Fathers sue state over child-support guidelines

MONTGOMERY - Two Jefferson County men have filed a lawsuit challenging Alabama's child-support guidelines in which they contend a formula used by the state is arbitrary and "does not correspond to any set of rational principles for making a child-support award."

James R. Blackston of Vestavia Hills and Bradley W. Barber of Gardendale contend the guidelines don't comply with federal law for a variety of reasons.

In their lawsuit against the state Administrative Office of Courts, they ask the U.S. District Court in Montgomery to order several state court officials to explain why they shouldn't be held in contempt for violating agreements that settled similar suits the two men filed in 1993 and 1999.

Assistant Attorney General Charles Campbell, representing the state, said court officials won't comment on the suit but will file a written response in court.

A federal law, the Family Support Act of 1988, allows states to receive federal funds for child support enforcement programs if they meet certain requirements, including creating a set of guidelines to be used by courts and administrative agencies to set child support award amounts.

The law also requires states to evaluate and update the guidelines at least once every four years, considering economic data on the cost of raising children.

The suit was particularly critical of a plan being used in Alabama's child support guidelines for measuring family income that they said is "arbitrarily contrived, not based on any valid economic evidence, and ... does not correspond to any set of rational principles for making a child-support award."

The suit said the state violated the terms of a December 2003 settlement of the 1999 lawsuit by not convening an advisory committee on child support for the Alabama Supreme Court within the times specified.

The suit also contended that hearings held in the state judicial building in Montgomery on March 11 and 12 to receive comments on the child support guidelines were not truly open to the public because of tight security measures and lack of proper notice.

Cynthia Brothers of Birmingham, one of those who attended the hearings, said she and many others spoke against the child support guidelines, which she said "are not based on the cost of raising a child" but on "how much money do you make?"

"This approach to calculating income is unfair to all the children of this state and the fathers ordered to pay it," she said.

Brothers said her husband paid $250 per month in child support after he and his first wife divorced. But his payment recently increased to $650 per month under the current guidelines. That is one-fourth of his income, and paying that amount each month is a hardship for her family, Brothers said.

"I just came back from the grocery store and had to put groceries back on the shelf. We don't have enough money," she said.

Blackston and Barber contended in their lawsuit that court officials violated the most recent settlement by deciding during a meeting that excluded them to contract with Policy Studies Inc. of Denver. The two men also contend the court officials tailored the process so that Policy Studies was the only vendor to submit a proposal.

"The policy in Alabama on child-support guidelines, as applied to those that are obligated to pay child support, in real life, is one of hatred, prejudice, disdain, contempt, loathsomeness and undeserving of any constitutional or moral rights," their complaint stated.

	Sunday, May 16, 2004 STAN BAILEY News staff writer MONTGOMERY - Two Jefferson County men have filed a lawsuit challenging Alabama's child-support guidelines in which they contend a formula used by the state is arbitrary and "does not correspond to any set of rational principles for making a child-support award." James R. Blackston of Vestavia Hills and Bradley W. Barber of Gardendale contend the guidelines don't comply with federal law for a variety of reasons. In their lawsuit against the state Administrative Office of Courts, they ask the U.S. District Court in Montgomery to order several state court officials to explain why they shouldn't be held in contempt for violating agreements that settled similar suits the two men filed in 1993 and 1999. Assistant Attorney General Charles Campbell, representing the state, said court officials won't comment on the suit but will file a written response in court. A federal law, the Family Support Act of 1988, allows states to receive federal funds for child support enforcement programs if they meet certain requirements, including creating a set of guidelines to be used by courts and administrative agencies to set child support award amounts. The law also requires states to evaluate and update the guidelines at least once every four years, considering economic data on the cost of raising children. The suit was particularly critical of a plan being used in Alabama's child support guidelines for measuring family income that they said is "arbitrarily contrived, not based on any valid economic evidence, and ... does not correspond to any set of rational principles for making a child-support award." The suit said the state violated the terms of a December 2003 settlement of the 1999 lawsuit by not convening an advisory committee on child support for the Alabama Supreme Court within the times specified. The suit also contended that hearings held in the state judicial building in Montgomery on March 11 and 12 to receive comments on the child support guidelines were not truly open to the public because of tight security measures and lack of proper notice. Cynthia Brothers of Birmingham, one of those who attended the hearings, said she and many others spoke against the child support guidelines, which she said "are not based on the cost of raising a child" but on "how much money do you make?" "This approach to calculating income is unfair to all the children of this state and the fathers ordered to pay it," she said. Brothers said her husband paid $250 per month in child support after he and his first wife divorced. But his payment recently increased to $650 per month under the current guidelines. That is one-fourth of his income, and paying that amount each month is a hardship for her family, Brothers said. "I just came back from the grocery store and had to put groceries back on the shelf. We don't have enough money," she said. Blackston and Barber contended in their lawsuit that court officials violated the most recent settlement by deciding during a meeting that excluded them to contract with Policy Studies Inc. of Denver. The two men also contend the court officials tailored the process so that Policy Studies was the only vendor to submit a proposal. "The policy in Alabama on child-support guidelines, as applied to those that are obligated to pay child support, in real life, is one of hatred, prejudice, disdain, contempt, loathsomeness and undeserving of any constitutional or moral rights," their complaint stated. Copyright 2004 al.com. All Rights Reserved.
	Back