Bitter Debate On Child Support -- Payment Schedules Spark Olympia Fight

OLYMPIA - It sounded more like divorce court than a Capitol hearing room.

Michele Cenotto came to the House Judiciary Committee hearing, she said, to clarify a few things. Her ex-husband, Larry Cenotto, had taken the law into his own hands - disregarding a court's order on child support and paying instead an amount he thought fair.

``I was awarded $610'' monthly, Michele Cenotto said. ``He has never paid that.''

The ex-husband conceded he had sent $550 a month but said the court had miscalculated. ``It doesn't cost that much to raise a kid,'' he said.

No, the Legislature has not suddenly entered the family-mediation business. This post-marital spat was a part of testimony given recently on the state's child-support law, a law that has produced some of the most bitter debate in Olympia this year.

Larry Cenotto is legislative director for Parents Opposed to Punitive Support (POPS), a group of divorced parents leading an effort to change the child-support law.

They say the current child-support payment schedule has many of them on the brink of financial ruin and insist the law is merely ``back-door alimony.''

POPS supporters point to the substantial increase in the average monthly payment to divorced spouses with children since the Legislature set up the current system two years ago. They argue that even though the state says the reported average increase went from $198 in 1987 to $362 last year, that increase doesn't reflect what non-custodial spouses are really paying.

On the other side are those who say the current child-support schedule is fair.

They say House Bill 2888, which would lower child-support rates, is backed by a vocal, wealthy minority angered over paying any amount to their ex-spouses. And they suggest that some legislators, who are lawyers, may be as interested in what the law means to their

own pocketbooks as they are in what it means to the public.

Changes in the law could have a major impact on family-law practices, they point out, and seven of the 19 members of the House Judiciary Committee - where a bill to change the law is under consideration - are attorneys, including the committee chairman, Rep. Marlin Appelwick, D-Seattle.

Rep. Jennifer Belcher, D-Olympia, who sits on the committee, said many of the attorneys are ``looking at the issue from their clients' perspectives rather than the child's perspective.''

At the House Judiciary Committee hearing, one second wife after another appeared before the panel to recount the nightmares they'd experienced under the schedule's orders.

Virginia Barber of Tacoma said the amount she and her husband must pay to support his children from a previous marriage has created a hardship for her.

Cheryl Piper of Buckley, Pierce County, said the order forced her ``to give up my career because my wages increased our child-support payments so high that it was not feasible for me to work outside the home.''

The current schedule considers both biological parents' income as well as the number and ages of the children, and gives a percentage each parent should pay. But judges have the option of considering the income of subsequent spouses and deviating from the schedule.

At the hearing, both sides said the other failed to use ``hard economic data'' when figuring appropriate support levels and debated over which side cited the most valid studies.

POPS President Mike Carrell said one study showed that the average non-divorced family spends about 16 percent of its income on each child, while the state support schedule dictates the parents should spend between 22 and 27 percent.

Helen Donigan, chairwoman of the child-support commission that set the rates two years ago, said a survey of Colorado, Illinois and Hawaii last fall showed that Washington ranked below all three in mandatory child support.

Opponents of changing the child-support schedule point to Sen. Brad Owen, D-Shelton, as an example of legislators making policy based on personal issues. He sponsored one of two Senate bills similar to HB 2888 that would lower support payments. In 1988, Owen, a divorced non-custodial father, went to court to reduce his child-support payments from $500 a month to $300.

At the time, his former wife, Nancy Owen, sought to increase the payments, claiming he owed her $10,589 in back support and maintenance. He denied the charge.

Despite his situation, Owen emphatically denies any ``selfish interest'' in this legislation. All he wants, he said, is to ``make the child-support schedule more reasonable.''