## Facts

- Federal law required states to adopt presumptive child-support guidelines, and Washington enacted a statewide Child Support Schedule after a task force process, public hearings, and legislative approval.
- The Schedule determines child support in dissolution proceedings using an economic table based on combined parental net income and number of children, then allocates the obligation between parents by each parent’s income share.
- The Schedule allows departures from the presumptive amount but requires written findings for any deviation; the statute lists deviation factors (e.g., extraordinary debt, other support obligations, children from other relationships, nonrecurring income, and significant residential time with the obligated parent), and Washington law permits other nonlisted bases as well.
- A Washington nonprofit representing noncustodial parents sued the governor and state agencies, alleging the Schedule imposed excessive financial obligations that interfered with family-related liberties and unfairly burdened noncustodial parents.
- The district court granted summary judgment to the state, rejecting Fourteenth Amendment due process and equal protection claims, and the nonprofit appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the Child Support Schedule violates substantive due process by burdening asserted family-related rights (including marriage, having additional children, and maintaining a parent-child relationship) through presumptive support obligations and structured judicial discretion.
2. Whether the Schedule denies equal protection by discriminating against noncustodial parents or by irrationally imposing punitive or arbitrary support amounts.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the state defendants.
- The court held the Schedule does not violate substantive due process because it does not directly restrict fundamental family decisions and is rationally related to legitimate state interests in adequate, consistent child support.
- The court held the Schedule does not violate equal protection because noncustodial parents are not a suspect or quasi-suspect class, the scheme is facially neutral, and it satisfies rational basis review.

## Legal Principles

- Economic and social welfare legislation affecting child support obligations is reviewed under rational basis unless it directly infringes a fundamental right or employs a suspect classification.
- A presumptive child-support guideline does not violate substantive due process merely because it has indirect economic effects on decisions about marriage or additional children.
- Noncustodial parents are not a protected class for equal protection purposes; a facially neutral support schedule may stand even if it burdens a group more often in practice.
- Guidelines based on income and number of children, coupled with deviation authority requiring written findings, are rational means to advance legitimate interests in adequate support, uniformity, and predictability.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit upheld Washington’s presumptive child support schedule, concluding that its income-based framework and deviation mechanism rationally further the state’s interests in ensuring adequate and consistent child support and do not violate substantive due process or equal protection.


Parents Opposed to Punitive Support v. Gardner, 998 F.2d 764 (9th Cir. 1993)