Guideline Review: Child Support and Time Sharing by Parents

Abstract

* Voss-Bascom Professor of Law Emerita, University of Wisconsin-Madison, and an affiliate of the Institute for Research on Poverty at the University of Wisconsin Madison. 1. See, e.g., Cal. Fam. Code ? 3020(b) (West 1998) (it is the public policy of this state to assure that children have frequent continuing contact with both parents); Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. ? 14-10-124 (West 1998) (it is in the best interest of all parties to encourage frequent and continuing contact between each parent and the minor children); Fla. Stat. Ann. ? 61.13(2)(b)l (West 1998) (it is the public policy of this state to assure that each minor child has frequent and continuing contact with both parents); Mont. Code Ann. ? 40-4-212(1)(1) (1997) (frequent and continuing con tact with both parents is considered to be in the child's best interests unless court determines otherwise); N.J. Stat. Ann. ? 9:2-4 (West 1999) (it is the public policy of this state to assure minor children of frequent and continuing contact with both parents); Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 43, ? 112 (West 1999) (when it is in the best interests of a minor child, the court shall assure children of frequent and continuing contact with both parents); Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 15, ? 650 (1998) (it is in the best interests of the minor child to have the opportunity for maximum continuing physical and emotional contact with both parents). Although public policy encourages it, the social science evidence on its value is inconclusive. See studies cited in Judith A. Seltzer et al., Will Child Support Enforce ment Increase Father-Child Contact and Parental Conflict After Separation?, in Irwin Garfinkel et al., Fathers Under Fire: The Revolution in Child Support En forcement 157-58 (1998). But see Eleanor E. Maccoby & Robert H. Mnookin, Dividing the Child: Social and Legal Dilemmas of Custody 285-88 (1992). See also Brennan, J. dissenting in Bowen v. Gilliard, 483 U.S. 587, 612, 107 S. Ct. 3008, 3023 (1987).