SB 133 - Making Child Support In Nevada Fair.

In 2015, I drafted and successfully lobbied for legislation to make custody determinations in Nevada fairer by setting up a level playing field for parents.  In 2017, I brought legislation that created the Child Support Review Committee that proposed to modernize and update our child support guidelines. It passed, and the Committee took nearly a year to study and revamp how we calculate child support. It’s estimated that more than a third of Nevada’s children are entitled to child support from one or both parents. And though we did our best, there were some inequities that were kept in the calculation. The one I seek to fix is that of an unfair shift of the support burden to one parent when the parents have joint custody.

Nevada law states that both parents are expected to provide financially for their children. While that’s not a numerical equality target, it is an expectation that each parent should contribute a proportionate share of their income to support their children.  Currently, parents in a joint physical custody arrangement are expected to contribute the calculated amount, based upon their gross monthly income (GMI).  But at the end of the calculation, when the comparison is made, the parent with a larger obligation has to pay the full difference to the other, rather than half.  It makes the larger income earner pay for most if not all of the child support obligation.

For example, say parents have joint physical custody of one child, and Parent A earns $6,000 per month, and Parent B earns $3,000 per month.  The calculation for the obligation for both parents is as follows: 16% of GMI for the first $6,000 equals the total obligation for the parent. (There is a tiered calculation for GMI over $6,000, but for clarity, I’m using a simple calculation here.) Since it’s a joint physical custody, each parent has about the same amount of time with the child, and they are expected to provide for their children while in their custody.

Parent A’s calculation for one child becomes 16% of $6,000, or $960.  Parent B’s calculation is 16% of $3,000, or $480.  But under current law, at the end of this calculation, Parent A has to pay all of the difference to Parent B, or $480. In other words, Parent B is not required to contribute at all to the child, but Parent A is required to pay 100% of the calculated child support obligation.  Inevitably, Parent A says, “that’s not fair!”  They’re right.  As a function of gross income, they should have paid half of the difference, thereby giving both parents an equal proportionate share.

This bill seeks to do just that: equalize the obligation.  It’s a simple adjustment – the parent with the larger obligation pays half the difference to the other.  It’s a simple solution to a simple problem.  And it’s not much to ask.