Years ago, then Lt. Governor Greg Bell asserted in a public meeting that Utah would never have 50/50 custody legislation as it would result in a loss of millions of dollars. That was the first eye-opener that the ‘best interest of the state’ was more important than ‘the best interest of the child’. As a family oriented state, we must do better when it comes to equal parental access to children – in the child’s best interest. Contact your legislator to ensure Utah does not become a slave to federal programs that do not align with equal parenting.
How Legislation Shapes Custodial Arrangements: Rethinking the Default of Equal Custody
In an ideal world, every child would benefit from the active, loving involvement of both parents. Conventional wisdom and research often underscore the importance of two engaged parents in a child’s life. Yet, when we step back and scrutinize the legislative framework that governs child support and custody, it becomes evident that laws can, intentionally or otherwise, influence custodial arrangements—and not always in ways that promote equal custody. (Putting it politely.)
The Role of Legislative Incentives
Federal funding for child support enforcement, administered under Title IV-D of the Social Security Act, plays a critical role in how states structure their programs. While this funding supports efforts to ensure that non-custodial parents contribute financially, it is not a straightforward “dollar-for-dollar” reimbursement for every dollar collected. (There is a pool of federal incentive monies that states compete for. There are measured criteria used to incentivize collection of child support, implement programs, etc.) The federal funds are aimed at bolstering the administrative and enforcement activities surrounding child support. However, the very existence of these programs creates an environment where financial considerations that benefit the state are inherently intertwined with custodial decisions. The ‘incentive program’ also pits states against each other to find and implement means to get a larger piece of the available incentive funds. (ie. put the funds above the best interest of the child to have both parents equally involved with the child, thereby reducing child support amounts owed, and potential welfare funds to a ‘primary caretaker’.)
When Equal Custody Isn’t the Default
Legislation rarely mandates equal custody as the default arrangement- which should be the default rebuttable presumption. Instead, courts and state agencies are tasked with making custody decisions that supposedly best serve the child’s interests, taking into account a variety of factors—including the financial implications of such arrangements. In some instances, the structure of federal and state support programs may inadvertently favor custodial arrangements that resemble single-parent households. This happens, in part, because the financial architecture—child support enforcement on one side and means-tested assistance programs like SNAP on the other—can create incentives that do not necessarily align with equal time-sharing models. This is primarily controlled by state legislation that has to be tailored to ‘comply’ with federal mandates for participation on the ‘incentive funds’. This squarely puts the child on the chopping block analysis of how to get the ‘most’ of the incentive funds by using the child as leverage – putting the state’s ‘best interest’ above the ‘best interest of the child.’
For example, when one parent is designated as the primary custodian, the custodial parent’s financial need may be higher, making them eligible for additional support. While this eligibility is designed to protect children and ensure their basic needs are met, it can also reinforce the traditional model of single-parenthood. Such a framework, though rooted in policy, can lead to scenarios where shared parenting arrangements are seen as less financially viable or administratively efficient – again putting the state’s financial interest above the ‘best interest of the child’.
The Unintended Consequences of Fiscal Policy
When state systems operate under the pressures of securing maximum federal reimbursements and managing distribution of critical assistance programs, the emphasis often shifts toward streamlining processes. Equal custody, with its inherent complexity, may be viewed as an administrative challenge rather than a best practice for child welfare. (To put it mildly.) This administrative convenience, combined with the financial realities faced by low-income families, may result in custodial decisions that lean toward maintaining a primary caregiver model.
Rethinking Custody Policy
If the goal is truly to support children by harnessing the benefits of active involvement from both parents, policymakers need to reexamine the legislative frameworks and incentive structures in place. This means considering reforms that:
- Encourage Shared Parenting: Adjusting funding formulas and eligibility criteria for assistance programs could help align fiscal incentives with the goal of promoting shared custody arrangements.
- Streamline Administrative Processes: Developing systems that can effectively manage the complexities of shared custody without compromising the delivery of support services.
- Focus on Child Welfare: Ensuring that decisions about custodial arrangements are centered around the best interests of the child, rather than the convenience of administrative processes or the pursuit of fiscal reimbursements.
Conclusion
Legislation and policy are powerful tools that shape how families navigate the challenges of child rearing in economically diverse environments. While the ideal of equal custody remains appealing from a child development perspective (as is a rational approach), the interplay of child support enforcement and assistance programs has, at times, steered custodial arrangements toward models that favor a primary caregiver. By critically assessing and reforming these policies, there is potential to create a more balanced approach—one that supports both financial stability for families and the rich, multifaceted benefits of shared parenting.
Exploring these legislative nuances is essential in understanding why default custodial arrangements are not always in line with what research suggests is best for children—and how policy can evolve to better serve families in need. Contact your legislator to voice your concern.