In the name of "the best interest of the child":
Have Public Welfare and Domestic Courts overstepped their boundaries?
By Gary Bremer
A father has a duty and a responsibility to support his child. Not just
financially, but emotionally as well. Statistics and reports from sources, such
as Arizona State University demonstrate that a large percentage of fathers
actually want to support their children period. At the same time, children also
need to have equal access to both parents.
Research from several universities, including the University of Michigan, and
Harvard University, suggest this to be true. Additionally, the National
Fatherhood Initiative truly promotes this in a majority of its writings on the
subject. In fact, according to Roland C. Warren of the Knight Ridder Tribune,
the Bush administration spent $300 million in federal welfare in an attempt to
prove this. However, the family court systems and Public Welfare's practices and
guidelines are completely inconsistent with the values and beliefs that the
National Fatherhood Initiative promotes as well as those studies that have been
referenced in a majority of writings regarding this subject.
One of the most fallacious practices of the family court systems is that in
most cases it awards primary custody of a child to the mother in a large
percentage of cases and only allows the father a small percentage of time to
spend with their child or children. Furthermore, in some of these cases, child
abuse from the mother was proven. Yet she was still awarded primary custody.
How does this make sense considering that the Fatherhood Initiative, endorsed
by our federal government, suggests that fathers involved with their children
are of a great benefit to the children, and numerous studies demonstrate how
positive a father's influence can be? The reason can be found in two words:
Child Support.
In most cases, since the mother is awarded primary custody of the child, it
entitles her to a large child support award according to child support
guidelines set forth by Domestic Relations (DR) and the Department of Public
Welfare (DPW). In fact, the guidelines can award a woman, with a child, an
amount that is one third of the father's net income just for one child. Why does
this happen?
Because, it is "in the best interest of the child." "In the
best interest of the child." What exactly does this mean, and how is it
defined? Currently, there is no statute in the US Judicial System that actually
defines this or tells us exactly what it means, or what is for that matter.
Furthermore, "the best interests of the child" are subjective and left
to the discretion of the family court systems. This allows the judges and
attorneys to decide what is best for the children.
As stated previously, this is usually decided in favor of the mother, even
though other evidence exists that this should not always be the case. And,
studies and statistics suggest that this should not always be the case either.
In fact, these same studies have also gone on to prove that children who have
equal access to both parents do much better in life in general. They are less
likely to use drugs, commit to a life of crime, and are more likely to just be
better citizens in general. In fact, as of July of 2003, the US Dept. of Health
& Human Services estimates that 71% of pregnant teenagers were from
fatherless homes. While Planned Parenthood demonstrates that teen pregnancies
have declined by approximately 10%, the fact that almost three quarters of teen
pregnancies are from homes, where a teenage female does not have access to a
father, also demonstrates that this figure could be much lower.
Allowing fathers 50/50 joint physical custody has the potential to minimize
the many social problems that we currently experience in society today, such as
drug abuse, rape, child molestation, teen pregnancy, and robbery just to name a
few. Furthermore, instituting 50/50 joint physical custody would also eliminate
the need to utilize the child support system in these cases as well.
With this being the case, it would also stand to reason that the family court
system and our federal government also has the potential and the power to help
minimize many of the social issues that plague our society today. How? By making
50/50 joint physical custody presumptive and making it the law as well. While
studies suggest that splitting custody of a child 50/50 would be in the child's
best interest, the actions demonstrated by our family court systems, DR and DPW,
and their policies and practices, suggest that the opinions of these
organizations are the exact opposite of those of our federal government and
major studies that suggest otherwise.
As a result of these policies and practices, these organizations have also
created an entirely separate welfare system called the child support system.
Child support awards are based upon child support guidelines set forth by DR and
DPW. These guidelines were originally created by Robert Williams, who was a
member of the Department of Immigration and had no academic experience or
familiarity with family values or dynamics. After he had created the guidelines,
he later admitted that the figures that were used were estimated to be
approximately 250% to 300% higher than they should have been, according to Roger
F. Gay, who is a project leader for the Project for the Improvement of Child
Support Litigation Technology (PICSLT). Furthermore, the guidelines that were
created were based primarily upon low income households and welfare recipients.
Additionally, according to Gay, he (Robert Williams) also went on to form Policy
Studies Inc. This corporation also absorbed a percentage from child support
collections. Which means that he also profited heavily from creating guidelines
that were much higher than they should have been in the first place?
Currently, the guidelines are based upon data from the Consumer Expenditure
Survey among other sources. The US Department of Agriculture also derives data
from the Consumer Expenditure Survey as well. Recently, the US Department of
Agriculture published its annual report of Expenditures on Children by Families.
This report specifically states that: "Results of this study should
be of use in developing state child support guidelines . . ." This report
also states that the cost, on average, is approximately $160,000 to raise a
child until the age of 18. However, according to this report, this figure is
fairly inflated based upon the incomplete data represented in it.
The Department of Agriculture demonstrates how money is allocated throughout
a household in a table format. This table contains data for expenditures for
housing, transportation, child-care and miscellaneous items among other
expenditures. After this data is displayed, the next paragraph in the report
states: "Unlike food and health care, no research base exists for
allocating estimated household expenditures on housing, transportation, and
other miscellaneous goods and services among family members. USDA uses the per
capita method in allocating these expenses; the per capita method allocates
expenses among household members in equal proportions." This means that
these costs are allocated equally among all members in a household, whether they
are an adult or a child. Furthermore, the Categories of Household Expenditures
section of this report describes what some of these items actually are.
For example; Housing expenses include mortgage interest, property taxes, or
rent, appliances and floor coverings. And, under transportation expenses, the
purchase of a vehicle is included.
These are just a few of the items that are mentioned when categorizing
housing and transportation expenses. Why is the cost of a vehicle allocated in
the expense of raising a child when just about everyone owns a vehicle whether
they have children or not? Furthermore, why are mortgage expenses or rent
estimated into the cost of raising a child when everyone who lives in a place of
their own pays either rent or mortgage? If these figures where to truly be
correct, then some of these expenses from this report would be estimated to
actually be lower and the cost of raising a child would be measured to be
considerably less than what the estimates of this report actually state. This
primarily explains one of the main reasons why child support guidelines are so
high to begin with.
This alone should be grounds to challenge the justification of the
guidelines. This is also the very reason why child support guidelines need to be
legislated as well. Furthermore, since some costs are allocated inappropriately
when calculating figures for expenditures, reason would stand to tell us that
the guidelines are incorrect and inappropriate and accountability practices
should be used to set child support awards instead of the income shares
model.
The income shares model uses net income to calculate the guidelines. Another
reason guidelines are so high is the fact that DR modified the guidelines, as of
1999, to include spousal support with child support whether the parents where
married or not. Why is spousal support included in the guidelines when spousal
support and child support are completely different and unrelated issues and
spousal support is normally addressed in divorce proceedings? Additionally, why
is spousal support included in child support guidelines when more than half of
the children in the US alone were born out of wedlock? Furthermore, a mother who
is collecting child support can also apply for a modification to increase
payments as often as every six months.
A majority of mothers who collect support take full advantage of this. And,
in almost all cases they are usually awarded an increase, often without proof
being provided in most cases that this increase is needed for the child.
Furthermore, increases are usually awarded based upon increases in net income
from the father. Which means that if the father is granted a raise, or a bonus
at his place of employment, a majority of this increase is consumed by child
support increases. This provides practically no incentive for a father to work
to make his life better so he can better provide for other dependant household
members and better support himself as well. Additionally, as anyone who can
attest will tell you, the cost of living increases and raises from employers
increase very little and much less often than child support awards actually do.
Therefore, there really is no logical reason or sense for this type of increase
in child support awards.
Child Support awards also very rarely change or decrease when there is a
change in circumstances. Within the past two years, the US economy has lost
millions, if not billions of jobs due to the downturn in the economy. Some of
these people have been out of work for more than a year. And, those who have
found work have been forced to take a considerable cut in pay involuntarily.
Furthermore, the armed forces have also called up many reserves that have been
forced to leave their jobs and with it take a severe cut in pay as well. With
this taken into consideration, reason would stand to tell us that these people
have considerably less income than they once did. However, the guidelines are
completely subjective and in most cases do not allow child support payments to
decrease due to these circumstances.
Child custody and child support guidelines are in great need of repair and
the issue of child custody in customary family court practices denies fathers
the right to provide their children not just with what they need, but with what
they are entitled to as well. As research and studies have demonstrated,
children do much better in life when they have equal access to both parents.
However, if a child is denied a relationship with his or her father or the child's
relationship with the father is dampened, society as a whole ultimately can
suffer. And, as a result, this ends up being a social issue.
While the issues of child support and child custody appear to have violated
the US constitution and US Bill of Rights, there is very little that is being
done to change this. Currently, there are organizations that are analyzing these
issues and attempting to bring them to the attention of our elected officials.
One group in particular that is discussing these issues is The Center for Children's
Justice http://www.childrensjustice.org/
. This organization analyzes the many issues that surround child support and
child custody.
