Posted on 05/31/2003 2:42:54 PM PDT by sourcery
The child support enforcement program is a disease that has probably caused more suffering and death than any other government program. It was introduced by Congress in 1975 and has been engineered into a weapon of mass destruction in the years since. Despite sound evidence of destructive economic, social, and political effects and repeated cases of suicide linked to insufferable conditions created by current practices, politicians and administrative representatives continue to satisfy themselves with less than convincing denials, a few false and misleading statistics, and the claim that "it's for the children."
Various protests have generally been ignored, even when they are so serious as to cause harm to protesters. Potential danger lies in a particular form of protest: the hunger strike. The problems with child support enforcement, which were internationalized during the 1990s, have been met with occasional hunger strikes in several countries. Daniel Chang, a Chinese immigrant, has been the most recent to stage a hunger strike in the United States. His strike began on May 15th in Piscataway, New Jersey. Dr. Chang holds a Ph.D. in computer science and has a professional job. Despite federal involvement based on a pre-existing federal involvement in welfare, this case has nothing to do with the public welfare system.
The federal child support enforcement program is not for the children of course. The money spent on children is just as green whether paid under state rules or through a federal program. The incentive is the billions of dollars that Congress spends each year to keep people interested. States receive "incentive funds" in proportion to the amount of child support collected. In order to maximize the amount of funds they receive, states enrolled as many men as they could and arbitrarily increased the amount they were ordered to pay. All payments are counted as "collections." Everybody in government understands the scheme. It's pork. It's a brand of corruption older than government itself. A prospective enemy was demonized ("dads"), and people were called to arms against them; pledging their money and loyalty to the cause.
My early introduction to the child support enforcement system included a case in which a chiropractor had been involved in a serious auto-accident that resulted in brain damage. He was unable to continue his practice, and his savings was eaten up by medical bills. The state enforcement agency echoed the prevailing political sentiment ? "There is no excuse for not paying child support," and began confiscating social security benefits in an effort to satisfy the very high payments that had been set in light of his previously high income. The crippled man was left without sufficient income to pay for rent and food, and certainly without sufficient funds to pay a lawyer to attempt to straighten things out.
The reason for such harsh measures is the federal funding system. States receive money in proportion to the amount of child support "collected." Taking away social security benefits may have been worth $10 a month to the state; a little bit toward paying the salary of the collection agent who was robbing him of his sustenance.
This is the system that Dr. Chang is fighting. It isn't about reducing welfare expenditure. The money he owed is for support of his daughter from his first marriage. She is now 20 years old (an adult) and studying pharmacy at Rutgers University. He also has a 12 year old daughter from his second marriage. A well-paid professional, the austerity of his home and lifestyle is testimony to payment levels that are out of proportion to caring for children. Someone in his economic position would normally be able to raise two children in reasonably good style.
That judges have become beneficiaries in the enforcement scheme, pay linked to outcome, is a direct attack on judicial independence and therefore our Constitution ? in effect, an attack against the United States. American colonists raised this same issue in the Declaration of Independence; complaining about the King of Great Britain and his manipulations of democracy and the rule of law. "He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries."
Dr. Chang has only protested once before. In June, 1989 he marched with others in New York City to protest the killing of peaceful protesting students and others by the Chinese government. The only pattern seems to be a loathing of government oppression. And this time it's personal. He has been jailed three times (once for 108 days) and has no drivers license due to child support debt. This represents two of the practices fathers so often complain about. Atop arbitrary, unjustifiably high child support orders, often the reason for debt to begin with, spending time in jail and being unable to drive make earning an income to pay child support (and support oneself) ever so much harder. The alleged success of such practices is really a few instances in which friends and family, who do not owe child support, have pitched in to pay debts. That led at least one judge to claim that the practices worked for him. By and large, the expanded practice has left tens of thousands of fathers without licenses and an untold number with unlimited jail time; often until debt is paid, with no way to pay the debt while in jail.
Dr. Chang's experience is one that has been repeated many times across the country over the past fifteen years. Sheriff's deputies literally kicked in the door to his apartment and arrested him at gunpoint - weeks after he had made necessary payments. Employees at the Middlesex County Child Support Department had refused to help weeks earlier after his employer had missed a child support payment and miscalculated another. His employer is charged with making payments after deducting them from his pay, a common practice since the early 1990s. Dr. Chang points out that his employer is generally cooperative with the agency, but had made errors after an end-of-year payroll conversion. He contacted the child support agency and sent the money himself, but that didn't stop the violent enforcement action weeks later.
Give me liberty, or give me death! Or as Dr. Chang puts it: "It is better to die once than live a thousand humiliations." Isn't this just the sort of thing that led to the American Revolution? Is it the kind of government behavior that led to student protests in Tienanmen Square? It's probably deeper than that.
The assault on a man's life typically begins with a mother who decides to "liberate" herself from marriage, simply dealing a father out of his own personal and family life. The process is exceptionally easy. The government has been dedicated to helping women "liberate" themselves from marriage for decades. Once extricated, women often move on to new relationships, taking his children, a portion of his property and future income with them. The engineering of a new life quite often involves keeping the old one (the ex-husband) at an extreme distance, totally disengaged from his own children.
The process and its effects involve the deepest emotions there are. But to that we have now added a government operation designed by people who are using the situation to steal. They're stealing money from these very same fathers, often making mere existence difficult. They are doing it in order to steal money from taxpayers who are paying for the system in proportion to the amount of money taken from fathers. Finally, as if that isn't enough, they're stealing freedom and even life.
Dr. Chang hopes to force a conclusion to his ordeal within one month of the start of his protest. If he can, he will eat again and return to work. He has two weeks vacation and has arranged for a two week extension. This defines his goal of ? in effect ? winning an argument within a month. His water and salt diet is dangerous, especially if it continues for long. Several people have met with him, and have encouraged him to stay alive. When he began his strike on May 15th, he weighed 166 pounds. When I last received an email message from him, May 28th, his weight was 16 pounds less - 150 pounds.
Dr. Chang has vowed to continue until his demands are met. They are as follows (in his own words).
1. I do not owe any money to ex-wife Yee-Sang Yen. 2. If I have a job, fair monthly support money will be sent to the child, Olivia Chang, directly without going through any child support department. 3. The Middlesex Child Support Department repairs the damage it caused to my credit, and informs the Motor Vehicle Services to erase all my driving suspensions and restore my driving privilege immediately. 4. The Middlesex Child Support Department reimburses me the following: $282 for restoring my driving licenses, the cost of repairing the door damaged by the sheriffs, $280 taken from my wallet, $20 for getting from the Middlesex County Court to home.
WHERE did THAT come from? I have read the entire thread to this point and all I see are a number of people discussing overlapping issues framed through their own perceptions and doubtless based in their own experiences. I don't see any man-haters; just a lot of frustrated people who care.
Its really tough right now. BTW, I used to play golf alot. I play about 5 times a year now, nothing to write home about. At one point, I was playing in the low 80's. Those days are long gone. Fishing is my other outlet, but the weather has sucked here in Jersey, making things even more strained. Thanks agaon....GG
That seems to be the consensus. After swallowing life for so long, 3 more years seems like an eternity. I know your advice is what is best. I just hope I have the strength to follow it. Thanks again for your input, as I know its the right thing to do...
Are you joking or are you trying to be obnoxious?
It is not my business, but why do you want to write anything at this moment? What do you expect to achieve?
The KNOWN possible outcome of sex is a child. Anyone not ready to accept that responsibility should refrain from having sex - PERIOD.
If a man father's a child, in or out of wedlock, he is 50% responsible for bringing that child into the world, thus 50% of the responsibility is his. I don't care if the guy is unemployed or a multi-millionare. He still has that responsibility.
Now, I will not argue with the fact that the system in place to supposedly collect child support "for the children" is extremely flawed. A local woman who is divorced received a check from the State of Arkansas for a wopping 64 cents for that month's child support! In her case, the father really is a deadbeat. He was a slimeball when they were together (her fault for picking the ex-husband as a sperm-donor) and has proven himself to be nothing better since that time. Yet he can make these minimal payments to the state child support office each month and it keeps them from garnishing his wages. This is called a corrupt system.
My stepfather was once severely behind on his child support to his ex wife. She was an extremely abusive woman (once actually striking my step-father in the head with a meat tenderizer hammer - causing lovely injuries). Yet the idiot courts at that time (nearly 30 years ago) placed the children in the mother's custody. The ex-wife then proceeded on a personal defamation mission - causing my step-father to loose several jobs. He had very good grounds for a lawsuit against her, but wanted to do what was right for the kids. Unfortunately his reputation was rapidly being eroded. He finally moved out of state to try to get away from the harassing phone calls from this woman (He kept answering machine tapes that I have heard - she was obviously a raving lunatic). She would track him down and then call his employer and harass them. Eventually he would loose another job - thus the income required to make child support payments. After his 3rd move - this time to Arkansas, the ex-wife finally lost contact for a few years. In that time, he had quit making his child support payments. The youngest child was the only one still young enough to receive the payments, but he didn't want to contact his ex-wife because he knew she would start her campaign against him yet again.
Michigan Child Support Enforcement finally tracked him down a few years later - garnishing his wages until he had paid an enormous "back support" bill. Much of the bill was not even backed up by the original support order. They also had charged him interest on the support payments in arears. The hounding of Michigan's support enforcement nearly cost him another job, even though the payments were being made. It finally took the actions of a good attorney to call the dogs off.
And guess what - after the dust cleared (and he has a very good relationship with one of his daughters) he discovered that the children never saw a single penny of all the money sent to them. In fact, the mother continued to lie to them telling them even in adulthood that he never paid a penny. The children never received the Birthday, Christmas, Easter, etc. cards and gifts sent. They received nothing.
I have often disagreed with my Step-Father over the 16 years I have known him, but he has always been very honest and to-the-point. His life was devastated by the child support system over and over (as well as by the ex-wife).
You know what? Regardless of the situation, he did marry that other wife. He did choose to father chidren with the woman. He WAS responsible for supporting those children.
My primary beef with the child suport system - support amounts are often set arbitrarily with no real consideration (or flexibility) to the real-world variations in income. In a family setting, a father's income is subject to the same risks. Yet suddenly when divorced (or never married to begin with) the same exact level of child suport is demanded, regardless of the circumstances. Should allowences be made when the father looses his job? How about if he is disabled? The answer is yes. Unfortunately, many child support systems do not take such circumstances into consideration. Another obstacle - those worst of times, when the father is out of work or disabled, he doesn't have the financial resources to hire a lawyer to even try to get the child support adjusted. Thus the father winds up owing back support, often with major interest added as well as fines.
I hope this post has made some sense - I am up past my bed time and I am exhausted. Maybe I will revisit this thread tomorrow when I have had a bit of rest. Goodnight all.
Nonsense. All one has to do is "pick carefully" ? To continue with the metaphor, ever heard of the wolf in sheep's clothing? I married her.
All fertile persons have a sacred obligation to the children they might have, to choose the other parent with all due care.
Oh, I believe I have a sacred obligation to my children. Too bad the courts don't see it that way. To them, I'm a walking wallet. They garnish my wages like a criminal and they charge me $35/month for the privilege. And what accounting does mom have? None. She gets that money tax-free, can spend it on whatever and whomever she chooses. Oh, but dads are dead-beats, right?
The "family court" system is so stacked against fathers, it's sickening. You have zero idea what it is like. The courts start with 100% custody for mom and work back from there. How is that fair? Where are my rights to equal protection under the law?
I do however believe since men have the most to lose, financially, they ought to be more careful than they are.
Financially? perhaps. Emotionally, absolutely. Never again will I be able to read to my children every night. To lie on their beds and talk about all the things they did that day or allay their fears. I come home to an empty house and empty rooms. Because one person decided that breaking up the family was in her own best interest. And the anti-father courts made it all nice-n-legal.
You know, the trouble with women like you is that men can do no right. We're either twirling our moustaches and tying women to the railroad tracks or too stupid to know that we've married a betraying b_tch.
This was my exact situation. My children were/all that mattered. So I stayed through the emotional affairs and the marriage counseling. In the end, she admitted that if weren't for the fact that she would get custody, she wouldn't have bailed on the marriage. My children are devastated, particularly my 11y/o daughter. We are soul-mates.
All I can tell you is, hang in there, brother. Divorce sucks. With kids, it's awful. However, your son can request to live with you. Get a good attorney. Don't be swayed by big ads in the yellow pages. Go to Martindale Hubbell online and look for one that specializes in divorce/custody.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.