============================================================================== BOX 1 SHARED PARENTING -- CURRENT MECHANICS AND THREE REDLINES ============================================================================== Worked example: payor $201,000/yr, other parent $570/wk, three children, equal parenting, no child care. Every figure below is weekly. -- Where the credit goes, under the form as written -- Line 4c total support amount, both columns $ 1,240.73 A's 5b 4c x B's income share 0.8768 $ 1,087.90 B's 5b 4c x A's income share 0.1232 $ 152.84 B's 6d his column entitlement / his own 3a 0.0400 B's 6e limited to (6d + 10%) x A's 3a $ 75.17 <- $77.67 removed 6g = 7d A's 6e less B's 6e $ 1,012.73 Box 2 order for the same family $ 1,087.90 credit for equal parenting $ 75.17 6.9% and the credit equals the payor's own 6e: True -- The cross-credit equivalence -- Box 1 puts every child in BOTH columns at Table B, so the two households are together charged twice the schedule amount for the same children. Line 4c, each column $ 1,240.73 charged across the two columns $ 2,481.47 Box 2, one household $ 1,240.73 Written as the cross-credit most income-shares states use -- transfer = D x (time share) x 4c x (difference in income shares) -- and solved at the equal time Box 1 describes, Box 1 without the 6e limitation is the D = 2.00 case. Transfers at each D: D = 2.00 transfer $ 935.06/wk 14.0% below the Box 2 order D = 1.50 transfer $ 701.30/wk 35.5% below the Box 2 order D = 1.00 transfer $ 467.53/wk 57.0% below the Box 2 order Indiana Child Support Guideline 6 Commentary is the only state finding that quantifies the duplication: 50% at equal parenting, so D = 1.5. -- What each redline produces at the worked example -- variant order/wk order/yr vs Box 2 credit Line 7e current $ 1,012.73 $ 52,662 $ -75.17 6.9% 26.5% A $ 935.06 $ 48,623 $ -152.84 14.0% 24.5% B $ 701.30 $ 36,467 $ -386.60 35.5% 18.3% C $ 701.30 $ 36,467 $ -386.60 35.5% 18.3% change from the current order under A: 7.7% ($1,012.73 -> $935.06) change from the current order under B: 30.8% ($1,012.73 -> $701.30) -- The credit across income disparity, which is the whole argument -- Payor's income and the children are fixed; only the other parent's income moves. Percentages are the reduction from the Box 2 order. other parent payor | current | A | B weekly gross share | order credit | order credit | order credit -------------------------------------------------------------------------- $ 2,500 60.8% | $ 340 64.5% | $ 340 64.5% | $ 255 73.4% $ 1,800 68.4% | $ 536 46.2% | $ 536 46.2% | $ 402 59.7% $ 1,200 76.6% | $ 826 20.5% | $ 722 30.5% | $ 542 47.9% $ 900 81.5% | $ 920 13.3% | $ 820 22.7% | $ 615 42.0% $ 700 85.1% | $ 977 9.2% | $ 889 17.4% | $ 667 38.1% $ 570 87.7% | $ 1,013 6.9% | $ 935 14.0% | $ 701 35.5% $ 400 91.2% | $ 1,075 2.6% | $ 1,075 2.6% | $ 799 27.6% $ 250 94.6% | $ 1,103 1.3% | $ 1,103 1.3% | $ 824 26.3% -- What equal parenting is currently worth, priced as parenting time -- Variant C's transfer is D x 4c x (B's income share - B's overnight share), because the two income shares sum to one. Solving that for the overnight share that reproduces the CURRENT Box 1 order answers: how much parenting time is Massachusetts actually pricing equal parenting at? Every row below is a parent with the children half the time. The answer depends on the duplication factor it is measured against, so both are shown: Indiana's 1.5, and the 2.0 that Box 1's own arithmetic already implies. Neither reaches the half the parent actually has. other parent payor current priced at priced at weekly gross share order D = 1.5 D = 2.0 n/a: Line 5c substitutes the shaded-area amount below $391 of available income, so the order is no longer a cross-credit and cannot be expressed as one. -------------------------------------------------------- $ 2,500 60.8% $ 339.58 46.4% 50.0% $ 1,800 68.4% $ 536.20 43.9% 50.0% $ 1,200 76.6% $ 826.11 36.0% 46.2% $ 900 81.5% $ 919.76 34.4% 46.2% $ 700 85.1% $ 977.36 33.6% 46.5% $ 570 87.7% $ 1,012.73 33.3% 46.9% $ 400 91.2% $ 1,075.18 n/a n/a $ 250 94.6% $ 1,103.12 n/a n/a -- Variant C: the credit tracking parenting time -- Other parent at $570/wk throughout; only the overnight split moves. Section II.D.4 currently sends everything between a third and a half to judicial deviation, which is why the middle rows have no formula. payor overnights C order vs Box 2 credit 50.0% $ 701.30 $ -386.60 35.5% 45.0% $ 794.35 $ -293.55 27.0% 40.0% $ 887.41 $ -200.49 18.4% 35.0% $ 980.46 $ -107.44 9.9% 33.3% $ 1,011.48 $ -76.42 7.0% -- Section 5's opening table, reproduced from this module -- payor Box 2 Box 1 reduction 56.3% $ 934 $ 209 77.6% 66.0% $ 985 $ 478 51.5% 76.6% $ 1,040 $ 826 20.5% 87.7% $ 1,088 $ 1,013 6.9% 95.8% $ 1,123 $ 1,108 1.3% -- The redlines with child care present -- The letter's lead example turns on child care, and 6c (the line the first redline moves) includes the child care allocation at 6b. If the fix behaved differently once 6a is populated, the ask would be unsafe. child care/wk current A B A credit B credit $ 0 $ 1,012.73 $ 935.06 $ 701.30 14.0% 35.5% $ 150 $ 1,144.25 $ 1,066.58 $ 832.82 12.5% 31.7% $ 300 $ 1,275.77 $ 1,198.11 $ 964.34 11.3% 28.6% $ 600 $ 1,538.82 $ 1,461.15 $ 1,227.39 9.5% 24.0% $ 1,290 $ 2,143.82 $ 2,066.16 $ 1,832.39 6.9% 17.4% -- The symmetric case: the LOWER earner is the payor -- Section 5.1 finds that Box 3's defect cuts against the lower earner, so the redlines have to be checked for overcorrection in the other direction. Parent A here earns more; the payor is whoever 6f names. A weekly B weekly payor current A B $ 3,822 $ 570 A $ 1,008.56 $ 931.68 $ 698.76 $ 2,000 $ 1,200 A $ 257.59 $ 257.59 $ 193.20 $ 1,200 $ 900 A $ 108.67 $ 108.67 $ 81.50 $ 900 $ 800 A $ 39.86 $ 39.86 $ 29.90 -- Sanity gate -- Variant 'current' must reproduce worksheet.run(box=1) exactly, or none of the above means anything. Run model/test_box1_fix.py. worksheet.run(box=1) 7d = $1,012.73; box1_fix 'current' 7d = $1,012.73; match = True