D – State of Wisconsin

• Previous page
• Table of Contents
• Next page

Part 1: Description of the Child Support Model

A. Overview

Wisconsin is considered to be a pioneer in developing approaches to the determination of child support through the use of guidelines. Wisconsin has had a standardized method in place to assist parents and family law officials in the calculation of child support since the early 1980’s.161 Wisconsin was well ahead of any federal government reforms.162 Following the recommendations contained in the Institute for Research on Poverty 1982 Study Report, Child Support: Weaknesses of the Old and Features of a Proposed New System, the state of Wisconsin implemented the child support assurance system in stages.163 The percentage of income standard was made an option for the courts to use in 1983 and became the presumptive child support obligation as of July 1987.164

The percentage rates that were applied to the gross income of the noncustodial parent were:  17% for one child; 25% for two; 29% for three; 31% for four, and 34% for five or more children. The child support amount was to be collected through a payroll withholding system or taken from social security payments or income taxes.165

Since the 1980s, like most jurisdictions with child support models that include standard formulas, rules and regulations guiding their application, Wisconsin’s child support model has undergone changes over time. The more recent changes are detailed below in Part 3.

Currently, Wisconsin continues to use the percentage of income166 model for determining child support obligations for parents. The rules for setting the percentage of income model are contained in Wisconsin’s Administrative Code for the Department of Children and Families (DCF): Chapter 49 DCF 150 Child Support Percentage of Income Standard.167

It provides a rebuttable presumption for calculating child support obligations. The guideline amount may be rebutted in whole or in part; however, every order rebutting the guideline amount shall state the reason for the deviation. The family court will issue child support “obligations” in accordance with these Guidelines unless applying the guidelines would be unjust, inappropriate or not in the best interests of the children.

The principles underlying the Wisconsin Guidelines are clearly stipulated in their administrative rules and are as follows:

• The standard is based on the principle that a child's standard of living should, to the degree possible, not be adversely affected because his or her parents are not living together;
• It determines the percentage of a parent's income and potential income from assets that parents should contribute toward the support of children if the family does not remain together;
• The standard determines the minimum amount each parent is expected to contribute to the support of his or her children;
• It expects that the custodial parent share his or her income directly with their children; and
• It also presumes that the basic needs of the children are being met. This latter presumption may be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence that the needs of the children are not being met.

B. How can Parents Obtain a Child Support Award?

In Wisconsin, only the courts can set a child support order. To assist parents, the Wisconsin Child Support Program (of the Department of Children and Families) provides services to assist parents to establish orders (as well as establish paternity, locate parents, financial services, etc.). All families with a court order for support (child support, alimony/maintenance, and family support) receive financial management services. Families needing help with child support may apply to their local child support agencies for case management services (commonly called child support services). There is no application fee. Families receiving public assistance automatically receive case management services.168

C. How the Formula Works

Wisconsin uses a percentage of income approach, which basically requires the income of the paying parent and the number of children for whom support is being considered. Depending on the characteristics of the case, one of six formulas is used to determine the appropriate child support award.169

The first formula is referred to as the Standard Guidelines.170 Three criteria must be met to use the Standard Guidelines:

• The case involves sole custody of the children;
• The paying parent has an income that falls between $1,350 and $7,000171 per month ($16,200 - $84,000 annually); and172
• The paying parent has no prior child support obligations.

In these cases, the calculations are very straightforward. A Percentage Standard is applied to the gross income of the paying parent to determine a standard amount of child support. The Percentage Standard is: 17% of the income of the paying parent for 1 child, 25% for 2, 29% for 3, 31% for 4 and 34% for 5 or more children.173

If parents have case circumstances that do not meet the criteria for using the Standard Guidelines, then once of six additional formulas is applied. The use of one of these six formulas is an exception to the Standard Guidelines and the courts must concur with their use.174 These formulas are listed under the title: Determining the child support obligation in special circumstances.175 The case circumstances that dictate which one of the six formulas is to be used are as follows:

1. Serial family cases176 – For a serial-family parent where the child support obligation incurred for a marital or non-marital child in a subsequent family. The child support obligation must be as a result of a court order.

   In cases where the court agrees that there is more than one child support obligation for a paying parent, it will first subtract the amount of the existing child support obligation from the parent's monthly income available for the new child support obligation. The percentage standard that is used in the Standard Guidelines is then applied to this adjusted monthly income.

2. Shared placement cases177 – Where parents have custody arrangements that allow for at least 25% of the time with the noncustodial parent. These cases require information on the monthly income for both parents.

   In cases where courts agree to the use of the shared-placement formula (the order must state that the parents will share the placement of their children for at least 25% of the time (at least 92 days/year)) and the court has ordered each parent to assume the child’s basic support costs in proportion to the time that the parent has placement of the child, the Percentage Standard in the Standard Guidelines is used. This percentage standard is applied to the monthly net incomes of both parents. The results are then multiplied by 150%. This multiplier is designed to account for each parent’s share of the children’s basic support costs (food, shelter, clothing, etc.). Then, each parent’s percentage of time with the child is calculated and applied to the other parent’s basic obligation. The two results are subtracted from one another and the parent with the positive amount is the paying parent.

3. Split-placement cases178 – Where there is more than one child and the children split residence time with both parents. These cases require information on the monthly income for both parents.

   In cases of split placement, the Percentage Standard that is used in the Standard Guidelines is divided by the number of children: for 2 children: 25%/2=12.5%; 29%/3=9.67% for 3; 31%/4=7.75% for 4, and 34%/5=6.8% for five. This provides a per child percentage. Then, based on the number of children each parent has, for example if one parent has three children and the other has one child, then their respective percentages would be: 3 times 7.75%=23.25% and 7.75%. These percentages are multiplied by the other parent’s monthly net income. The resulting figures are compared, and the parent with the higher amount pays that amount to the other parent.

4. High-income payer cases179 – Where the gross income from all sources of the paying parent is $7,000 month or more ($84,000 per year).

   In cases where the court agrees to the use of the high-income formula, there are two sets of percentages. If the income is greater than or equal to $7,000 and less than or equal to $12,500, then the percentage that applies, by number of children, is 80% of the Percentage Standard. If the income is greater than $12,500, then the percentage that applies, by number of children, is 60% of the Percentage Standard.

5. Low-income payer cases180 – Where the gross income from all sources of the paying parent is less than 150% of the Federal Poverty Guidelines (FPG)181 for a single person.

   In cases where the court agrees to the use of the low-income formula, the Percentage Standard that is used in the Standard Guidelines that is applied to the paying parent’s income to determine the relevant child support amount is lower. The table of child support obligations for low-income payers is provided in legislation182 (Appendix C). It shows the child support amounts at each income level (from 75% to 150% of FPG) by the number of children (one to five). The percentages of income used to generate child support amounts at each income level are also provided. These percentages increase linearly as income increases, ending with the Percentage Standard. For example, for one child the percentage of income starts at 11.22% for the lowest income, and increases to 17% at the highest income, which is 150% of the FPG. Lastly, if a payer's monthly income available for child support is below 75% of the FPG, the court may order an amount appropriate to the payer's total economic circumstances.183

6. Combination of special circumstances – The court may apply any combination of special circumstance provisions as noted above (case circumstances 1 to 5) to determine a child support obligation if the criteria apply and the combination of provisions is not specifically prohibited.184

Furthermore, either parent can request a deviation to any of the six formulas if they provide evidence that the use of the applicable formula relevant to their case circumstance is unfair to the child or to any of the parties. Various reasons for consideration for a deviation include:

• The financial resources of the child;
• The financial resources of both parents;
• Maintenance received by either party;
• The cost of childcare if the custodian works outside the home, or the value of custodial services performed by the custodian if the custodian remains in the home;
• The award of substantial periods of physical placement to both parents;
• Extraordinary travel expenses incurred in exercising the right to periods of physical placement;
• The physical, mental, and emotional health needs of the child, including any costs for health insurance;
• The child's educational needs;
• The tax consequences to each party;
• The best interests of the child;
• The earning capacity of each parent, based on each parent's education, training and work experience and the availability of work in or near the parent's community; and
• Any other factors which the court determines relevant.185

If the court finds that use of the applicable guidelines is unfair to the child or the requesting party, the court shall state in writing or on the record: the amount of support that would be required by using the Percentage Standard; the amount by which the court's order deviates from that amount; its reasons for finding that use of the Percentage Standard is unfair to the child or the party; its reasons for the amount of the modification and, the basis for the modification.186

Part 2: Elements of the Child Support Model

A. Data Source Used to Determine expenditures on the Children

How are expenditures for the child determined?

The percentages used in the Wisconsin Guidelines were chosen based on extensive research that was undertaken by the Institute for Research on Poverty.187

Following the research and analysis of various economic approaches to determining what parents spend on their children, researchers at the Institute concluded that the proportion of income devoted to a first child varies from between 16 to 24% for one child in intact families. They also found that the share of income spent on the second and third child was about half of what was spent on the first.

The guiding principle in Wisconsin was the concept of “continuity of expenditure”. This means that children should not be adversely affected because their parents do not live together. Thus estimates of expenditures on children in intact families are the basic comparison point for the “costs” of children.188

Upon considering several factors, such as balancing the conflicting objectives of ensuring that the needs of the child are met while also ensuring an appropriate standard of living for the paying parent, as well as recognizing that establishing a child support standard cannot be a purely scientific exercise, the authors of the Wisconsin percentage-of-income standard determined the support rates for the paying parent. These rates were 17% of the gross income of the paying parent for 1 child, 25% for 2, 29% for 3, 31% for 4 and 34% for 5 or more children.189 These percentages are the same percentages that were used in the early 1980s, when the state of Wisconsin first developed their child support policy.

How are the expenditures reflected in the formula calculations?

The Wisconsin Child Support Program provides online calculators to estimate the amount of child support under various case circumstances. As well, it provides two lookup tables: A Child Support Percentage Conversion Table190 and A Child Support Obligation for Low Income Payers at 75% to 150% of the 2019 Federal Poverty Guidelines.191

B. Approach Used to Apportion the Amount that the Two Parents will Share

Wisconsin uses the percentage of income formula to determine the child support amount. The basic formula is called the Standard Guidelines. As mentioned above, depending on the circumstances, a number of different formulas are applied. These circumstances pertain to the income level of the paying parent and the custody arrangements and/or the presence of dependent children. Wisconsin uses the same percentage of income formula, but adjusts the Percentage Standard that is used in the application of the relevant formula to reflect different family circumstances.

C. Accompanying Policy/Legislation (Rules)

i)  Determination of income

The Wisconsin Guidelines require the use of the gross income of the paying parent when determining the amount with which to apply the percentage standard. Gross income is defined as all income and earnings from all sources. The income may or may not be taxable. Income can be in the form of money, property, or services.

Gross income includes:192

• Wages, salaries, earnings, tips, interest, capital gains, commissions, and bonuses;
• Worker's compensation or other personal injury awards intended to replace income;
• Unemployment insurance;
• Income continuation benefits and Social Security Disability Income (SSDI) payments;
• Contributions to retirement and cafeteria plans and undistributed income of a corporation; and
• Military allowances and veterans disability benefits.

Gross income does not include:

• Child support; and
• Any public assistance payments, Supplemental Security Income (SSI)193, etc.

Income attribution194

The court may impute income based on earning capacity. In situations where the income of a parent is less than the parent's earning capacity or is unknown, the court may impute income to the parent at an amount that represents the parent's ability to earn, based on the parent's education, training and recent work experience, earnings during previous periods, current physical and mental health, history of child care responsibilities as the parent with primary physical placement, and the availability of work in or near the parent's community. As an alternative to imputed income, the court may order the parent who is not a custodial parent to search for a job or participate in a work experience and job training program.

The court may also impute a reasonable earning potential to a parent's assets if the court finds both of the following: The parent has ownership and control over any real or personal property, including but not limited to, life insurance, cash and deposit accounts, stocks and bonds, business interests, net proceeds resulting from worker's compensation or other personal injury awards not intended to replace income, and cash and corporate income in a corporation in which the parent has an ownership interest sufficient to individually exercise control and the cash or corporate income is not included as gross income under s. DCF 150.02 (13).

Impact of custody and parenting time

As noted above, if the child spends more than 25% of the time with the noncustodial parent, and/or if there is more than one child and the children are split between the parents, or when the parenting plan combines both shared and split placement, a deviation to the use of the Standard Guideline applies. As indicated above, this will result using the Percentage Standard but in a modified manner.

Impact of special expenses or “variable costs”

In Wisconsin, special expenses or “variable costs” refer to the reasonable costs above basic support costs incurred by or on behalf of a child. These costs include but are not limited to, the cost of childcare, tuition, a child's special needs, and other activities that involve substantial cost. Under DCF 150, these costs are only applied in “shared-placement” or in “a combination of special circumstances”. The costs are to be split in proportion to each parent’s time spent with the child. Furthermore, these costs are to be split between the parents in shared-placement cases based on their proportion of time with the child. Also, the court is to determine how the monies are transferred as these amounts are not collected nor enforced by the Child Support Program.

For medical costs, Wisconsin rules under DCF 150.05 Medical Support, lay out the circumstances and rules for assigning the parents responsibility for providing the child with a private insurance, if applicable and available.

Concept of undue hardship

The guidelines shall be rebutted upon a preponderance of the evidence that the results are not in the best interests of the child or are inequitable to the parties. The guidelines may be rebutted in whole or in part. Every order rebutting the formula shall state the reason for the deviation. The court may decline to adopt any agreement deviating from the guidelines that is clearly contrary to the best interests of the child.

Variations to child support orders

Once a child support order has been established, it can only be changed if there has been a substantial change in circumstances. Examples of what constitutes a change in circumstances include:

• A substantial change in the income of either party. The definition of “substantial” is often based on the facts of the situation but usually this requires a change in gross income of at least $5,000 per year or more and results in a substantial change to the child support award;
• At least 33 months has passed since the last child support order, a substantial change in circumstances is presumed to have occurred;
• A child “ages out” by reaching the age of 18 or graduates from high school;
• A change in the placement schedule;
• A move by one party or the other resulting in additional transportation costs;
• A substantial change in the needs of either parent or the child. For example, if a child develops special needs, incurs unusual costs or if a parent becomes disabled;
• The coming into force of any changes to the legislation does not in and of itself, constitute grounds for a modification to the child support amounts;
• A change in “variable costs” does not constitute a change in circumstances for the purpose of modification; and
• Administrative adjustments can be made when a change occurs that is required by law – such as when a parent under a current child support order misses their payments for one calendar month. An arrears payment may be added to the order.

Other considerations

Age of the Child: Child support orders automatically terminate when all minor children have reached 18 years of age and have graduated from high school. If the child is over 18 and has not finished high school, the child support will terminate when the child is 19 or when the child receives a high school diploma – whichever occurs first.

Minimum Support: Wisconsin does not have a minimum order amount.

Maximum Support: Wisconsin does not have a maximum order amount.

Part 3: Summary of Key Changes to the Child Support Guidelines Legislation

A. Overview of the Changes

The Wisconsin policy to ensure the financial support to children of divorced or separated families started in 1982 as a Child Support Assurance System, where all parents living apart from their children were obligated to share their income with their children. The rate at which their income was to be shared was set out in an administrative code and normally depended on the number of children who were owed support.195

In 1983, the percentage of income model was made an option for courts in the state of Wisconsin to consider when they were determining child support awards. Under this type of model, the child support payment was determined based on the income of the paying parent. The percentage that was applied to that income increased as the number of children increased. For Wisconsin, the percentages to be applied to the net income of the paying parent is set out in their Administrative Code196 and is administered by the Department of Children and Families.

Further amendments occurred in 1987, when the Guidelines became presumptive.197

2004

In 2004, there was change in the treatment of shared placement cases eliminating the “bands” of time that the child spends with the paying parent. Prior to these changes, the “bands” of time that were used in the formula calculations created “cliffs” in the award results.198 The “bands of time” were eliminated, and the lowest threshold of time that the child could spend with the paying parent before the case was considered to not be a sole custody situation was reduced to 25%. From this threshold and over, the parents are considered to have a shared placement case.

At the same time, Wisconsin added provisions to address low-and high-income paying parents. It introduced income limits to define each category and developed two formulas designed to calculate child support amounts for paying parents who had incomes that fell into these two different income categories.

2017

The federal government passed its Flexibility, Efficiency, and Modernization in Child Support Enforcement Programs Final Rule199 to among other requirements, include a rule that incorporated the longstanding federal requirement that child support orders reflect the noncustodial parents’ ability to pay established under income-based guidelines adopted by each state. This was done with the goal of increasing the accuracy of the child support orders, thus increasing the likelihood of payment.200

2018

By federal legislation, Wisconsin’s Guidelines have to be reviewed and updated every 4 years.201

The latest review took place in the spring of 2015. An advisory panel comprised of representatives from the judiciary, public interest groups and the Department of Children and Families completed their report and made a series of recommendations to the Department of Children and Families for their consideration.202

In July 2018 a series of revisions were made to DCF 150.203 Of particular note, changes were made pertaining to:

• The definition of variable costs to include transportation costs and the requirement for the listing of the variable costs to be agreed to by both parties or ordered by the courts.
• Changes to what is considered “equivalent care” and calculating “overnights” to include the consideration of “blocks of hours” during the day spent with the child and changes to the calculations for determining the number of overnights.
• Changes to the income threshold for the inclusion of medical support.
• Adjustments to the definition of income such as the inclusion/deduction of payments received for social security benefits, and employer paid pension contributions and Veteran’s disability compensation benefits.

B. Overview of Leading Case Law on the Child Support Model

There has not been any specific case law identified that has resulted in any legislative changes to the Wisconsin Child Support Guidelines.

Part 4: Summary of the Literature that Assesses the Model

There have been no formal evaluations conducted on the Wisconsin Child Support Guidelines. A review of the available literature on the advantages and disadvantages of the various elements of the Wisconsin Child Support Guidelines revealed the following:204

A. Advantages

• Because the income of the noncustodial parent is the only income required in the calculation of child support, application of the Guidelines is easier to apply than other models such as income shares or the Delaware model.205
• Because the Wisconsin Guidelines are not based on actual expenditures for special expenses or “variable costs” and these costs are not considered in the child support calculations, the application of the Guidelines are easier to administer and update.206
• Simplicity of the guidelines enhances public understanding and hence support for the policy.207

B. Disadvantages

• Perceived unfairness as the percentage of income model does not take into consideration the income of the non-paying parent – especially in cases where the non-paying parent has income levels that are higher than the paying parent.
• Formula and percentages used to determine child support amounts in cases where the paying parent earns more than $7,000 per month is unfair and not equitable as they pay a smaller percentage of their monthly income than those paying parents earning less than $1,350 per month.208
• The Percentage Standard is inherently flawed because it is based on a methodology to estimate the costs of raising children in intact two-parent families.209
• The provisions in legislation with respect to the definition of gross income are too broad and overestimate available income for the paying parent.210
• Even though the underlying assumption is that the non-paying parent shares their income with the children that live with them, they do not have to account for how they spend those resources. Also, in certain circumstances, the non-paying parent in a high-income case may not have to supplement the child support with an equivalent percentage of their own income. The result is that the paying parent bears the entire financial burden of the child’s expenditures.211

It should be noted that the advantages and disadvantages listed above are those of the authors of papers that have been reviewed for this study, and are not based on the results of any formal evaluations or studies conducted to examine the effectiveness, fairness or efficiency of the Wisconsin Child Support Guidelines. As well, several of the advantages and disadvantages noted pertain to not only the Wisconsin Child Support Guidelines, but to all guidelines that have an approach based on a percentage of income model.

Part 5: Selected Case Scenarios Using the Formula

The Wisconsin Department of Children and Families provides a calculator tool and worksheets on its website. The detailed calculations for the two scenarios are attached as Appendix B. The following provides the results from two case scenarios:

(All amounts are in US dollars.)

Case Scenario 1: Split custody. Fred (Parent B) and Jane (Parent A) have two children – Sally, age 8 and Sam, age 10 and no other dependent children. Each parent has one child for a majority of the year, with less than 92 overnights for either child at the other parent’s household. Fred has an annual gross income of $50,000 ($4,166/month) and Jane has an annual gross income of $30,000 ($2,500/month).

Case Scenario 2: Shared Placement. Fred and Jane have one child, Sally age 8. Fred has care and custody of Sally for 130 overnights per year. Fred has an annual gross income of $50,000 ($4,166/month) and Jane has an annual gross income of $30,000 ($2,500/month).

Appendix A: References

Beck, Molly. State proposes to reduce amount wealthy parents pay in child support, December 2018. https://madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/state-proposes-to-reduce-amount-wealthy-parents-pay-in-child/article_8c54963d-5dfa-a92e-361968a7f675.html

Chesnik, Constance M. “Wisconsin’s Child Support Guidelines Change July 1.” InsideTrack Vol. 10, No. 11 (June 2018). https://www.wisbar.org/NewsPublications/InsideTrack/Pages/Article.aspx?Volume=10&Issue=11&ArticleID=26420

Child Support Guidelines Review Advisory Committee Report to Wisconsin Department of Children and Families, September 2015.https://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/wiscnews.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/d/01/d01c3d01-34f8-5680-bbe0-aa5644ab4897/58598f208a4c7.pdf.pdf

Dodd, Kelly M. “Poor Little Rich kids: Revising Wisconsin’s Child Support Payment System to Accommodate High-Income Payers.” Marquette Law Review Volume 83, Issue 4, Article 6 (Summer 2000). https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1393&context=mulr

Garfinkel, Irwin. The Evolution of Child Support Policy, Focus Vol. 11, No. 1, (Spring 1988): 11-16. University of Wisconsin-Madison, Institute for Research on Poverty. https://www.irp.wisc.edu/publications/focus/pdfs/foc111d.pdf

Garfinkel, Irwin and Melli, Marygold. Child Support: Weaknesses of the Old and Features of a Proposed New System, Vol. 1, IRP Special Report no. 32A, 1982. http://repository.law.wisc.edu/s/uwlaw/media/76951.

Hunter, Nan D. Child Support Law and Policy: The Systemic Imposition of Costs on Women. Georgetown University Law Center, 1983. https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=2734&context=facpub

Karp & Iancu, Revisions to Child Support in Wisconsin, 2018. https://www.karplawfirm.com/revisions-to-child-support-in-wisconsin/

Melli, Marygold S. A Brief History and Description of the Wisconsin Percentage Standard for Child Support. Wisconsin Family Impact Seminars (1991). https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/393c/3c2e09a12d4278816cf68c59974f25e4390a.pdf

Meyer, Charles J., Soulen, Justin W., and Goldberg Weiner, Ellen. “Child Support Determinations in High Income Families - A Survey of the Fifty States”. Journal of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, (March 2016). http://aaml.org/sites/default/files/MAT209_5.pdf

Murphy Desmond Lawyers S.C., 2018 Wisconsin Child Support Changes (DCF 150 Rule Revisions). https://www.murphydesmond.com/?t=40&an=79946&format=xml&p=4827

Noyes, Jennifer L. Child Support Models and the Perception of “Fairness. Institute for Research on Poverty, University of Wisconsin–Madison, December 2011. https://www.irp.wisc.edu/wp/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Task6-CS2009-11-Noyes-Report.pdf

Wall-Cyb, Teresa.“Child Support Laws in Wisconsin.” DivorceNet. https://www.divorcenet.com/resources/divorce/divorce-and-children/child-support-wisconsin.htm

Wisconsin Bureau of Child Support. “Your Guide to Setting Support Amounts.” https://dcf.wisconsin.gov/files/publications/pdf/824.pdf

Wisconsin Child Support Legislation. https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/admin_code/dcf/101_199

Contact Person
Daniel Meyer, Professor
School of Social Work
University of Wisconsin–Madison.

Appendix B: Two Case Scenarios

---

• Previous page
• Table of Contents
• Next page