P.O.P.S. v. Gardner,
998 F.2d 764 (1993)


Facts: Congress mandated that each state develop presumptive child support guidelines. Washington state created a task force and it made its recommendation. The schedule was passed into law. The schedule created support guidelines based on combined family net income and the number of children. The basic support obligation is allocated between the parents based on each parent's share of the family's net income. Deviation from the schedule is permitted but that requires written findings of fact to explain such a deviation. POPS challenged the constitutionality of the Schedule claiming that it violated Due Process and Equal Protection and that the tables created an irrebuttable presumption that violated Ps' right to procedural due process. POPS claims that because the state has not revealed the underlying assumptions of the tables' individual cost components, parents cannot demonstrate that the table under or overstates their basic support obligation. POPS argues that noncustodial parents cannot determine what percentage of their basic support obligation is deemed to be housing cost and as such they cannot determine the basis of fairness that is used. The district court held that the schedule is rebuttable. POPS entered evidence that in practice the economic tables are irrebuttable. This appeal resulted.


Issue: Does the State's child support schedule violate the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Rule:Rational basis test applied to equal protection challenge of schedule that provided presumptive level of child support under Washington law, in light of fact that children of noncustodial parents with support obligations to other children were not suspect class, and schedule did not directly and substantially interfere with any fundamental rights

Holding: No. Judgment affirmed.
The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, Robert J. Bryan, J., granted state's motion for summary judgment. Appeal was taken. The Court of Appeals, Farris, Circuit Judge, held that the statutory schedule did not violate procedural due process, substantive due process, or equal protection rights of divorcing parents, in light of a rational basis for the statute in implementing substantive law governing appropriate levels of child support.

Analysis: Even if the guidelines are assumed to be irrebuttable presumptions, they do not violate P's procedural due process rights because they are substan¬tive rules of law that must be reviewed for fundamental fairness. The economic table is also the implementation of a substantive rule of law. The table does not provide merely for the child's subsistence but for a standard of living commiserate with the divorcing parents' incomes. Therefore, it is irrelevant whether the parents actually spent that much but tells the parents what they should spend. The schedule does not violate the equal protection rights of children of noncustodial households. The rational test is the appropriate standard to judge the schedule under the Equal Protection Clause because these children do not constitute a suspect classification nor are fundamental rights substantially or directly interfered with. The court is permitted to consider children from other relationships when determining the presumptive support.