Panel told child-support law favors wealthy parents

Friday, Feb. 16, 2001 | 9:43 a.m.

CARSON CITY -- An attorney told the Assembly Judiciary Committee Thursday that the current child-support law adopted in 1987 favors wealthy parents who must make payments.

Valerie Cooney, a Carson City attorney representing the Nevada Trial Lawyers Association, said the $500 limit per child, set 14 years ago, hasn't been changed. She urged the committee to raise the maximum to $785 to cover the cost of inflation since 1987.

Cooney and others said the current law allows a district judge to go over the $500 maximum but they seldom exceed the limit in the law.

Ann Price McCarthy, another Carson City attorney who practices family law, said only seven other states have a lower child support limit for a person with an income of $48,000 or above.

But Brian Hutchins, a divorced father, said Assembly Bill 37 would mean a 57 percent increase in one jump. He said he doubted anybody's salary has increased that much since 1987. The state, he said, pays only $400 to $500 a month per child for foster care..

Sandra-Mae Pickens, another Carson City lawyer who represents most men in divorce proceedings, said these fathers pay other expenses such as medical and for extra curricula activities. She represents men who make $50,000 to $70,000 a year and she estimated her clients pay between $1,000 and $1,500 a month.

And many of these men have custody of the child 49.9 percent of the time but still must come up with the support, she said.

The committee did not take any action on the bill. The present law sets a sliding scale on what must be paid. For instance, the schedule says that for one child the support should be 18 percent of the gross monthly income but should not exceed $500 unless the judge makes a specific finding. For support of four children, the payment is 31 percent of gross monthly income but no more than $500 per child.

Cooney, McCarthy and Pickens agreed that judges rarely deviate from the maximum amount except in cases where there are special needs. The judges, Cooney said are "reluctant to go beyond the cap."

An example of the problem, she said, were two women in her office who must pay $950 per month for child care. Those costs have been rising significantly but there's been no increase in the $500 figure, she said.

McCarthy said the formula would not change, only the maximum payment. And for people making minimum wage who have to pay child support, nothing would change. "This is only for people who can pay," she said

There are some cases, she said, where an individual earns $250,000, yet only pays $500 a month in child support.

Efforts to raise the $500 failed in the 1993 and 1997 Legislatures.