EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

REPORT ON THE CREATION OF THE CHILD SUPPORT AWARD DATABASE

Dr. Daniel Stripinis
Stripinis Consulting Inc

1994

UNEDITED

The present study was funded by the Research and Statistics Division, Department of Justice Canada. The views expressed herein are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the Department of Justice Canada.

The information may be reproduced, in whole or in part and by any means, without further permission of the Department of Justice Canada. No such reproduction shall indicate that the Department of Justice is in any way responsible for the accuracy or reliability of the reproduction, nor shall any such reproduction indicate that it was made with the endorsement of, or in affiliation with, the Department of Justice Canada.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.0 INTRODUCTION TO THE DATABASE PROJECT

1.1 The Rationale for the Database

The Department of Justice is analyzing and evaluating a number of methods of determining child support awards. Many of these methods are formulas, usually based on the incomes of the two parents, and the number and ages of the children.

Before recommending a particular methodology for determining child support awards, the Department felt it would be important to compare the the current awards to the awards which would be determined by various mathematical formulae. Since there was no current database which could adequately be used for such a comparative study, the Department of Justice decided to collect the required data, and create a computerized database.

The database can also be used to test the hypothesis (which was one of the reasons the Department embarked on the project of creating a formal methodology for calculating awards), that there are regional or inter-judge variations in the amounts of the awards given in similar circumstances.

1.2 The Data Collected

The data collected included the basic information necessary for the above described comparative study: incomes of the two parents, the amount of the award, the number and ages (dates of birth collected) of the children, and the custodial arrangements (mother, father, joint, other).

In addition to the information which is required to calculate the simulated awards, other background information was collected: the level of court, the geographic location, the type of order, and whether or not there was a cost of living clause. There was also room on the form for comments. Comments are difficult to include in a computerized database. However, an attempt was made to take relevant information from the comments and include them in the data. For example, information about tips or welfare receipt was sometimes included in the comments, and this information was used to adjust the gross incomes. Comments also frequently included information about monetary support which was hard to quantify: payment for school supplies, clothes, food, cable, telephone, mortgage, insurance or equity in house.

1.2.1 Tax Portion of Awards

The data collection form did not ask court staff to indicate the amount of the tax portion of the child support awards that was to compensate the custodial parent for their taxes on the payments. However, it is assumed that within each award, whereapplicable, an amount has been added to the base child support award to be used by the custodial parent to pay their taxes on the payments of the support. This assumption is based on the time this sample was taken, early 1992. At that time, support payments had for a number of years been increased by the courts to compensate for taxes due to the "inclusion/deduction" tax provisions for payments of support. Also, court staff were asked to give the "total" amount of the award, not just the amount to go directly to the child(ren).

1.3 The Sample

The sample consists of all cases which involved or could have involved child support awards. This included all divorce and separation cases in which the government, a parent, or a person other than one of the parents, requested an application for child support.

The cases were chosen on the basis of time intervals and sample catchment areas. All relevant cases which were heard in the given time interval in the catchment areas, were included in the database. These catchment areas are defined by the court areas. The following are the dates and places of the catchment areas. (Note that there may be more than one court in a "place" -- for example, Toronto -- the catchment area is the area serviced by the sample court, not the whole of Toronto.)

Alberta: Calgary and Edmonton Oct. 91 - Feb. 92

British Columbia: Vancouver Feb. 92 - May 92

New Brunswick: St. John's Sept/Nov. 91 - May 92

N.W.T.: Yellowknife Dec. 91 - Jan. 92

Ontario: Toronto Jan. 92 - Apr. 92

Yukon: Whitehorse Dec. 91 - Jan. 92

There are 3196 cases included in the sample. Many of these are enforcement orders, where the incomes of the two parents are not known.

In other cases, information was either incomplete or missing (e.g. incomes of one or both parents missing, or custody arrangements missing). Of those cases which were complete, not all were appropriate for inclusion in the database. For example, joint and split custody cases are not dealt with by the guidelines, and are therefore not included in the database.

When considering only those cases which can be used for the study which compares the actual awards to those calculated using various formulas, the active sample is reduced to 709 cases.