P.O.P.S. v. Gardner
998 F.2d 764, 1993 WL 281628 (1993)
Rule of Law:
State child support schedules are constitutional under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment if they are rationally related to a legitimate state interest and do not directly and substantially interfere with fundamental rights or classify suspect classes, even if the underlying economic tables create an 'irrebuttable presumption' on specific cost components.
Facts:
- Congress mandated that each state develop presumptive child support guidelines under 42 U.S.C. § 667(b).
- In June 1985, Governor Booth Gardner created an Executive Task Force to investigate Washington state’s child support program.
- The Task Force issued a final report in September 1986, recommending that the State adopt a presumptive child support schedule.
- After numerous public hearings and meetings, the Child Support Schedule Commission presented a schedule to the Legislature, which it passed into law.
- The Schedule’s economic table sets forth the basic child support obligation based on combined family net income and number of children, operating similarly to a tax table.
- The basic support obligation is allocated between parents based on each parent’s share of the family’s net income.
- The Schedule permits courts to deviate from the presumptive support obligation, requiring written findings of fact to explain any such deviation.
- Enumerated bases for deviation include wealth, income of other adults in the household, liens or extraordinary debt, other child support or maintenance, children from other relationships, nonrecurring income, and the child spending significant time with the obligated parent.
Procedural Posture:
- Parents Opposed to Punitive Support (P.O.P.S.) initiated a lawsuit in a United States District Court, challenging the constitutionality of the Washington State Child Support Schedule.
- The State of Washington filed a motion for summary judgment in the district court.
- The district court granted the State's motion for summary judgment, ruling that the Schedule did not violate the Equal Protection or Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.
- P.O.P.S. (appellant) appealed the district court's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (appellee).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Washington State Child Support Schedule violate the Due Process or Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, or create an unconstitutional irrebuttable presumption by not allowing parents to challenge the underlying assumptions of its economic table?
Opinions:
Majority - Farris, J.
No, the Washington State Child Support Schedule does not violate the Due Process or Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, nor does it create an unconstitutional irrebuttable presumption. The court affirmed the district court's decision. Regarding procedural due process and the claim of an irrebuttable presumption, the court assumed arguendo that the economic table itself is irrebuttable in practice. However, it clarified that this is not an unconstitutional irrebuttable presumption but rather a substantive rule of law, consistent with the Supreme Court's holding in Michael H. v. Gerald D. The Legislature, through the schedule, establishes a social policy that divorcing parents must sustain their children at a certain standard of living commensurate with their income. The inability to challenge the specific cost components of the economic table does not negate due process, as the Schedule itself provides for deviations from the presumptive support obligation based on various individualized factors. For substantive due process, the court determined that strict scrutiny does not apply because the Schedule does not directly and substantially interfere with fundamental rights such as marriage, having children, or maintaining a relationship with one’s children, unlike the statute in Zablocki v. Redhail. While financial pressures might influence family decisions, all financial obligations do so, and this does not warrant strict scrutiny. The rational basis test is therefore appropriate. Under this test, the Schedule rationally relates to legitimate state interests: (1) increasing the adequacy of child support orders, (2) increasing the equity of orders, and (3) reducing adversarial proceedings by promoting predictability and voluntary settlements. The schedule's development based on economic studies and data demonstrates its non-arbitrary nature. On the equal protection claim, the court applied the rational basis test because children of noncustodial households do not constitute a suspect class, and the Schedule does not directly and substantially interfere with fundamental rights. The court found no discrimination, as the Schedule explicitly allows for deviation from the basic support obligation when either parent has children from other relationships, ensuring that children in noncustodial families are not unduly burdened. It is rational for the presumptive support calculation to initially include only children for whom both divorcing parents are jointly responsible, with other children considered through the deviation process.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the deferential nature of judicial review for social and economic legislation, particularly when fundamental rights are not directly and substantially burdened, and no suspect class is implicated. It clarifies that state-mandated child support schedules, even those employing economic tables with non-discoverable assumptions about cost components, are considered substantive rules of law, not unconstitutional irrebuttable presumptions, provided they offer mechanisms for individual deviation and serve legitimate state interests. The ruling limits the application of strict scrutiny to situations of direct interference with fundamental rights, emphasizing that indirect financial impacts are generally reviewed under the rational basis test.
