In Massachusetts, the Child Support Guidelines are calculated up to a maximum combined annual income of $250,000.00.1 In cases where the combined available gross income of the parties exceeds $250,000.00 per year, the guidelines should be applied on the first $250,000.00 in the same proportion as the recipient's and payor's actual income (as provided on line 1h of the child support guidelines worksheet).2 In cases where the parties' annual income exceeds the limit, the Court should consider the award of support at the $250,000.00 level as the minimum presumptive order.3 The child support obligation for the portion of combined available income that exceeds $250,000.00 shall be in the discretion of the Court.4
In a case where the non-custodial parent's substantial income permits him/her to enjoy a highly elevated standard of living, the ability to pay any rationally based child support award is conceded and the dispute focuses on what constitutes a reasonable award.5 Case law states that child support orders in cases that exceed the guidelines cap should be premised upon an analysis of the child's reasonable needs.6 A determination of the child's reasonable needs will vary with the parties' circumstances.7 Courts have held that the child's needs are to be defined, at least in part, by their parents' standard of living and the child is entitled to participate in the non-custodial parent's higher standard of living when available resources permit.8 When determining the child's reasonable needs, two questions are raised: how lavish should the child's lifestyle be and should the non-custodial parent be required to pay child support payments that are unrelated to the child's known or presently anticipated needs?9 This line of analysis often leads to the "Three Pony Rule" i.e. no child needs three ponies.
The establishment of an appropriate child support obligation based upon the "reasonable needs" of the child may begin with proof of such expenses as: food, clothing and educational expenses. Additional expenses such as private school tuition, extra-curricular activities, including private lessons and social activities, should also be examined. It becomes more problematic when this analysis is extended to an expectation of living in a larger home, luxury vacations, attending lavish social activities, being transported in a late model car, etc., as the enjoyment of these benefits will not be limited to the child but will be extended to the custodial parent. In cases where the parents were never married, there is a lack of "family history" from which to discern the child's expected lifestyle. Courts have held that an award of support above the child's reasonable needs and solely because the non-custodial parent has substantial income would amount to a de facto alimony award.10 This is problematic in a situation where the custodial parent does not have the right to receive alimony from the non-custodial parent by virtue of the fact that they were never married. In such an instance, the non-custodial parent has no duty to support the custodial parent or subsidize his/her lifestyle and, presumably, the standard for establishing child support should be based on the reasonable needs of the child.
Many courts have observed that with high income individuals only a limited sum is spent on their standard of living and the remaining income is directed less towards "needs" and more towards savings or investments; thereby, becoming part of the individual's estate. Nevertheless, the fact that the non-custodial parent's "lifestyle" may include the accumulation of wealth does not necessarily mean that the child is entitled to the same. A child support order that exceeds the child's needs improperly distributes the estate of the non-custodial parent to the child under the guise of child support.11 This accumulation of capital by the child goes beyond the purpose of child support, which is to provide for the child's reasonable needs. Additionally, an exorbitant child support order infringes upon the parent's right to direct the lifestyle of his or her child and amounts to an inappropriate windfall for the child.
The Massachusetts Appeals Court, in J.C. v. E.M.,12 affirmed an award of child support of $400.00 per week, when the income of the non-custodial parent exceeded $75,000.00 annually (which was the guideline "cap" at that time). In affirming said child support order, the Appeals Court specifically focused upon the needs of the child and stated that, "on the evidence before him, including the mother's income, the judge was warranted in determining that the child's needs would be met by a weekly award of $400.00."13
Courts in other jurisdictions have been in accord with the Massachusetts Appellate Court's holding in J.C. v. E.M.; specifically, in cases when the Child Support Guidelines do not apply, the focus should be on the realistic needs of the child. The Courts have almost uniformly concluded that child support in excess of a child's reasonable needs cannot stand for two reasons: 1) excess support constitutes the improper distribution of the obligor parent's estate; and 2) excess support provides an inappropriate windfall to the recipient parent.14
1 Massachusetts Child Support Guidelines, effective August 1, 2013.
2 Massachusetts Child Support Guidelines, effective August 1, 2013.
3 Massachusetts Child Support Guidelines, effective August 1, 2013.
4Massachusetts Child Support Guidelines, effective August 1, 2013.
5 Cooper v. Cooper, 62 Mass.App.Ct. 130, 135 (2004).
6 Pearson v. Pearson, 52 Mass. App. Ct. 156, 160-161 (2001).
7 Cooper v. Cooper, 62 Mass.App.Ct. 130, 136-137 (2004).
8 Smith v. Edelman 68 Mass.App.Ct. 549, 554 (2007)
9 K. Hogan, Child Support in High Income Cases, 17 J.Am.Acad.Matrim.Law. 349, 352 (2001).
10 Rodriguez v. Rodriguez, 834 S.W.2d 369 (Tex.Ct.App.1992).
11 Smith v. Edelman 68 Mass.App.Ct. 549, 554 (2007)
12 36 Mass.App.Ct. 446 (1994).
13 Id. at 450.
14 See generally Earley v. Earley, 484 N.W.2d 125 (S.D. 1992) (expenses of the mother should be excluded in conducting analysis of the child's needs); Ford v. Ford, 600 A.2d 25 (Del 1991) (excess child support payments constitute an impermissible distribution of parent's estate); Kathy G. v. Arnold D., 501 N.Y.S. 2d 58 (1986) (needs of the child are controlling); Edgar v. Johnson, 731 P.2d 131 (Ariz. 1986) (purpose of child support is not to raise the standard of living of the custodial parent).
