A Deeper Dive -- for Attorneys & Policymakers
A Deeper Dive into Parenting Time
The Value of Joint Custody
To avoid redundancy, you are encouraged to read the other Problem and Solution pages beforehand, and the History page, as this page is focused on legal theory, philosophy, and legislative precedent of CS/PT.
Before diving in, it should be noted that most ballot initiatives and legislative reforms occur without any explicit basis in caselaw or statute; they are simply political movements that exist from the kinetic energy of emotions and worldview of their exuberant supporters.
We maintain it is vital that public policy be undergirded with sound philosophy. This section is intended to provide confidence to those in the legal profession that there is a rational basis for your intuition--that family law has been operating with misguided premises for a long while.
Attorneys know this.
They know this every time a client comes screaming bloody murder seeking modification to CS/PT that there is an indicator that something is fundamentally, systemically wrong. Parties don't erupt with visceral horror, and concurrent vengeful delight, after a custody hearing, unless there is an undercurrent of injustice.
Every time FOC seeks to adjust the PTO ratio or contend with a laundry list of other complaints, these adjustments are not remedies, they are red flags of a deeper problem.
~ ~ ~
The reason the title of the prior page is so bold to describe the solution to child support and parenting time as the ONLY solution, is because if it is agreed that the government is to have some function in family -- marriage and divorce -- and said engagement is inevitable, then the premise of value on which family is viewed, in law, must be consistent: time is the primary currency.
That is, time in the capacity of companionship/society/consortium (CSC).
Most of our law is based upon this axiom; RBC revolves around it.
The question is, how much is time, among family, worth?
While there has never been a static codified formula for valuing time on a per diem basis, this doesn't mean the issue is ignored or sidestepped.
The Legislature enacted Parenting Time Enforcement Act, specifically MCL 552.644.
It authorizes the court to impose a $100 fine on a parent who “withholds or denies parenting time contrary to a court order.”
That fine is payable to the aggrieved parent, not to the court — so it operates more like a compensatory sanction rather than a general contempt fine.
Enacted in 1982 as part of the Parenting Time Enforcement Act (1982 PA 295).
It was one of the earliest statutory recognitions in Michigan law that the denial of parenting time has an inherent compensable value, separate from economic damages like child support.
Important to note: the figure of $100 was never adjusted for inflation, and 2) the penalty is the amount prescribed for denial of PT in the absence of "bad faith," due to, for example, illness, miscommunication, or other inadvertent errors.
Also: the cases where this has been enforced are where the NCP is denied their official parenting time.
The penalty is based on a denial of PT session, not days, but the typical application would be the denial of a court ordered weekend.
Taken as a whole, PT, when enforced/compensated is worth more than the current Child Support Formula, even devoid of inflation correction.
This sets provides an early window into parenting time value and the contradiction of the CS Formula.
What other precedent is there for valuing parenting time?
Time is central to much of tort law. We can find how much time is worth, in terms of CSC by reviewing how time is legally treated when an individual is suddenly plucked out of their otherwise stable social circle.
Legal illustrations of this occur with wrongful death, temporary loss of an immediate family member due to illness/medical malpractice, and other more extreme instances not directly relevant to the matter at hand.
Michigan Juries have itemized awards to families for loss CSC.
When broken down into their subcategories, there is a wide range of allocation, depending upon the facts of the case. When eliminating the outliers, you have a range of $40 - $300/day for CSC.
As referenced above, with CSC, the Legislature and Courts have categorized non-economic damages relative to wrongful death; common law ideas of consortium have been adopted in every state.
When an immediate family member has an untimely death, equations have been developed to calculate their productivity had they lived a statistically average lifespan; other variables were codified to define, and quantify, the loss suffered by the family for the loss of the loved one. These non-economic damages are given monetary value by juries, empowered by statute and caselaw.
Additional jury award components may include: emotional distress, mental anguish, pain and suffering.
Non-economic damages only have value because of attributes that are incontrovertibly irreplaceable: the decreased function of a limb, resources lost, or the common denominator, lost time.
To expound upon the baseline Coefficient, it should be noted that while, yes, the child torn between two parents is not deceased, the formative parenting time is forever gone and, as the data shows, this impact to the parent-child bond can have significant long-term economic consequences to the parent (and child) well into adulthood.
Put another way, the inherent right of the minor children is the love and affection of both parents. The logical corollary is the parents enjoy the same inherent right; because childhood is finite and irreplaceable, it is a unique period of time.
Because parenting time, of minor children, is both irreplaceable time and has short-term and long-term economic and non-economic value, it must be ascribed a monetary value.
The Legislature, the Courts, and juries have all ascribed a high value to Parenting Time directly, and indirectly with CSC, far exceeding any average Child Support calculation.
Having demonstrated Parenting Time has intrinsic value and has been legally recognized as such is necessary but insufficient to the final nail in the coffin; the CS income-sharing model itself is flawed at its core.
At this juncture, it will be useful to review the brief history of the income-sharing model HERE.
Please resume after you've read the page explaining the history and intent of the income-sharing model.
Attorneys and parents already know the results are warped -- it doesn’t take a degree in economics to figure out your post-divorce household budget no longer makes sense.
But it does take a series of economists to garner attention. Enter Dr. Comanor & Co.
In "THE MONETARY COST OF RAISING CHILDREN," William S. Comanor, Mark Sarro and Mark Rogers demonstrate the fatal flaws of the prevailing income-sharing model.
They argue current child support guidelines systematically overstate the true monetary costs of raising children. This inflation stems from flawed methods that treat household infrastructure and shared goods as variable child costs, rather than fixed expenses.
As a result, guideline awards are often 2-3x higher than actual child-related expenditures.
Many household infrastructure expenses—such as housing, kitchens, wardrobes, living rooms, or vehicles —remain essentially the same whether or not children are present, or regardless of which parent provides care.
These baseline costs should not be counted as incremental child expenses. True costs should focus only on the additional, marginal outlays directly attributable to raising children, such as extra food, clothing, childcare, and some educational costs. By separating infrastructure from marginal costs, this avoids exaggerating the financial burden of child rearing.
Key Findings
-
Guideline models (USDA, Espenshade/Engel, Rothbarth) systematically overestimate costs.
-
Guideline awards thus create a financial surplus ('asset') for custodial parents.
-
This surplus incentivizes custody disputes and fosters resentment in paying parents.
-
Nonpayment rates increase when awards exceed true child-related expenditures.
-
Aligning awards with actual marginal costs would improve fairness
Dr. Comanor's Presentation
Dr Comanor is not alone.
Here is a list of expert critics, including the method originator himself.
The net effect: most CS expenses are theoretical and should be reduced by at least 70%.
Next, add in the out-of-pocket expenses for meals and activities on the typical days allocated for NCPs -- the weekends -- and, in the common scenario of the children being school age, and outside of summer break, the NCP provides nearly 50% of meals (see below math).
~ ~ ~
Assumptions
• 3 meals per day × 30.4 days = 91.2 meals per child per average month.
• School provides both breakfast and lunch on ~180 school days per year = 15 school days
per month on average.
• School meals = 2 per day × 15 = 30 meals per month.
• Parent-provided meals (during school year months) = 91.2 – 30 = 61.2 meals per month
per child.
• Reasonable PT; schedule: Wednesday supper, Friday supper, all meals on Saturdays, and
alternating Sundays. This equals about 6.5 meals per week, or about 28.2 meals per month
for the NCP.
• 4 summer weeks (≈1 month) are split 50/50, with no school meals, so each parent
provides 45.6 meals that month.
Monthly Breakdown (School Year Month)
• Total parent-provided meals: 61.2
• NCP meals: ~28.2
• CP meals: 61.2 – 28.2 = ~33.0
• Shares: NCP ≈ 46%, CP ≈ 54%
Annualized Totals (Including 4 Weeks of Summer)
• 11 school-year months:
– NCP: 28.2 × 11 = 309.9
– CP: 61.2 × 11 – 309.9 = 363.3
• 1 summer month (no school meals, 50/50):
– NCP: +45.6
– CP: +45.6
• Annual Totals:
– NCP: 309.9 + 45.6 = 355.5 meals
– CP: 363.3 + 45.6 = 408.9 meals
– Combined: 764.4 parent-provided meals per child per year
• Annual Shares:
– NCP: 355.5 ÷ 764.4 ≈ 46.5%
– CP: 53.5%
Explanation & Summary
Every child needs to eat three times a day. But during the school year, breakfast and lunch
are often provided by schools, so parents only provide about two-thirds of the meals in a
given month. When we calculate meals this way, the non-custodial parent (NCP) ends up
providing about 28 meals each month under a "reasonable PT" schedule, while the custodial parent (CP) provides about 33.
Over the course of a year, with summer vacation split equally, this means the NCP is actually covering about 46.5% of all parent-provided meals, and the CP about 53.5%. This shows that food responsibilities are nearly balanced and should not be treated as if only one household is feeding the child.
~ ~ ~
That cancels out food from the factors assumed by the child support formula.
Cell phone service, Wifi, cable are also fixed costs.
That only leaves the marginal increase of utilities when more people are present in the home (laundry, electricity, water).
Then add on the extra activity costs incurred by the NCP for their respective weekends.
When the dust settles, you're left with a total wash in terms of comparison of actual costs and infrastructure between homes and, therefore, no rationale whatsoever for an income-shared method which relies entirely on the premise that the quality of life needed to be redistributed between the parents. In fact, all it serves to do is impoverish the noncustodial parent and breed life-long resentment and hardship within the family. As has been stated, and requires restating: child support does not support children.
~ ~ ~
Bearing the foregoing in mind, and combining that with our original premise that Parenting Time has intrinsic value, we are left with the question of "how much value?"
Because the Courts and juries have produced verdicts with a wide range of monetary awards associated with consortium, companionship, and society, we take the closest indicator of value corresponding with Parenting Time compensation in MCL 552.644 - promulgated in 1982 - the Legislature determined a discretionary $100. Regardless of the committee rationale on how they arrived at the figure...that is the codified figure.
When it has been enforced, it has been per occurrence basis, and typically after a complaint by the NCP--in other words, usually from a missed weekend.
Moreover, the typical parenting time of the era, 1980s, was two children.
Thus, take $100 and adjust for inflation, divide by 2 (to arrive at a prorated day), divide again by 2 to arrive at a per/child figure as the statute places value on the time, not the child, then divide again by 2 to ascribe a value to each parent.
It look like this:
Variables
• B — Base penalty in 1982: $100
• CPI_1982 — Consumer Price Index for 1982: $96.50
• CPI_2024 — Consumer Price Index for 2024: $311.10
• I — Inflation factor from 1982 → 2024: I = (CPI_2024 / CPI_1982) = 311.10 / 96.50 = 3.22
• W — Weekend days (to get a per‑day rate): 2
• C — Average number of children (then): 2
• P — Parents sharing the value: 2
~ ~ ~
One‑Line Formula
Per‑Child, Per‑Day = (B × I) / (W × C × P)
Step‑by‑Step
1) Inflation adjust the 1982 $100 to 2024 dollars:
100 × (311.10 / 96.50) = 322.38
2) Per‑day (a weekend is 2 days):
322.38 ÷ 2 = 161.19
3) Per‑child (average of 2 children):
161.19 ÷ 2 = 80.60
4) Split between both parents (2 parents):
80.60 ÷ 2 = 40.30
Result = Per‑Child, Per‑Day (1982 → 2024): $40.30
~ ~ ~
Interestingly, it turns out that, after a comprehensive analysis of all wrongful death actions in MI between the 1980s to 2024, where there exists an itemized breakdown of awarded LSC (loss of consortium, companionship, society), the median is not far off from $40.30.
Moreover, it is not necessarily far off from the current CS Formula, if the calculated support were divided out, and there existed a large disparity of both parenting time and income.
In other words, the Relational Benefit Coefficient, when derived from any number of methods to determine the value of parenting time based on available data, produces a familiar and, therefore, reasonable result.
We do not, at this time, need to re-invent the wheel to generate a PT value.
We do, however, need to begin acknowledging that wheels exist, and use them; machines are supposed to work to the benefit of its users. For over 30 years, we have been operating a machine fueled by the blood, sweat, and tears of its users. It is time to scrap and replace income-sharing.
The prevailing Child Support & Parenting Time model has done untold damage to families, and cost billions. It is philosophically untenable and ought to be regarded in the same manner as flat earth theory, helio-centered apologists, and Jim Crow laws.
Culture is ready for this. It is already trending towards joint-custody and more even split among parents. But like many civil rights movements, that last vestige of injustice needs to be extinguished.