Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

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.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.