• Courts traditionally dismiss constitutionally-based challenges to child support orders.courthouse image by Michael Shake from Fotolia.com
  
  Non-custodial parents ordered to pay child support payments pursuant to their state's child support guidelines may argue support guidelines violate the U.S. Constitution. Parents argue the guidelines violate their constitutional rights to equal protection, due process and rights to privacy. Federal courts have historically upheld the state's support guidelines and allowed each state to enact its own methods of child support enforcement by providing states with discretionary powers.
  
  

Due Process Arguments

• Parents challenging the constitutionality of a child support order may claim the order violates the due process clause of the Constitution. In Schenek v. Schenek, the plaintiff-father argued guidelines violated his due process rights because the state guidelines were not federally mandated. The court upheld the constitutionality of the state's guidelines reasoning states were free to deviate from any federal guidelines and provide additional support so long as states applied their statutes evenly.
  
  

Equal Protection Arguments

• Many plaintiffs have argued against states' guidelines based on equal protection claiming states' statutes unfairly affect noncustodial parents by scrutinizing their incomes. In "Re Marriage of Dade," the court upheld the child support order finding both parents' incomes could have been considered. Courts respond that equal protection does not require states and their courts to treat noncustodial and custodial parents identically since they may earn disproportionate income shares.
  
  

Freedom of Religion

• Based on rights to exercise religion freely, noncustodial parents have challenged a state's child support statute claiming the statute violated the plaintiff's first amendment rights. In Hunt v. Hunt, a father argued the state violated his first amendment rights when his religion precluded him from working outside his community to try to earn enough money to meet his ordered monthly support amount. The court dismissed his argument reasoning that a state's interest in ensuring parents paid their ordered support amounts was a compelling state interest, which overrides the plaintiff's religious beliefs.
  
  

The Constitutional Right to Privacy Argument

• Courts have consistently upheld state support guidelines in cases where non-custodial parents claim their rights to raise children are constitutionally protected. In Rose v. Rose, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Tennessee guidelines and states are able to enact support guidelines that exceed the amounts parents wish to contribute toward the financial upbringing of their children.
  
  

Contract Clause of the Constitution

• In the case Shrivasta v. Mates, the plaintiff challenged a state's child support order arguing the state's refusal to defer to his contract with his ex-wife violated his right to contract. The court upheld the state statute noting that a private party cannot contract around a state guideline, which exists to serve legitimate public welfare purposes.
  
  

Illegal Taking Argument

• In Georgia Department of Human Resources v. Sweat, Georgia's Supreme Court decided that Georgia's guidelines for child support was not tantamount to an illegal government taking of a private citizen's property. The court found the state didn't use the child support order to fund a public endeavor but instead, the state used the money to ensure payment between private parties.