Fair? What's Fair?

Over the weekend, I was reading an article by Mark Baer about the interplay of fairness and the law in dispute resolution here in the Trenches.  He reiterates a lot of what I've talked about here:  what is "fair" is a subjective concept that means different things to different people.  He also writes about as well as I've seen about the fallacy of assuming that courts do what's fair, and also, that what the law provides is fair.  It reminded me of my last collaborative law training.  There is, of course, a portion of the training that talks about "The Law."  It was the section I presented, and my favorite example is the child support guidelines.   I was talking about how I discuss child support, which is that the guidelines are a federal requirement with which the states comply in order to obtain federal funding in other areas, and that the guidelines themselves are really the opinion of the state legislature of how much it costs to raise a child in the state, and that it is an average for the rural, urban and suburban areas.  Any of you who know me know that's how the talk always goes.  Well, as luck would have it, one of our participants was a Family Law Master.  This Master was really upset by what I said, because, as she informed the room, the guidelines are mandatory, and so you must use them, and I should not tell clients anything else.  It was at that point that my lovely training alter ego, Bruce Avery, jumped in and said that guidelines are what the legislature has determined to be the minimum amount to support a child, and that when you explain to clients the purpose for child support, they usually come up with a support number that is higher than the guidelines.  Why?  Because then it is a real number representing real support for real expenses for their children, and not just some arbitrary dollar amount someone tells them they have to pay.  My experience is just like Bruce's.  The law is a reference point, but it's not necessarily what is fair.  Here in the Trenches.