I am thoroughly sickened and
disgusted at how the government along with extreme feminist groups, have
managed to reduce non-custodial fathers to nothing more than a mere paycheck
in order to fund welfare while increasing the number of single mother
households in
"Child
support enforcement is an important component of the Federal and state effort
to promote family self-sufficiency. For the low-income families who receive
it, child support makes up a significant portion of the family budget (26
percent). Moreover, families that receive child support are less likely to
return to TANF."
First of all this statement mentions absolutely nothing about child support being utilized for the benefit of the children. And it specifically states that child support is utilized as income for low income families which consists of a mother, who in most cases is a welfare recipient, and one or more children. Additionally, how can anything promote self-sufficiency when those who benefit from it are more likely to go back to welfare when they are not receiving it?
I believe that I speak for a majority of non-custodial fathers everywhere, who have been victimized by the family courts and the child support system with their corrupt practices of lies and deceit. We are sick and tired of being called deadbeat dads and we are sick of being told that we do not care about our children, WHEN WE DO!!! However, the courts continually impede and prohibit a father's involvement with his children while violating the inalienable rights of children to have equal access to both parents. And, to make matters worse, the child support system and the courts actually promote this. Additionally, while the National Fatherhood Initiative and the more recent Marriage Initiative promote the truth that it is in a child's best interest for fathers to be more involved with their children, these are nothing more than schemes to increase child support collections. I make the statement regarding increasing child support collections due to the fact that the National Fatherhood Initiative [ii] specifically mentions financial support as one of its primary initiatives, and the marriage initiative [iii] specifically states that its primary intent is to increase child support collections. How can marriage increase child support collections when the only way that an increase in child support collections can result from marriage is through divorce proceedings that result after marriage? This not only creates, but also promotes, single parent homes.
The courts continually restrict fathers from any real involvement in their children's lives. How is a father supposed to be of any kind of influence to his children when he is ordered by the courts to only have visitation every other weekend and every Wednesday night? And, as if that is not bad enough, the courts allow the custodial parent to move the father's children far away from him without his permission or consent. In a majority of cases there are no criminal consequences that result from this, when in fact this is clearly kidnapping. As a result of this some fathers have been prevented from being any type of influence in their children's lives and have not seen their children in years.
Additionally, while the courts continually award primary custody to a single parent while ordering the father to have a very limited amount of time with their children, the courts also force him to pay erroneous and over inflated child support payments that are not even based on the actual costs of raising a child [iv]. And, while the courts award primary custody to single parent, this not only creates a single parent household but also creates a need and a reason to award child support. This would indicate that the courts, not the fathers who are classified as deadbeat dads, have been a primary contributor to the problem of single parent households.
Just take a look at some supporting statistics:
FACT: There are over 17 million children enrolled in the child support system as of 2002 (OCSE) [v]
FACT: The number of out-of-wedlock births continues to increase: From 1980 to 1999 the out-of-wedlock birthrate increased from 18.4% to 33% (US Dept. Health & Human Svc.) [vi], and in 2002 the national average for out-of-wedlock births continued to increase to 33.8% (Center for Disease Control) [vii]
FACT: The participation rate in TANF has more than doubled from 3.6 million in 1988 to 7.5 million in 2002 (Women Infants and Children) [viii]
FACT: The number of children living in single parent
homes more then doubled between 1970 and 1998 from %12 to %28 (Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention) and the amount of single parent
homes continued to increase from 19.2 million in 1999 to 19.8 million in 2002.
Of this figure, more than 80% of these households were headed by the mother
(US Census Bureau) [ix].
FACT: Forty
percent of children who live in households without a father have not seen
their father in at least 1 year and 50 percent of such children have never
visited their father's home. Additionally, 50% of mothers see no value in
continued contact with fathers and 40% have admitted that they have interfered
with or denied access on some level (Strengthening Families Act of 2003)[x].
While the courts continually award primary custody to a single parent, thus creating a single parent household, the courts are also provided with an incentive for child support collections. More specifically, the OCSE provides incentives of six to ten percent of the amount of child support that is collected [xi]. These incentives are based upon five factors: Paternity establishment; support order establishment; current collections; arrearage collections; and cost-effectiveness. While these incentives are awarded based upon performance, they are also awarded to political subdivisions as well, which can include those subdivisions that are responsible for enforcement. While these subdivisions include parties that are responsible for enforcement, the judicial system is also responsible for enforcement as well: The very same judicial system responsible for establishment enforcement of child support guidelines is also responsible for enforcement of the laws which we live by. In short, the judicial system is being provided incentives to create single parent households.
In addition, the OCSE is also much more concerned with its funding than it is about violating the civil rights of individuals according to a quote straight from the OCSE [xii]:
"The growing public debate over this issue has raised concerns about the impact of paternity disestablishment on the IV-D program, the program's requirements, and the availability of federal funding for state IV-D program expenditures. For the most part, paternity disestablishment is a state, rather than a federal, issue. The direct federal interest relates to the impact of these laws on state IV-D programs. Some IV-D directors have asked whether existing or pending legislation or existing court practices may violate IV-D requirements and result in the loss of all IV-D funding, and possibly Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program funding under title IV-A of the Social Security Act (the Act) as well."
While this demonstrates how the
OCSE has shown absolutely no concern for individual's rights, civil and
constitutional rights continue to be violated by not allowing due process as
stated in the constitution of the
While welfare reform in the form of child support has done nothing more than to decrease the amount of tax dollars that the government spends on people who do not pay taxes, are provided with free money from our government, and are provided with everything from free education to free food, the continual increase in the number of people who participate in the TANF program, the increase in out-of-wedlock birthrates, and the increase of single mother households indicates that this type of welfare reform has done absolutely nothing to reduce welfare period.
Additionally, while welfare reform in the form of child support was also created as an attempt to get people off of welfare, it has also incriminated and impoverished innocent people at the same time. Child support guidelines were instituted in the 1980's [xiii]. The creator of the child support guidelines was Robert Williams. After the guidelines were instituted, Robert Williams later admitted that they were estimated to be 250% to 300% higher than what they should have been, and were originally implemented to only address welfare recipients. Additionally, Robert Williams also later went on to form Policy Studies Inc. where he profited heavily in child support collections. In a majority of states, the child support guidelines are also based upon the income shares model which bases the costs of raising a child on the amount of money that people earn. While this is based primarily on the belief that people spend money on their children based upon what they earn, the truth of the matter is that this is not always the case. Furthermore, this form of the guidelines has also made it profitable for women to have children as well as providing a cash incentive for married women to initiate divorce when they just are not happy with their marriage. While the guidelines have made it profitable for women to have children, when these enforced support obligations are not met, the end result is incrimination to the obligor (support-paying person), no matter what the reason may be.
While domestic violence has been cited as a primary reason for women to be awarded primary custody as well as a reason to divorce their husbands, the OCSE also goes on to demonstrate how child support collections have actually contributed to the problem of domestic violence. While domestic violence may seem problematic, the truth of the reality is that many domestic violence claims are merely false allegations taken at face value with no further investigation. Additionally, as proven in studies, domestic violence is perpetrated just as much by women as it is by men [xiv]. However, despite these facts, according to the OCSE [xv]:
"Despite
or perhaps because of the repercussions of abuse, most women who are victims
of domestic violence want to pursue child support. The percentages of domestic
violence victims wanting to pursue child support, from data collected in three
states (two of which Massachusetts and Minnesota are included in this study),
range from 50 percent, for those victims who said their abuser still posed a
threat of harm, to 93 percent (Griswold, Pearson, and Thoennes
2000). Because most women who disclose domestic violence want to pursue child
support and turn down the option of seeking an exemption from cooperation
requirements, efforts to protect their safety throughout the child support
collection process are extremely important."
If the goals of welfare reform in the form of child support were to: violate innocent individual's rights, violate the inalienable rights of children, create more single mother households, increase the number of out-of-wedlock births and TANF participants, and line the pockets of criminal enforcement entities, then it has succeeded in its goals. As demonstrated by the statistics, welfare reform in the form of child support has done absolutely nothing to prevent the problems of out-of-wedlock births and single mother homes and has in fact contributed to this problem.
As the courts continue to award primary custody to single mothers and enforce onerous child support guidelines upon fathers while reaping incentives for doing so, citizens are starting to loose faith and doubt that the court systems are capable of upholding the laws of the land. Furthermore, while the government has managed to do this, what will stop them there? It's time for our children to stop being used as whores while the courts, the state, and the OCSE line their pockets as they increase the number of out-of-wedlock births and single mother households. If it is true that a child's best interest is to have more access to their fathers, then the courts and the government are truly punishing our children by denying a father access to his children. Depriving a father of his rights deprives a child of their inalienable rights.
Lawmakers and the legislature have the power to change this by making two things happen: Institute laws that make joint, physical 50/50 custody presumptive (which would also eliminate the need for child support altogether in these cases), and remove child support guidelines from the rules of the court and make them fair and equitable by basing them on the actual costs of raising children through the use of accountability practices. Until these two things change, elected officials should only expect this and other problems to continue to get worse and expect very little change for the better.
Gary Bremer
