Response from Utah Senate Parliamentarian

Thank you for reaching out. First, I noticed that you referenced SB 242 from the 2022 legislative session. That was my bill, but the language at issue — subsection (7) — was not added to the Utah Code in 2022. That language had already been in there for quite some time, and I was not involved in adding it. 

Utah, however, is not unique in including this provision. There are national guidelines for child support laws that most states have adopted. Whether you agree or disagree, the rationale for subsection (7) is generally as follows: 

“A noncustodial parent who has subsequent children does so with the knowledge that his or her responsibility to support the earlier children remains. First Family first: you don’t change child support awards because of new kids in the picture unless its defense.” 

(I cut and pasted that explanation from a website I found.) This issue was also discussed at length in the legal case of: 

Pohlmann v. Pohlmann, 703 So. 2d 1121, 22 Fla. L. Weekly D 2592 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 5th Dist. Nov. 14, 1997)

While that Florida decision is not binding in Utah, the dissent in that case happens to agreewith your position. 

Having dealt with child support issues for almost three decades as an attorney myself, I can tell that child support obligors (mostly men) sometimes go to great lengths to avoid paying child support.  In fact, about 40% of obligors don’t pay child support in full according to national statistics. 

As a result, the laws have adapted over the years to not incentivize or reward obligors for post-divorce modifications in their circumstances. For instance, some obligors will quit their jobs — or voluntarily take a lower paying job — to try to reduce their child support obligations. In response, courts in Utah will often take an average the obligor’s earnings over the prior three years — so as to not reward that kind of  behavior. 

In any event, I’m sorry that you feel discriminated against — and sorry for the impact this has on your family. Your email has prompted me to rethink through this issue (and do a little research). The other side of the coin is the divorced mother who may have purchased a house and a car, etc. based on the anticipated monthly payment ordered in her decree of divorce.  

I will discuss this issue in the coming weeks with various stakeholders to consider if a change is warranted.