Child support judgments

Comparing public policy to the public's policy

Ira Mark Ellman, Stephen Mckay, Joanna Miles, Caroline Bryson

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    2 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    Any child support regime necessarily makes policy choices about how parental income should be shared between the two parental households. Those choices involve balancing the claims of the child, the claims of the custodial parent for help with the expense of providing for the child, and the claims of the support obligor for autonomy in deciding how to spend his own earnings. That balancing task is complicated by the fact that the child and the custodial parent necessarily share a living standard, so that any child support transfer, large or small, will unavoidably benefit the custodial parent as well as the child. This article reports the findings of an empirical study designed to reveal how the British public believe this balance should be struck. It then compares the public's preferred policies to the policy choices implicit in the current UK child support schedule. It concludes that there are important gaps between the two, and recommends that consideration be given to amending the current UK law to better align it with the public's values on these matters.

    Original languageEnglish (US)
    Pages (from-to)274-301
    Number of pages28
    JournalInternational Journal of Law, Policy and the Family
    Volume28
    Issue number3
    DOIs
    StatePublished - 2014

    Fingerprint

    public policy
    custodial parent
    living standard
    autonomy
    regime
    income
    Law
    Values

    ASJC Scopus subject areas

    • Law
    • Sociology and Political Science

    Cite this

    Child support judgments : Comparing public policy to the public's policy. / Ellman, Ira Mark; Mckay, Stephen; Miles, Joanna; Bryson, Caroline.

    In: International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, Vol. 28, No. 3, 2014, p. 274-301.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    Ellman, Ira Mark ; Mckay, Stephen ; Miles, Joanna ; Bryson, Caroline. / Child support judgments : Comparing public policy to the public's policy. In: International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family. 2014 ; Vol. 28, No. 3. pp. 274-301.
    @article{434ba32195124759993cb66f26b43a0b,
    title = "Child support judgments: Comparing public policy to the public's policy",
    abstract = "Any child support regime necessarily makes policy choices about how parental income should be shared between the two parental households. Those choices involve balancing the claims of the child, the claims of the custodial parent for help with the expense of providing for the child, and the claims of the support obligor for autonomy in deciding how to spend his own earnings. That balancing task is complicated by the fact that the child and the custodial parent necessarily share a living standard, so that any child support transfer, large or small, will unavoidably benefit the custodial parent as well as the child. This article reports the findings of an empirical study designed to reveal how the British public believe this balance should be struck. It then compares the public's preferred policies to the policy choices implicit in the current UK child support schedule. It concludes that there are important gaps between the two, and recommends that consideration be given to amending the current UK law to better align it with the public's values on these matters.",
    author = "Ellman, {Ira Mark} and Stephen Mckay and Joanna Miles and Caroline Bryson",
    year = "2014",
    doi = "10.1093/lawfam/ebu011",
    language = "English (US)",
    volume = "28",
    pages = "274--301",
    journal = "International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family",
    issn = "1360-9939",
    publisher = "Oxford University Press",
    number = "3",

    }

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Child support judgments

    T2 - Comparing public policy to the public's policy

    AU - Ellman, Ira Mark

    AU - Mckay, Stephen

    AU - Miles, Joanna

    AU - Bryson, Caroline

    PY - 2014

    Y1 - 2014

    N2 - Any child support regime necessarily makes policy choices about how parental income should be shared between the two parental households. Those choices involve balancing the claims of the child, the claims of the custodial parent for help with the expense of providing for the child, and the claims of the support obligor for autonomy in deciding how to spend his own earnings. That balancing task is complicated by the fact that the child and the custodial parent necessarily share a living standard, so that any child support transfer, large or small, will unavoidably benefit the custodial parent as well as the child. This article reports the findings of an empirical study designed to reveal how the British public believe this balance should be struck. It then compares the public's preferred policies to the policy choices implicit in the current UK child support schedule. It concludes that there are important gaps between the two, and recommends that consideration be given to amending the current UK law to better align it with the public's values on these matters.

    AB - Any child support regime necessarily makes policy choices about how parental income should be shared between the two parental households. Those choices involve balancing the claims of the child, the claims of the custodial parent for help with the expense of providing for the child, and the claims of the support obligor for autonomy in deciding how to spend his own earnings. That balancing task is complicated by the fact that the child and the custodial parent necessarily share a living standard, so that any child support transfer, large or small, will unavoidably benefit the custodial parent as well as the child. This article reports the findings of an empirical study designed to reveal how the British public believe this balance should be struck. It then compares the public's preferred policies to the policy choices implicit in the current UK child support schedule. It concludes that there are important gaps between the two, and recommends that consideration be given to amending the current UK law to better align it with the public's values on these matters.

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84928998346&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84928998346&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    U2 - 10.1093/lawfam/ebu011

    DO - 10.1093/lawfam/ebu011

    M3 - Article

    VL - 28

    SP - 274

    EP - 301

    JO - International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family

    JF - International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family

    SN - 1360-9939

    IS - 3

    ER -