The Principles' child support provisions try to respect and give weight to the interests of the parents while minimizing damage to the child or children at issue. The result is an impressive, balanced treatment in an area fraught with difficulty. This chapter focuses on one specific issue which helps illustrate some of the competing interests and rationales which are involved when decisions about child support must be made – namely, the conditions under which the ALI and various jurisdictions in the United States believe income should be imputed to a stay-at-home parent.

A number of important, competing considerations are at issue when deciding income attribution questions. As a general matter, jurisdictions believe that children should not be put at a disadvantage merely because their parents are no longer living together. They also believe that where practicable all parents should maintain close relationships with and contribute to the support of their children. In many instances, these goals conflict and compromises must be reached. It is not surprising, then, that different jurisdictions reach different conclusions about how to weigh these sometimes competing considerations and thus have adopted different policies with respect to when income should be attributed to a stay-at-home parent.

One confusing aspect of the ALI proposal is that the reasons offered in support do not fit tightly with the drafters' recommendations. While sensible and legitimate, the considerations articulated by the drafters support both the policy proposed and a number of other policies.