I don't argue with your premise, except that you have left out half the equation.
Where is the father of these children, and why has the state not forced his responsibility upon him?
It's all well and good to wring our collective hands and curse feminism or what have you, but as long as we persist in not making both parties responsible for the children they create, we're just spitting in the wind. Last I looked, it still takes two.
I think the little dummy is right -- the mom has to ASK for child support. It is probably the case of different agencies not talking to one another. The payments she gets under disability because the babies were underweight, she might get anyway if he were paying support. And then the rest of her money seems to come from charity, which really ISN'T good charity because it should come in the form of a JOB instead of handouts. Or it should include some NORPLANT in her arm. Because the givers are only encouraging her to keep doing it.
"...and way has the state not forced his responsibility upon him?"
The state will not step in yet b/c she is not getting State welfare benefits. The babies each get a Federal SS disability check. As soon as they cut off her SSD she will probably apply for State welfare benefits (i.e. Medicare, AFDC). When she signs up for those benefits she will have to name the father and authorize the State of Texas (Office of the Attorney General) to go after Jimmy for child support, medical support and perhaps retro-active support.
If she doesn't cooperate, they could cut off her benefits. It's just a matter of time. However, as a side note, Jimmy is a deadbeat with other children that he is probably not supporting. Eventually he will face jail time for his failure to obey the court order. And the tax payers will then be paying to support the kids AND Jimmy.
One wonders what would happen if someone filed a lawsuit against the father ON BEHALF OF THE TAXPAYERS to get him to pay his fair share?
$500 and change per kid equals $2000 per month . . . and I'm sure some more will be added to the till when numero cinco joins the brood. But for the sake of my suggestion let's just say two grand a month. That's $24,000 per year X 18 years = $432,000.
Okay, okay, maybe she won't be paid for 18 years for each child . . . but is anyone here ready to bet she won't? But what I will bet on is this . . . you can take it to the bank that she'll get "cost of living" increases on her "investment."
Sounds to me like us taxpayers are being unfairly hosed for nearly a half-million dollars. And she admits she's not going to force the father to help take care of them? Sounds to me like us taxpayers have good grounds for a lawsuit to help her change her mind.