Judges deliberated over rules affecting thousands of NC families — but only after a 15-minute delay following my arrival
RUTHERFORDTON, N.C. — A North Carolina judicial committee reviewing child support guidelines that affect thousands of families called an unannounced recess the moment this reporter joined the meeting virtually — then resumed and proceeded to debate policy questions with real consequences for custodial parents and children across the state.
The North Carolina Judicial Branch Child Support Guidelines Committee convened at 2:00 p.m. on June 22 via WebEx and in person from 901 Corporate Center Drive in Raleigh. The meeting was listed as open to the public and calendared on the Secretary of State's website. Within seconds of this journalist entering the virtual room, as judges and officials were joking about someone’s wife, the committee announced a pause. Coincidence? Or something else?
The committee is set up by state statute under the purview of the Conference of Chief District Court Judges. The guidelines were last updated in 2022, according to the NC Judicial Branch website.
“Good morning, all, we’re going to postpone the start of this meeting to 2:15,” Mike Silver said. “So we’ll be at ease till 2:15.” No explanation was given for the delay. Silver is the Director of Judicial Education for the North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts and unsuccessfully ran for District Court Judge in 2020.
When the meeting resumed, a committee official took pains to remind participants of what the delay appeared designed to obscure: this was, in fact, a public meeting.
“Just as a reminder, this is a public meeting open to — subject to public record law,” Silver said. “We are recording the meeting for the purpose of taking the minutes.”
He also noted the recording would be destroyed once draft minutes are complete, “pursuant to the rules of record keeping.”
This makes Cops & Congress likely the only place the livestream is archived, word-for-word, with no edits.
What followed was a candid, sometimes contentious deliberation over child support rules that North Carolina courts apply every day — the kind of policy conversation the public has a statutory right to witness.
Raising the $50 Floor
The central question before the committee was whether to raise the state’s minimum child support order from $50, a figure that committee members acknowledged has not changed since at least the 1990s.
“The $50 was really a symbolic number to show that you need to be paying something,” said retired Chief Judge Beth Keever, who was present when the figure was originally established.
That symbolism has aged poorly, according to multiple members. Judge Toni King said she had already made up her mind before the meeting.
“I’m in agreement with that minimum order being raised,” King said. “I would even like to see our committee $125 to $150 — and that’s just taking into consideration — for many of us, I think, as we reside — when I’m ordering a $50 order, I wonder, what is that really going to do to support a child?”
Judge Curtis Stackhouse said feedback from stakeholders and public comments submitted before and during a June 4 public hearing pointed in one direction. “It appears to be a universal request that the minimum order should be raised,” Stackhouse said. “And $50 certainly can’t really do much these days. I’m surprised it hasn’t been. I think that’s $50 since the ‘90s.”
Another member was more direct: “$50 isn’t going to do anything. It’s a drop in the bucket. So I would definitely agree that it needs to be raised.”
Not everyone was prepared to name a number. Judge Scott Ushery raised a practical concern that cut through the emerging consensus: “My concern, and I pose this question to the folks, is if they can’t pay $50, they’re not going to pay $125.”
Judge Scott Etheridge, committee chair, echoed that from a policy standpoint, warning against raising the minimum simply for appearances. “I’m not in the business of doing things for the public appearance of it,” he said, adding that simply triggering more enforcement actions may not help children if payors genuinely cannot pay.
Keever proposed a graduated approach rather than a flat increase — adjusting the income range where $50 currently applies rather than replacing it wholesale across the lowest earners.
Judge Christy Wilhelm agreed and pointed to a regional disparity that she said demands attention. “The guidelines amounts in South Carolina, Virginia, Tennessee, I think are all significantly higher than the $50 in North Carolina,” she said. “I would like to see us come more in line with that.”
No vote was taken. The committee agreed the question would wait on an economic report due Sept. 1.
The Upper Income Cap: A Data Problem
The committee also discussed raising the upper limit of the income schedule — currently capped at $40,000 in monthly combined income — to $50,000. A staff member identified as Cheryl explained that the numbers in the guidelines are not generated by a formula but pulled from national survey data collected by the Department of Labor.
“There’s a feeling that there’s a formula that creates the numbers in the grids, but really those numbers all come from data,” she said. The committee’s economist, she said, “just didn’t have the data to support” going higher in previous years.
Tara Holloway said that during the last review, the economist used July 2022 price levels to bring the schedule to $39,550 — rounded to $40,000. Whether the schedule can now be extended will depend on the September report.
Etheridge noted that some public commenters had suggested the committee could simply add to existing figures — a misunderstanding of how the schedule actually works. “That is not the case,” he said.
Defining “Parent” — And the Limits of Judicial Power
One public comment asked the committee to expand the definition of “parent” to include non-biological parents with court-ordered custody rights or rights established through a separation agreement.
The committee’s response was swift: that’s not their call to make.
“The Court of Appeals has said that a parent is a parent is a parent, and not a non-biological person,” said Keever. Wilhelm agreed: “We are not in a position to change that definition — that stands with the appellate courts.” Both said only the legislature can make that change.
Income Calculations: A Debate Over Discretion
The committee debated several recommendations submitted by Charlotte family law attorney Keton Soni, identified as a former president of the NC Bar Association’s family law section.
One proposal would change language around non-recurring income — bonuses, windfalls, lottery winnings — from “may” be prorated to “shall” be prorated, removing judicial discretion. The discussion exposed the fact that judges on the same committee are applying the current language differently in their own courtrooms.
A lengthy back-and-forth over how percentages are calculated in child support worksheets revealed that even experienced jurists disagree about what the written guidelines actually require in practice — an acknowledgment that carries real implications for the families whose support orders flow from those calculations.
During the meeting, officials discussed different interpretations of some things. If the law is in writing, it’s very interesting to hear judges debate what those laws mean when carried out in policies.
The committee ultimately agreed that the existing language should largely remain, with possible clarifying additions.
Child Support Agencies Want Bright Lines
Near the close of the meeting, Etheridge flagged a concern from county child support enforcement agencies about the current language governing when courts can impute income to a non-working parent.
Current guidelines say a court should not impute income to a parent caring for a “young child” — language adopted to track appellate case law. But agencies told the committee that a vague standard invites litigation.
“They like bright lines,” Etheridge said. “They would rather do either three years old or five years old as the cutoff — just pick a number. That’s what we used to have.”
Keever confirmed the shift away from a specific age was a deliberate committee decision made approximately four years ago to align with Court of Appeals rulings. The committee indicated it would leave the language as-is.
What Comes Next
The committee adjourned at 3 p.m.
A report is expected by Sept. 1. Additional meetings may be scheduled. Under N.C. General Statute Section 50-13.4, the Conference of Chief District Court Judges is required to establish and periodically review uniform statewide child support guidelines, at a minimum every four years.
—
This newsletter is supported by readers like you. Paid subscribers have access to the full archive.
Annie Dance | Lake Lure News | Cops & Congress | News & Commentary
—
🏛️ All those mentioned are presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Learn more about this newsletter, ethics policy, how you can help shape this work, and support it. Follow on X and Facebook. Send constructive criticism, fan mail, and tips with public documents for future stories: CopsandCongress@gmail.com
