{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0220125786163522, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0015723270440251573, 'mean_word_length': 5.494897959183674, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Public Sentiments About the Parenting Time Adjustment in Child Support Awards

The states differ substantially among themselves as to what their guideline systems specify about reducing child support awards as a function of the division of parenting time after divorce. Most adopt a “cliff-model”, whereby no reductions are accorded until the parenting time to the noncustodial parent reaches some “shared parenting” threshold, generally about 35% of the total parenting time. As another in a series of experimental investigations about the sentiments of lay citizens pertaining to family law issues, the current investigation probed this issue, as well as the allied issue of whether the reason for nonvisitation might influence the child support adjustment. Results showed that the public’s judgments displayed continuous visitation adjustments to child support (as opposed to the cliff-model system instituted by most states), and that the amount of the adjustment reflected the amount the custodial parent saved due to visitation, rather than the amount the noncustodial parent spent. Of the reasons for non-visitation, only the father’s move (not the mother’s move nor her refusal to permit visitation) significantly affected the respondent’s child support judgments.