic policy implications will persist. There may be unwelcome incentives to manipulate the dependent variables of child support and parenting time to influence the other, especially while these new provisions remain murky. Perverse incentives and consequences may always exist to some degree in any child support scheme. Our goal should then be to give direction that is as clear, predictable and fair as possible, to guide parents to a result in their children’s best interests.   This unfortunate provision for the "average" is just one of a number of provisions in the 2013 Guidelines - as discussed in the last several blogs in this series - whose lack of clarity and predictability may cause more problems than they solve.

*****************************************************

 In Part Eight, I will further analyze and explore effects of the 2013 Guidelines through the use of charts.

For information about Massachusetts divorce and family law, see the divorce and family law page of my law firm website.

Massachusetts Child Support Guidelines and Shared Parenting: Wrestling With Those Puzzling Provisions of the 2013 Guidelines (Part Six of Ten)

In Part Five, I began to discuss the puzzling new provisions of our current 2013 Guidelines and ended with the presentation of what I see as seven inter-related and overlapping issues, which I will further examine in this part using a recent court case as an example.  First, a short restatement of those basic seven issues (for a more detailed description of these issues themselves, see Part Five again):

1. How do we count parenting time to arrive at percentages?
2. When and how should we deviate when the noncustodial parent has less than 33 percent?
3. What does "approximately equally" mean?
4. What does "approximately one-third of the time" mean?
5. Do we want dramatic changes at the 33 percent line?
6. What does “average” mean here?
7. Must the “recipient” always be the parent with more parenting time? 

Nearly all of these issues arose in a recent post-divorce case. In it, I represented a father with less parenting time and less income than the mother. Father believed he had his children 36-38 percent of the time, while Mother claimed he had 33 percent or even less. How to calculate time – days, nights, school days, weekends, holidays – is an open question that threatened to be a big one for us before we managed to settle right before trial, although without resolving that issue.

The 2013 Guidelines unfortunately made percentage of time important without also stating how to calculate it. Before the 2013 Guidelines, there was rarely a need to calculate parenting time with precision. Case law pre-dating the new guidelines suggests night time and sleeping hours cannot be discounted in favor of “quality time” during the day. Katzman v. Healy, 77 Mass.App.Ct. 589, 594 (2010) (" The law has not…neatly divided custodial parenthood into waking, sleeping, and schooling categories. Nor should it.”) But that 2010 case by itself is insufficient to answer the questions posed by the 2013 Guidelines, and there is almost no help from other cases or statutes. Had we gone to trial, Father and Mother would have advanced evidence and arguments for very different ways to count time and it is uncertain how the judge would have ruled.

Another question was how to calculate support for the new 33-50 percent parenting time category. Father’s income was slightly under $100,000, and Mother’s was about $200,000. If the parenting share was an approximately one third/two thirds split, Father would pay $290/week to Mother. I argued Father was in the new 33-50 percent zone and should benefit from the second cross-calculation.

Here’s where it gets interesting. If Father was in that new zone, we needed to “average” the $290/week sole custodial support award from Father to Mother with the joint custodial award, a $308/week support award from Mother to Father. The literal “average” of $308 and $290 is $299. I argued the “average” should require the use of a negative number for the smaller number, to indicate the difference in direction, following mathematical logic and a belief the intent of the averaging was to effect a perfect compromise. The numbers to be averaged were nearly equal, but in opposite directions, and so I reasoned we should take the average of $308 and -$290, or $9, thus requiring a payment of $9 from Mother to Father.

I contended we should treat the “average” in all cases in a mathematically consistent way, as the true midpoint. When numbers to be averaged are going in the same direction, that is, when the parent with less time also makes more money, and would be the payor under both a joint custody calculation and a sole custodial calculation, the “average” would properly yield a number exactly between those two numbers, a perfect compromise. But in our very different case, a mathematically consistent compromise between my client’s paying $290 and his receiving $308 would be an award to him of $9. That $9 number would be the precise midpoint between the numbers to be averaged if graphed as a positive and a negative number to reflect their opposite directions.

Opposing counsel countered that language in the guidelines suggests the “recipient” is always the parent with more time; furthermore, there is no support at all for my crazy idea ever to use a negative number when calculating the average. The Guidelines state: “The average of the base child support and the shared custody cross calculation shall be the child support amount paid to the Recipient.” They speak of averaging the base child support paid to the recipient and the shared custody cross calculation paid to the recipient.

Still, if the recipient is always the parent with more time, and we must always use the literal average, then how could we justify using this literal average $299? Furthermore, if someone had to pay $299 and it had to be Father, why would Father then have to pay $9 more than the $290 he would have paid with less parenting time, that is, under a straight one third/two thirds split?

Imagine if the variables had been only slightly different – a real possibility – with numbers to average being exactly equal, $300 to him and $300 to her. The average would then also be $300. So who pays whom? The literal average will properly function in all cases where the putative support numbers go in the same direction, as it would be the exact compromise, equidistant between the two positive numbers. However, it is logical to require use of a negative number for one of the numbers when they represent transfers in opposite directions, to get the number that is similarly the real compromise, the true midpoint between those numbers to be averaged, here (-$300 +300)/2 = 0, and in my actual case, (-$290 + 308)/2 = $9.

In many cases, results would be even more skewed than in my real-life example and the slightly modified hypothetical I just posed, if we merely insisted upon using the literal average without the negative sign, and always required the parent with less time to pay the other. In fact it is in all cases where the parent with less time also has less income that results skew in the wrong direction with such an approach. In the most extreme examples, this literal approach yields the absurd result that the payor would pay more than his/her actual available income! I will demonstrate that next.

*****************************************************

 In Part Seven, I will show those most absurd results of the new formula using a literal "average".

For information about Massachusetts divorce and family law, see the divorce and family law page of my law firm website.

Massachusetts Child Support Guidelines and Shared Parenting: Puzzling Provisions in the 2013 Guidelines (Part Five of Ten)

The 2013 Massachusetts Child Support Guidelines introduced some interesting but puzzling provisions. As I said earlier, the 2013 Guidelines represented the next awkward step, after that first, giant leap of the 2009 Guidelines, to incorporate evolving principles of shared income and shared parenting. Now I will begin to discuss, in this and the following several parts of this series, that next awkward step. The 2013 Guidelines created a new category between sole and joint custody for parents who have their children between 33 and 50 percent of the time. For them, support is to be the “average” of the amounts that would be paid under joint custody (equal or "approximately" equal parenting time) and sole custody (the "approximately" one third/two thirds split).

It remains unclear how and when this new cross-calculation should apply, however, and where the boundaries lie among the new categories of parenting time. I have found several inter-related and overlapping problems with the new shared parenting and other provisions of the 2013 Guidelines, which together create these new, vague categories of parenting time.  To see directly for yourself what I will be discussing, read the 2013 Guidelines here, particularly the "Parenting Time" provision on pages 6-7 and the "Deviation" provisions on pages 11-12, specifically paragraph 13.

Others have already written about some of the problems these new provisions present. Justin Kelsey observed that use of the term “approximately” is vague, and that calculating the average “sounds simple, but in application this will be the most difficult new section because it is not entirely clear when to apply the new formula and because at times the results will be counterintuitive.” Justin Kelsey, "A Mediator’s Guide For Understanding the 2013 Child Support Guidelines Changes," Family Mediation Quarterly, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 9-19 (Summer 2013). William and Chouteau Levine complained that while the provision for upwards deviation for parenting time under 33 percent is vague, the “greater but not equal shared parenting” provisions, by contrast, appear “way specific.” William and Chouteau Levine, 2013 Child Support Guidelines Preview, Part 5 Slicing the Parenting Plan?, Levine Dispute Resolution Center: Divorce Mediation Blog (Aug. 28, 2013). 

In those early articles on the 2013 Guidelines, commentators had only begun to scratch the surface of a big problem, or several inter-related and overlapping ones actually, which I have organized for descriptive purposes into the following seven issues:

1. How do we count parenting time to arrive at percentages? Do we count nights? Days?Actual hours? If so, do we include sleeping hours and do we count them differently? Do we count school time, and if so how, and who gets credit: the parent who drops off the child, who picks up the child, who picks up the child when sick, who has primary custody? What about weekends and holidays? Do we count them the same as school time, or more because they constitute “quality time”?

2. When and how should we deviate when the noncustodial parent has less than 33 percent? A provision allows upward deviation if the noncustodial parent has less than 33 percent of parenting time. When should we deviate? At 32 percent? At 25 percent? By how much?

3. What does "approximately equally" mean? What is “approximately” half or equal time? Is it 46 percent? 48 percent? 49.5 percent?

4. What does "approximately one-third of the time" mean? What is an “approximately” one third/two thirds split? When does “approximately 33 percent” cease to be that and become “between 33 and 50 percent”? Is 34%/66% approximately one third/two thirds? How about 37%/63%? But don’t the guidelines suggest the second cross-calculation applies to any number between 33 and 50 percent?

5. Do we want dramatic changes at the 33 percent line? If we can deviate upwards at 32 percent and use the second cross-calculation at 34 percent, the changes at that line could be extreme, especially if the parent with less time also has a much smaller income.

6. What does “average” mean here? Is the “average” always the literal average of the two numbers, both when it would be of putative amounts paid by the same payor, and when it would be of putative amounts paid by different payors to each other? Should we use a negative sign when taking the average of numbers representing transfers in opposite directions, to find the true compromise? Without the negative sign, averages in cases where the parent has both less time and income skew in the wrong direction, contrary to the guidelines’ rationale. Instead of benefitting parents when they have more than 33 (but less than 50) percent of the parenting time, it would punish them. In extreme cases, support computed that way would exceed the payor’s actual available income!

7. Must the “recipient” always be the parent with more parenting time? Is the parent with more time the only one who can receive a child support payment? Can we shift the presumed payor and recipient?

 *****************************************************

 In Part Six, I will begin to explore these problems through discussion of a recent court case.

Massachusetts Child Support Guidelines and Shared Parenting: 2009 Guidelines - Unintended Consequences? (Part Four of Ten)

The 2009 Guidelines may well have been higher but better, as they appeared to "get the policy right," as I discussed in Part Three of this series. However, appearing to get the policy right should not be enough to satisfy us. The proof is in the pudding. The Guidelines should be examined and tested, in various scenarios, to make sure that the actual outputs comport with our view of a fair allocation of parental resources. We should not be satisfied just because the policy is “right,” if despite that, the numbers we get as outputs do not seem fair. Indeed, family law litigants will never let us ignore the results. Outputs deemed unfair are what lead to criticism that in turn results in reforms at the next guidelines review cycle. The latest changes of the 2013 Guidelines certainly reflect much expressed dissatisfaction with child support outcomes, that is, primarily with the historically high awards, in most categories, of the 2009 Guidelines. 

The record-high awards of the 2009 Guidelines themselves are not likely to have been unintended consequences, as there was dissent on the guidelines task force, even a written dissent in fact, pointing to the realization that these guidelines would produce higher, and arguably too high, awards.  The higher awards probably reflected two things, the first of which I am fairly certain, and the second less so, as it is based more on speculation and intuition: 1) the new shared-income model, in adding together income from both parents first, before deeming a portion of that shared income as child support, and then allocating according to relative income, naturally puts upward pressure on the total child support amount ultimately awarded, in absolute value terms, as joint incomes increase, and 2) the awards, in most categories, may have been allowed to go higher for the benefit of those on the task force who have traditionally favored relatively high awards, as a concession for, or in exchange for, the big shared-income and shared-parenting paradigm shifts about to be made.

Those paradigm shifts surely would have been favored by the new voice on the task force, lead by Ned Holstein, from the organization then called Fathers and Families, and now re-named the National Parents Organization, whose raison d'etre has been advocacy of their view of equal rights for fathers to parent their children and specifically for shared parenting policies and gender equity as they see them. On the other hand, in the dissent, Ned Holstein broadly criticizes the guidelines for, among other things, not having a proper rationale.  I cannot help but think, however, that he would have welcomed generally not only the new shared parenting formula but also the new shared income paradigm itself.

My strong suspicion is that the more traditional forces insisted on the relatively high awards in some implicit exchange for the big paradigm shift that paved the way for the new shared parenting provisions and the shared income model.   The task force members - an unusually large, and most diverse group, in contrast to prior task forces, and in contrast to the latest, smaller task force for 2013 as well - had to be aware that they were creating guidelines that would lead to higher awards for most categories of payors.  That is apparent from the fact that a Minority Report issued - by  Ned Holstein, with partial concurrence from two other individuals on the task force, including economist Mark Sarro, Ph.D. (whose comments appeared in the last part of this series) - which strongly protested what it deemed the "generally excessive" nature of the awards about to be instituted. (To see the conflict yourself, compare that minority report with the Task Force Report (Majority Report).

After the 2009 Guidelines issued, Fathers and Families went beyond Ned Holstein's mere words of dissent, and went to federal court, and then state court as well, in an unsuccessful effort to try to block use of the child support guidelines on that same basis.  Later in this series of blogs, I will more specifically discuss the politics of child support, ever present though often cloaked in niceties and banal platitudes about the "best interests of the children," that all-important and vague legal principle that is a buzzword easily tossed about by advocates of all stripes.

In any case, the relatively high, and arguably too high, awards that resulted from the 2009 Guidelines, were consequences well anticipated and understood, if not fully intended, by the task force, well before implementation of the 2009 Guidelines. But there were other consequences that more likely were neither foreseen nor intended, as in fact they appeared to operate at odds with the new shared-income rationale.  What am I talking about? Well, these high awards of the 2009 Guidelines - relative both to the guidelines of other states and to previous Massachusetts guidelines - relate to the fact that the new formula, though designed as a shared income model, actually in practice often functioned more like a percentage of income model. The 2009 Guidelines, according to financial planner James McCusker, in practice made child support more of a “fixed cost (as a percentage of income) rather than a variable cost.” In particular, upon comparing results under the 2005 and 2009 guidelines, McCusker found:

In all the calculations performed, the “new” guidelines produced child support amounts that approximated 25% of payor gross income. Under the “old” guidelines that percentage went down to approximately 14% when payor and recipient income reached parity.

It should come as no surprise, then, that the 2013 Guidelines, while continuing, and adding to, the new shared parenting provisions, also managed to reduce the child support awards, even by as much as 10 to 15 percent, for many categories of payors (link is to Justin Kelsey's article on the 2013 Guidelines in Family Mediation Quarterly).  Nevertheless, even after these significant reductions from the highs of the 2009 Guidelines, the Massachusetts Child Support Guidelines of 2013 remain quite high relative to other states, as detailed in a most recent, comprehensive comparison of the guidelines of all states in late 2013, by child support expert and economist Jane Venohr (article previously cited in Part One).  Her research as reported in that article reveals the remarkable fact that Massachusetts’ 2013 Guidelines still yield either the very highest or second highest awards, among all 50 states and the District of Columbia, in all three of the varied case scenarios she examined.

************************************************

In Part Five, I will begin to discuss that next, awkward step: the 2013 Guidelines.

Massachusetts Child Support Guidelines and Shared Parenting: 2009 Guidelines - Higher But Better? (Part Three of Ten)

The 2009 Guidelines brought many changes as part of the move to a shared income model, all consistent with the growing recognition that the needs, income, and contributions of both parents should be considered in determining appropriate levels of support. The 2009 Guidelines provided, for the first time, a cross-calculation to be used, both in cases of joint custody, where parenting time was “approximately equal,” and split custody, where parents had primary custody of different children. These cross-calculations, which “split the difference” between the putative amounts each parent would be obligated to pay for the other’s custodial parenting, had already been used informally by many judges and practitioners, as one of the more popular methods for determining child support in these situations in the years before the 2009 Guidelines. 

Beyond this explicit treatment of joint custody and split custody situations, the 2009 Guidelines did many other things to move away from the old tendency to unduly focus primarily on the needs of the recipient/custodial parent on the one hand, and to unduly focus primarily on the ability to pay of the payor/noncustodial parent, on the other. For example, the 2009 Guidelines eliminated the “income disregard” (of the first $20,000 of custodial income), which had always only applied to the custodial parent/recipient; this had been justified as the provision of an effective exemption from consideration of what was needed for basic living expenses (“a roof over the head”) for the custodial parent, but was hard to sustain in the face of criticism that the noncustodial parent also had basic needs, including a roof over his or her head as well. 

Other provisions of the 2009 Guidelines, as very thoroughly described by Gayle Stone-Turesky and Katherine Garren in their 2009 article, such as the “circuit breaker” and the new hypothetical guideline used to account for legal obligations to support additional children though done without a court order, all reflected a new, more comprehensive, big-picture, shared-parenting kind of thinking. The new approach was to treat child support as something that springs not from the child support payor or noncustodial parent alone, but from both parents, apportioned and transferred from one party to the other, through use of a shared income formula that first calculates a deemed total shared support amount based on shared financial responsibility. 

Many of us who have been early and consistent champions of shared income and shared parenting, both as models for determining child support and as models for thinking more broadly about parenting and support issues, saw these 2009 Guidelines as a substantial improvement. We saw them as better in many ways, perhaps even for those parents, most often the fathers, who were not the recipients but instead the payors of child support, and even though the 2009 Guidelines raised the obligations for these noncustodial parents, in most if not all categories of payors, to their highest levels ever. As Mark Sarro, economist and former member of the Child Support Task Force, said at the time: “child support amounts under the new guidelines are higher almost across the board (in all but the highest-income cases).” Yet he went on to say that the 2009 Guidelines were better even though higher, because they got the policy right: 

The most notable economic improvement is that the new guidelines symmetrically account for both parents’ financial and non-financial contributions to their children. The guidelines are entirely even-handed; the same rules now apply to both payors and recipients. For example, the ad-hoc income disregard is gone. All of the income definitions and cost deductions apply equally to payors and recipients. So do the amounts in Tables A and B, in proportion to each person’s share of combined income. Conditioning support amounts on the relative contributions of both households in the same way assures that each parent pays child costs in proportion to their relative ability to pay and under the same policy constraints.

 *****************************************************

 In Part Four, I will address some possible unintended consequences of the 2009 Guidelines.

Massachusetts Child Support Guidelines and Shared Parenting: The National Trend Toward Shared Income and Shared Parenting Models (Part Two of Ten)

Beginning with the 2009 overhaul, Massachusetts has been part of a national trend toward a shared income model as the favored child support guidelines model, and specifically away from models that focus primarily or solely on the obligor’s income. The first child support guidelines for the 50 states and the District of Columbia began about 25 years ago (ours was in 1987).

By 1990, there were already 31 states with shared income models, but also 15 states with percentage of obligor’s income shares models, known simply as percentage of income models, two jurisdictions with guidelines based primarily on percentage of income models, but with modifications and thus called hybrid models (Massachusetts and DC), and three states with Melson formula models.  For more detailed information about the guidelines models in use throughout the U.S., see economist and child support expert Jane Venohr's recent article in the Family Law Quarterly, Vol. 47, No. 3 (Fall 2013), "Child Support Guidelines and Guidelines Reviews: State Differences and Common Issues" available here to ABA members.

By the end of 2013, both of the hybrid model jurisdictions, Massachusetts and DC, had moved to shared income models, and six states with straight percentage of income models had also moved to shared income models. Consequently, the new totals, as of the end of 2013, according to Venohr, are now as follows: 39 jurisdictions with shared income models, 9 with percentage of income models, and 3 with Melson formula models (hybrid models are gone altogether).

Massachusetts has also been part of the trend toward more recognition, and accounting for, “non-traditional” (to use the old language) cases of joint custody and split custody. Massachusetts is one of four states that in 1999 had no shared parenting formulas but now do, bringing the total of jurisdictions with shared parenting formulas from 30, in 1999, to 34 today, again according to Venohr.

Massachusetts, which adopted its first shared parenting formula, as well as its similar split custody formula, in the 2009 Guidelines, is one of the two states that adopted this new shared parenting formula as part of a simultaneous move to a shared income model for child support. Massachusetts thus provides a good illustration of both of these national trends, the one toward shared income as the favored child support guidelines model, and the other toward greater recognition and explicit treatment of shared parenting situations.

*****************************************************

In Part Three, I will discuss that giant leap of the 2009 Guidelines.

Massachusetts Child Support Guidelines and Shared Parenting: Introduction (Part One of Ten)

Recently I have been researching the Massachusetts Child Support Guidelines and their history since the first Massachusetts support guidelines of 1987, and have been comparing them with child support guidelines in other states. That is mainly because I have a journal article or two in the works and will be presenting a workshop "Shared Parenting and Child Support: Formulas, Incentives and Consequences" at the annual conference of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) in Toronto, May 28-31. The theme of this year's conference is shared parenting, and my particular workshop, at the last session on the last day of the conference, is entitled "Shared Parenting and Child Support: Formulas, Incentives and Consequences." Here's the brochure's description:

The workshop will explore the range of child support models being used across the country, including income share models, percentage of income models, and Melson Formula models, and how they affect, and are affected by, decisions about shared parenting. The workshop will explore the relationship between child support guidelines and child custody determinations, and the often attendant challenges related to the inevitable incentives to increase or decrease either of the dependent variables of child support and child parenting time in order to influence the other.

Through my recent research, I have learned a lot about the Massachusetts Child Support Guidelines and how they compare to the guidelines of other states. I already knew quite a bit about the Massachusetts guidelines, of course, as I regularly use them in my practice as a Massachusetts family law attorney. But now I have a broader perspective, after having examined the guidelines and practices of other jurisdictions in some detail. Aided by that new perspective, I am beginning with this blog a ten-part series about the Massachusetts Child Support guidelines, their history, and particularly their recent evolution in response to the national trend in favor of shared income models for child support guidelines, and the national trend in development of specific provisions and policies to recognize and foster shared parenting. 

The latest Massachusetts Child Support Guidelines, effective August 1, 2013, continue a trend toward greater emphasis on shared income and shared parenting, begun with the last quadrennial child support guidelines revision of 2009, which was, in contrast to prior guidelines, the first “extensive overhaul” of the guidelines’ principles and formulas, following the mere “tinkering” of earlier guidelines revisions, as William and Chouteau Levine have put it. The early guidelines, from 1987 through 2005, only considered what was then called the “traditional” case, where there was a custodial parent and a noncustodial parent. 

Any shared parenting or split parenting situations, as they were not specifically addressed in the guidelines, were then commonly referred to as “outside the guidelines” and thus their treatment, for purposes of child support determinations, was left in the complete discretion of the court. The primary purpose of this ten-part series of blogs is to focus on our own recent history, particularly our evolving principles of shared income and shared parenting, and ultimately to critically examine the 2013 Guidelines as they represent the latest awkward step our Commonwealth has taken, after the first, giant leap of the 2009 Guidelines, to incorporate our evolving principles of shared income and shared parenting into our child support determinations.

********************************

In Part Two, I will discuss the evolution of our guidelines in relation to national trends.

For information about Massachusetts divorce and family law, see the divorce and family law page of my law firm website.

Massachusetts Child Support Guidelines Revised Again

The Massachusetts Trial Court has just announced the new Massachusetts Child Support Guidelines to be in effect for the next four years, beginning August 1 of this year.  Federal IV-D regulations require each state to have uniform child support guidelines that are presumptively correct, and 45 C.F.R. § 302.56 specifically requires each state to review its guidelines at least once every four years.  The new Massachusetts guidelines effective August 1, 2013, are here (prose) and a corresponding worksheet may be found here. The current (still in effect) guidelines worksheet remains at the Massachusetts Department of Revenue's website and should be replaced with the newly revised worksheet when the new guidelines go into effect on August 1.

Following is a summary of the key revisions, as provided in the trial court's press release:

Summary of Key Changes to the Existing Guidelines
The 2012 Child Support Guidelines Task Force recommended a number of clarifications and changes.  Some are minor, while others represent new or modified provisions.  The most significant include:

• Income from means tested benefits such as SSI, TAFDC, and SNAP are excluded for both parties from the calculation of their support obligations.

• Availability of employment at the attributed income level must be considered in attribution of income cases.

• The text makes clear that all, some, or none of income from secondary jobs or overtime may be considered by the court, regardless of whether this is new income or was historically earned prior to dissolution of the relationship.

• Reference is made to the 2011 Alimony Reform Act; the text does not, however, provide a specific formula or approach for calculating alimony and child support in cases where both may be appropriate.

• Clarification is given as to how child support should be allocated between the parents where their combined income exceeds $250,000.

• A new formula is provided for calculating support where parenting time and expenditures are less than equal (50/50) but more than the assumed standard split of two thirds/one third.

• Guidance and clarification is given in the area of child support over the age of eighteen where appropriate.  While the Guidelines apply, the court may consider a child’s living arrangements and post- secondary education. Contribution to post-secondary education may be ordered after consideration of several factors set forth in the Guidelines and such contribution must be considered in setting the weekly support order, if any.

• The standard for modification is clarified to reflect the recent Supreme Judicial Court decision in Morales v. Morales, 464 Mass. 507 (2013).

• Circumstances justifying a deviation are expanded to include extraordinary health insurance expenses, child care costs that are disproportionate to income or when a parent is providing less than one-third parenting time.

For information about Massachusetts divorce and family law, see the divorce and family law page of my law firm website.

Kobe Bryant Headed for Divorce

There's bound to be a bit of schadenfreude here in New England, as we Boston Celtics fans absorb the news of the impending divorce of our nemesis Kobe Bryant out in LA. But any divorce like this one - which involves two small children, ages five and eight - should be no cause for celebration.

On the bright side, it appears that this will be handled quickly and without painful public drama.  According to both TMZ and the LA Times, Kobe's wife Vanessa signed her petition on December 1, Kobe penned his response on December 7, papers were filed with the court on December 16, and the couple has already issued a joint statement late yesterday that they have come to an agreement privately through counsel and will have their divorce judgment entered next year.

According to TMZ, Kobe has already vacated their huge Newport Coast mansion, which wife Vanessa is to keep in their deal. It is clear from the filings, as released by TMZ, that Vanessa has claimed some jewelry as her separate property (including, presumably, the multi-million dollar ring Kobe gave her after his infidelity with the Colorado woman who accused him of rape back in 2003), that they did not have a prenuptial agreement, that she is seeking spousal support, and that both have requested joint physical and legal custody of their two girls.

Even though California has tightened up its rules for prenuptial agreements (following the Barry Bonds divorce, which was thought to have been unfair to his Swedish wife), it is possible in California to waive the right to share in community property and to limit the right to spousal support in a prenuptial agreement.   But Kobe Bryant, by failing to insist upon a prenuptial agreement at the time he and Vanessa married - over ten years ago, while they were very young, at the very beginning of what would become a very successful NBA career - will thus end up sharing a lot more, in both assets and in ongoing support obligations, of his earnings with Vanessa than he would likely have been required to do.

That is because the overwhelming bulk of their assets was accumulated during the past ten years of their marriage and Kobe's tenure with the NBA.  Consequently, they will likely be splitting their assets in half as it will all be "community property" - except for the jewelry she can claim as separate property because it was a gift to her.  That could mean she would walk away with slightly more than he does (on account of these expensive gifts she listed as separate property), and then continue to collect child support and alimony which will be tied to his continued high earnings.

But given estimates of their net worth in the $200-300 million range, and many more millions to come - through Kobe's expected NBA salary of $25 million plus endorsements for the next several years - the Bryants do not need our financial sympathy.

Let's just hope the girls will be okay with their parents living in separate lavish homes. And of course, go Celtics!

For information about Massachusetts divorce and family law, see the divorce and family law page of my law firm website.

Stevie B, Owing $420K in Child Support, Arrested At Springfield Concert

Stevie B, singer of "Because I Love You" (The Postman Song) and other hits from the 80s and 90s, was arrested in Springfield this past Friday night after his concert at the MassMutual Center and hauled off to jail for an apparent child support debt, to a woman in Agawam, of a whopping $420,000.

According to the Springfield Republican, when Stevie B was apprehended as he was leaving the arena after his show, the arresting officer found him "cooperative but surprised by the arrest" and concerned "that he might miss a weekend gig in Providence, RI."

Stevie B is apparently now regularly residing and working in Vegas.  Did he forget about the child support he skipped out on here in Massachusetts? Did he think he was in the clear by now?

Hmmm, reminds me of another music celebrity, Bobby Brown.  He too was arrested several years back after returning to his native Massachusetts (from Georgia, in his case) to see his daughter cheerleading, and was hauled off to jail for huge back child support.  One of the lessons I derived from this story, as I blogged back then, was:  

If you happen to become a celebrity when you "grow up" and if you happen to get way behind on your child support, then do not go to visit your daughter as she is cheerleading in public.

Perhaps I now should add to that:

...and do not perform a public concert in the very state, and in the nearest city, in which the ex to whom you owe massive child support happens to live.

On this past Monday, October 3, TMZ reported that Stevie B was indeed arraigned on Monday, but still remained in custody until able to pay at least $10,000 of what he owes to get out of jail.  The Associated Press more recently has reported that he got out of jail on Tuesday by paying $11,000, but Stevie B disputes the amount of the debt.    More details, from the the AP story:

On Monday, he agreed to a schedule of payments for approximately $420,000 in child support, including a lump sum payment of $10,000 and weekly payments of $921. His lawyer said he paid an additional $1,000 with the required lump sum and has offered to pay an extra $500 per week.

An extra $500 a week toward arrears would be just a tad less than what would be necessary just to pay the 6 percent annual interest that would be assessed on his $400K+ debt (to say nothing of the other 6 percent ordinarily assessed in penalties). I see more lump sum payments and possibly seizure of assets in Stevie B's future.

For information about Massachusetts divorce and family law, see the divorce and family law page of my law firm website.

Census Bureau Reports Marriage & Divorce Statistics

The U.S. Census Bureau recently released its report "Marital Events of Americans: 2009," which is the bureau's first such report after including questions about marital events as part of its American Community Survey (ACS), beginning in 2008. The report confirms previous indications from other sources that divorce rates, and marriage rates, are higher in the South than in the Northeast, among other things.  See the bureau's report here or read the summary from Reuters.



From the Reuters news article (August 25, 2011):

....Statistics from "Marital Events of Americans: 2009," show that in the South, per 1,000 men or women, divorce rates were 10.2 and 11.1 percent.

By contrast, Northeastern men and women had divorce rates at 7.2 and 7.5 percent.The national divorce rate was almost 10 percent, at 9.2 for men and 9.7 for women.

The report is the first to examine and detail marriage, divorce and widowhood among Americans ages 15 and older, using data from the 2009 American Community Survey (ACS).

"Divorce rates tend to be higher in the South because marriage rates are also higher in the South," Diana Elliott, a family demographer at the Census Bureau, stated in the report's release.

"In contrast, in the Northeast, first marriages tend to be delayed and the marriage rates are lower, meaning there are also fewer divorces."

Fourteen states had above-average divorce rates for men and women. Southern states such as Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Texas had divorce rates above the United States average for both genders.

For the 10 or so states that had below-average divorce rates for each gender, about half were in the Northeast.

States like Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and New York saw fewer divorces than average for men and women.

Divorces did impact the economic well-being of families.

Three quarters of children living with a parent who divorced in 2009 lived in a household headed by their mother.

Of women who divorced in the year studied, 23 percent received public assistance, against 15 percent of recently divorced men who received such assistance.

But such women also reported less household income than recently divorced men, with 27 percent having less than $25,000 in annual household income compared to 17 percent of recently divorced males.

They also were more likely to be in poverty; 22 percent of recently divorced women compared to 11 percent of such men.

Almost 30 percent of children living with a parent who recently divorced lived in a household below the poverty level, compared with 19 percent for other children.

Historically, data on U.S. marriages and divorces were collected from marriage and divorce certificates filed at the state level. According to the report, beginning in 2008, questions about marital events were added to the ACS to fill a void in the data collected in the United States.

Previous Post on Related Issues:

 BASEBALL BRINGS DOWN THE DIVORCE RATE?

For information about Massachusetts divorce and family law, see the divorce and family law page of my law firm website.

Destination Divorce

We have long had destination weddings.  Why not destination divorce?  Zagat has published a guide to the best restaurants for dumping your mate, as I have reported here two years ago.  There are already restaurants you can visit to dine and dump your spouse, so why can't there be destination resorts or hotels where you can go to make that dumping official?

It's not so easy just to head to the beach, or somewhere exotic, to get an actual legal divorce, you say? Well, not only are some enterprising travel businesses trying to sell the idea of divorce vacations, in Mexico and elsewhere, but there is now even, in the Netherlands, what is called the Divorce Hotel (Hotelscheiden). If you are Dutch, you can actually show up at a five-star hotel for about three days with your spouse and mediate your divorce settlement, spending potentially far less time and money on the trip and the luxurious hotel accommodations than you might otherwise have spent on legal fees back home.

Or so they say.  So far, the new idea has only had a small number of takers, and it is of course only available to Dutch citizens.  Take a look at the Divorce Hotel's website and video.


For information about Massachusetts divorce and family law, see the divorce and family law page of my law firm website.

How Not To Serve Court Papers (especially on a Red Sox pitcher)

From The Docket, the Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly blog, David Frank brings us this interesting story behind the Red Sox loss yesterday to the Orioles:   a civil process server showed up at Fenway Park and served child support papers on Red Sox starting pitcher Erik Bedard a few hours before the pitcher was scheduled to take the mound.  

Don't the Red Sox have enough problems right now?  And get this - to add insult to injury, the process server was wearing a Yankees shirt!

For information about Massachusetts divorce and family law, see the divorce and family law page of my law firm website.

Child Support Blues

If you think you have the child support blues, because of frustration in trying to receive or to pay child support, here's a real story for you. A minimum-wage-earning 29-year-old man in Knoxville, Tennessee, is already the father of 21 children with 11 different mothers. On second thought, I also should have mentioned frustration of the taxpayers, as they will in their own way undoubtedly be sharing the child support blues in this case as well.

Here's daddy on youtube:



Although this story appeared in the Huffington Post last month, I give my hat tip to Family Lore and Divorce Discourse, where I first found this interesting story in the blogosphere today.

For information about Massachusetts divorce and family law, see the divorce and family law page of my law firm website.

Recession, Pink Slips, and Child Support

Yes, we're in a recession, and that's obvious in family court, where pink slips have resulted in more child support modification cases: Fighting Over Child Support After the Pink Slip Arrives - NYTimes.com.

For information about Massachusetts divorce and family law, see the divorce and family law page of my law firm website.

Fathers & Families Group Unsuccessfully Sought to Block Implementation of New Child Support Guidelines

The organization Fathers and Families (www.fathersandfamilies.org) has recently gone to federal court in an unsuccessful attempt to block use of the new Massachusetts Child Support Guidelines in our family courts. See The Docket » Blog Archive » Fathers’ group sues to stop new child support rules. I am writing an article on the new child support guidelines for a law journal, and am trying to keep an open mind as I continue to review and analyze these new guidelines. Otherwise, I would have already posted my analysis here after making brief comments on this blog right after the November announcement.

The new guidelines are now in effect, and have been as of January 1.


For information about Massachusetts divorce and family law, see the divorce and family law page of my law firm website.

New & Improved Child Support Guidelines To Go Into Effect on January 1

New child support guidelines have just been promulgated, and they will go into effect in Massachusetts on January 1, 2009. See the Massachusetts Court System Press Release - November 5, 2008. I am one of the many attorneys, litigants, and other concerned citizens, who have long complained before that our current guidelines are not appropriate for our times, particularly as they are not precise and comprehensive enough to cover enough of our families.

The new guidelines, for the first time, will address some of the longstanding concerns many of us have had. For one, I see the task force has for the first time made it clear how to determine child support when there is joint physical custody. It is good to see that the task force this time included Fathers and Families founder Ned Holstein, as well as many of the usual participants (attorneys and judges and other family law establishment people). After I have time to give it a complete review, I will post my analysis. But right away, after a quick scan, I can already say it is a wonderful improvement over the guidelines that are currently in effect. Have a read for yourself and tell me what you think: http://www.mass.gov/courts/childsupport/guidelines.pdf.

Excerpt from Press Release of Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court:

Chief Justice for Administration & Management Robert A. Mulligan today announced the promulgation of revised Child Support Guidelines to be effective on January 1, 2009, based on a comprehensive review of the guidelines by the Child Support Guidelines Task Force he appointed in 2006. The 12-member Task Force was chaired by Probate and Family Court Chief Justice Paula M. Carey.

The report recommended significant, broad-based changes intended to make the guidelines more simple, clear, comprehensive and consistent with economic and societal changes of the last two decades. The report of the Task Force, available at www.mass.gov/courts/childsupport, explains the rationale behind the guidelines to assist attorneys and litigants in understanding and using them.

The recommendations include provisions that place greater value and emphasis on the involvement of both parents in the lives of children; consider the increase in health insurance costs and the requirement of mandatory health insurance in Massachusetts; provide greater guidance relative to when a child support order should be modified; and set forth specific deviation factors for deviation from the guidelines. These guidelines will apply to the circumstances of many more families in the Commonwealth.

....

For information about Massachusetts divorce and family law, see the divorce and family law page of my law firm website.

Stimulus Checks Intercepted for Child Support: My Client's Story and a Rant

While I myself have been too busy to post this past week, a few of my clients have found themselves quoted in the news. There's only one I can mention here. Cheryl Hayes, my former client, has authorized me to discuss her case after she thanked me for directing Associated Press reporter Steve LeBlanc to her this past Tuesday, thus resulting in her interview an hour later and a photo session that resulted in the following Associated Press article, AP IMPACT: Stimulus checks boost child support - washingtonpost.com, immediately published and picked up by some 300 news outlets around the world.

I find it a bit ironic that I had a hand in having my client pictured in this article, as she is a woman owed lots of child support by her exhusband and she is arguing that it is absolutely correct that the federal stimulus checks should be intercepted to pay down child support arrears. Well, I agree with her. However, up until just five or six years ago I was predominantly representing men in divorce actions. I have probably had more than my fair share of male clients who were the victims of child support orders that were too high. Indeed, I have long been both personally and professionally aware of the recent history of unfairness toward men in the Massachusetts family courts, both in custody and visitation matters and in child support determinations.

But what I now understand much better - now that I represent a larger, more representative sample of family law clients, including many more women now than before - is that family law victims are not of one gender. Too often irresponsible and even abusive individuals, whether male or female, are able to "win" in court, at least in some respects, even when the facts are against them.

When the reporter contacted me on Tuesday, and was seeking clients or previous clients who could speak to him about the issue of stimulus checks being intercepted to pay child support obligations, I immediately told him to speak with the Fathers and Families organization here in Massachusetts, and was told that he had already done so. The reporter needed, instead, somebody who was in favor of the interception of stimulus checks to pay child support arrears. Well, I certainly had someone for him. After calling Cheryl Hayes to get her approval to give her name and phone number to the reporter, I helped the reporter to make contact.

Cheryl Hayes wants even more publicity for her case, and wants me to tell even more of her story here, because it is so illustrative of the fact that there are indeed deadbeat dads out there. And boy, if there ever was one, her exhusband fits the bill. (Of course, there are deadbeat moms as well, and there are misguided, mistaken, and sometimes even incompetent court officials, and thus there exist numerous types of miscarriages of justice, leading to suffering by men, women, and children.)

The man who owes Cheryl Hayes some $30,000 somehow had the gall and the wherewithal to hire expensive attorneys to fight for the right to see his children, despite the fact that he had abused them and they were terrified of him. But this man failed to show up in court when the children's therapist and another mental health professional testified in court that the children suffered from quite egregious abuse by him while they were with him in North Dakota, and before the children moved with their mother to Massachusetts. This man has since left North Dakota and now lives in Minnesota, where he has managed to pay next to nothing in child support in the past three years, while the children have continued to struggle with therapy, and even institutionalization, as a result of his unspeakable abuse.

This man has failed to show up personally in Massachusetts to court for either of his family law cases - his visitation case (which led to a trial in which we won a ruling, after the above-described testimony, that he would have no contact with the children) and his child support case. This man has been able to avoid, halt, or otherwise dodge investigation by social service agencies and the police by moving from one state to another, and has avoided paying child support by perjuring himself in courts of at least two states, and by hiring attorneys in this state while achieving some degree of success in manipulating the court systems in at least two, and possibly three, states.

It is "men" like this who give all of us fathers a bad name and truly deserve to be called deadbeats. And it is cases like his - no less than the cases of fathers who are paying too much child support - that point up the fact that our courts are falling far short of their responsibility to find facts and dispense true justice.

We should not demonize all men who owe child support, as most of them are good people, even many of those who fall far behind in their support. (See my previous post Deadly Delinquents, Deadbeat Dads, and the Dangers of Demonization.)

Nor should we demonize men simply because they are accused of abuse. Men are more likely to be accused of abuse, but not really that much more likely actually to be guilty of abuse (physical or mental) than women, according to the available evidence. Because men are less likely to have custody of their children, and because men are still more likely to have greater expectations for financial contributions to their families, men are also more likely to be required to pay child support than women, and there is a greater number of men than women who fall behind in their support. However, men with child support obligations are more likely than women with child support obligations to actually pay those awards, according to the evidence.

These real statistics, often covered up by feminist groups and trumpeted by fathers' advocates, point out not only the inequality, unfairness, and gender bias in our expectations of both mothers and fathers that have resulted in numerous injustices in our family courts. These statistics also point to the sad reality that the facts of individual cases often do not matter: that family law conflicts too often lead to the wrong results (too much child support, not enough child support, custody to the wrong parent, etc.) because of the unfair procedures, bias, incompetence, and other failings in the judicial system.

Each case should be judged on its own facts. Far too often, because of the problems with our court system, the facts do not determine the outcome of cases. And irresponsible and abusive individuals too often are permitted to harm others with seeming impunity. And that's just sad. And wrong.

I have faith that our courts will improve. But we need more people who have suffered injustice in the family law arena to take the time to get involved and try to change the system. People like Cheryl Hayes. And people like the good men and women at Fathers & Families.


For information about Massachusetts divorce and family law, see the divorce and family law page of my law firm website.

The Alternative to CORI Reform: Let's Just Order Them to Re-Offend

Thanks to John Monahan and the Worcester Telegram and Gazette for an excellent article yesterday about the fact that CORI reform is now unlikely. The CORI reform proposals, introduced and backed by Governor Patrick, and as discussed and strongly supported by me here at this blog,

have run aground in the House Judiciary Committee, and the chances of the law covering criminal records being reformed before the Legislature ends formal sessions for the year in July now seem remote.

The reason? According to the article:

Earlier this week, Rep. Eugene O’Flaherty, D-Boston, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, reported that the bill has run into a lot of “roadblocks” because of the many complicated issues involving reintegration of ex-convicts into communities and the interest of employers to job screen applicants. His comments gave little hope the bill could be acted on soon.

Right. So, in other words, the CORI reform effort, which is in fact the effort to help reintegrate past offenders into society, by giving them a chance to housing and a job, and that is by reducing the extremely overbroad access of employers to information - information about not just convictions, but even about long-ago charges that led to dismissals or acquittals - has been derailed because employers still want that information, and they have the power on Beacon Hill.

This will be great for these employers, as they will continue to be able easily to identify a special kind of underclass, one that they can either avoid hiring altogether or relegate to lower paying, less desirable employment due to its much diminished bargaining power in the labor market.

But the collateral consequences of failure to reform CORI are that taxpayers will have to pay more for social services to make up for the economic deficiencies, and also more for the criminal justice system - including for law enforcement, our overcrowded jails, and the criminal courts and probation departments - as that criminal justice system will continue to be busy, if not busier, as a result.

The big employers blocking change are at the top of the economic ladder. Basically this is just another way in which the most powerful, wealthy interests are asking the majority of us as taxpayers to pay more taxes to cover the collateral damage that inevitably results from a system designed and created more for the benefit of these most powerful, wealthy interests than for anyone else.

I'm not saying individuals are not responsible for their crimes. However, I am a realist, and I believe the evidence is overwhelming that good, sound economic policies reduce crime. The attempt to block CORI reform seems to me to be just another unsound economic policy (and it is assuredly an economic policy as much as it is a criminal policy) and it probably deserves a chapter in the ongoing, unwritten history of Class War.

I have heard fellow criminal defense attorneys complain, often after a judge in a criminal case gives a poor criminal defendant on probation a short period of time to come up with very stiff probation fees, or when a judge sets very onerous conditions on probation, that "the judge just set him up to fail" or even - and this is my personal favorite - that "the judge just ordered him to re-offend."

Sort of a cynical joke among lawyers, maybe, but this is no real joke for those who have been in the world of crime, and now can't get a job or housing because of it. There are certainly criminal defendants on probation who have committed new crimes in order to get the money to pay their probation, court fees, restitution, or other court-related expenses, as they often find it difficult, if not impossible, to find a legitimate job.

And if former criminals, just like those currently on probation, also can't get a legitimate job or housing, they are more likely both to become dependent upon government benefits of one kind or another, and also either to steal, or sell drugs, or commit other crimes, just in order to survive. This is the difficult, cold, hard reality of former criminal offenders.

So I must ask, in that same, lawyerly cynical spirit: Is our legislature, at the behest of employers, going to deny CORI reform and instead "order former criminals to re-offend"?

For information and links related to Massachusetts criminal law see the criminal defense page of my law firm website.

The Divorce Generation

Now here's an interesting read, the cover story from the April 21 edition of Newsweek: The Divorce Generation Grows Up ("The Divorce Generation Grows Up - Grant High School's class of '82 were raised on 'The Brady Bunch'—while their own families were falling apart. These are their stories—in their words").

As I was born in 1965, right on the line between the Baby Boom Generation and Generation X, I sometimes don't know to what generation I should say I belong. I have characteristics of both Boomers and Xers.

The author, David J. Jefferson, just a few years older than I, has described us 40-something-year-olds, who grew up watching the Brady Bunch, as the "divorce generation." Maybe that will do, although I don't particularly like the term, and I sincerely hope that this author has exaggerated the impact of divorce on my "generation."

But I can certainly relate to the stories told by the author's classmates, as I graduated from high school just one year later than they did, in the early 80s, when the divorce rate in this country was at its highest point. Many of these stories sound all too familiar to me, as they resemble so many stories of others my age.

Since the early 80s, the divorce rate has fallen. And as this article indicates, as we now-40-something-year-olds of the "divorce generation" have grown up, the national divorce rate has fallen, though not back down to the very low level of the 50s and 60s. The relatively lower rate of today may have a lot to do with the fact that we of the "divorce generation" have been more reluctant to make commitments, and more hesitant to marry, and as a group have been waiting until later to do so.

The author of this article indeed suggests that our hesitancy may be partly a consequence of having grown up in the period, from the late 60s through the early 80s, when marriages were becoming so much more vulnerable to termination by divorce. More than just an interesting footnote to The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce, this feature story should be but one of many studies and musings on this topic that I suspect, and hope, will follow in the years to come.

For information about Massachusetts divorce and family law, see the divorce and family law page of my law firm website.