Man Dying of Child Support Enforcement

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.

Breathtaking and thank you for some relief from the personal attack beef that I got caught in.

I can't really add to the insight and foreshadowing in your post.

I'm just thinking of the good men out there who desire healthy marriages, but fear the divorce that will destroy them for life and financially control them.

Nothing is sadder to me than professional men who want marriage so badly, but just know better than that because that's not the way the game is played anymore. It reminds me of what I've been hearing about these reality shows involving relationships where there is indeed an alterior motive behind their dating, it's just sick.

If you fit the above description and are not getting any younger, I'll repeat my advice one more time: perhaps you should look elsewhere for a bride who wants a stable marriage and family.

It's just bad that many of the best and brightest have given up on procreating out of a justified fear.

Either that or just be upfront about a pre-nup.

Reality tv, magazine covers of YM, Cosmo, etc., Aaron Spelling sitcoms, female authors peddling books like The Starter Marriage, Women's Studies, Feminism, courts, lawyers, judges as well as other sources have brainwashed and spoiled many American women, so maybe good American men should just avoid the problem by traveling to Prague or Budapest or Bogota.

One post said that the women he has met simply aren't worth the risk of a failed marriage. That's a wise thought to think.

Another post said that many of the biggest players are men that have had their hearts crushed by a woman. That has not been my observation unless you include that player's own mother as the heart-breaker who threw daddy out of the house for some party money.

Or the type my uncle married, who three years and a daughter later said she needed to go "find herself." You know the type.

Just because the powers that be have appointed many women abiters of a kid's future and given these power-mad mothers the ability to siphon off a man's resources does NOT mean the She is right all of the time! It's not right, it's WRONG!

You obviously have a misperception. The day to day things I do for my son are done with a smile on my face and warmth in my heart. The way you describe, you make it sound like a chore or work. Maybe you just weren't cut out for having kids.

Misperception? If your not a divorced, single parent... you can afford to smile. You have help (probably financially as well as physically) and a break when you need it. Raising kids is W-O-R-K, darlin.....enjoyable, yes... at times a real strain, mentally and physically......even inconvenient, once in awhile. Just for the record....I love kids. I have two grown plus several surrogates.....then a couple grandkids which lived with me and I supported for 6 years. I'm also a pediatric nurse. Not "cut-out" for having kids? *chuckle*

As far as child support, if I were to be divorced, I'd offer to pay the mortgage and all utilities (electric, gas, oil, water, basic cable, basic non-long distance phone). I would also pay all necessary direct expenses such as clothes. But I'll be damned if I'm going to write a blank check to support ex-honey's life choices.

Blank check? A bit of an exaggeration there, eh? Most monthly child support checks wouldn't pay half the rent on a decent place. It takes every nickel and then some.....to keep kids clothed, healthy and fed....not to mention transportation and scholastic expenses. It's great that you'd be willing to do so much financially for your child.....but you'd be the exception to the rule...not the norm.

"Great post, too bad you forgot to mention how a man stays married to a women bent of divorce in a nation that grants "no-fault" divorces upon request".

"I could give you some suggestions. The question is, would you have the stomach for it".

Not very long ago most married couples in a rocky marriage stayed together until the kids were grown up. As mature adults they put their children's health and welfare first, and they found a way to get along reasonably during the interim. Today, the almighty "self" rears its ugly head in rocky marriages and in about 85 -90% of these divorce cases the wife runs to an attorney who sets the divorce process in motion. This attorney will then surely fill her head up with her "rights", (translation: if she retains him, he will get her the house, the kids, and a sizeable chunk of hubby's paycheck). Next, the "family" practice attorney will seek to gain leverage in Court. One well documented way to do this is to put a freeze on the man's assets, and put an abuse restraining order on him. This keeps him out of the house, away from the children, and emotionally beaten down during the process. No thanks, I don't need to know how to stay with a woman who doesn't want to put her children before her own imagined "happiness" with some other man---that's a process that used to just come natural. Until the advent of feminism, that is. (btw, studies have shown that 80% of women who divorce their husbands also divorce their second husbands, so save the arugment that all these men are abusive and dangerous for somebody else. I've done my research.

I'm in my early 30's, decent weight and I guess not too hard to look at, but I haven't dated in 9 years. My divorce was final when I was 21. Starting out married a few months shy of 20 wasn't the smartest move in the world, but there have been generations where that worked fine. The big issue was my stupidity for getting involved with a girl whose mother had been married 4 times. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree because my ex is now also on her 4th marriage. Lucky me, I was mugging-victim #1...the warm up act.

My kid is the bright spot in my life. She's really the only soul on Earth that I can honestly say that I love unconditionally. For that, I'm confronted with a self-serving, domineering, harpie of an ex-wife uses her kids as a means of control over the men in her life. 14 years of this has definately had an impact on my outlook and charactor. I remember the person I was at one time...The one that could enojy the company of women without wondering what her angle is. No, I'm done with dating. Most of the women in my age group are either married, obese, or has already been divorced. The one's who don't already have kids, and that's most of them, want to have kids. I'll be damned if I expose myself to that kind of emotional devistation and financial surfdom ever again.

Like I said earlier, I'm through with the whole debate. Just take a look how a board as heavily "conservative" and a haven for the "freedom-loving", and then take a look at how the exchange on this topic goes. All of a sudden, Marxism has it's place in the West and some of the tactics used in the former Soviet Union had some merit after all. As far as I'm concerned, they win....we're all bad guys who deserve every bad thing that could possibly happen to us and we should be greatful that the system even tollerates us. What goes around, comes around...and when it comes back around on them a few years from now, these people would be wasting their time to think that I'll lift a finger to rally to their cause or even give them the time of day. The women who think that they are in control (and the men who think the system is so great) will eventually find out that their kids don't really belong to them. The state will have taken the rights that they thought they had away with their kids. These people are too petty and vengeful to see that that are being used just as much as we are. The only difference is that they think that they have been "empowered." They can hate us all they want...Eventually, they are going to be us.

Physical and emotional, I won't exploit it with details. I am well aware of the less-than-perfect childhood my girls have to suffer through. They have to pay the price for my marrying such a specimen as their father, but if I hadn't, they wouldn't be here. As always, the children suffer for the choices of their parents. I won't pretend that I know exactly what it's like for the children of single parents, but I do know that I do everything in my power to help and support mine. Any advice you have for me, from the child's perspective, would be very much appreciated.

I am tried of seeing hypocrites like you saying that men must have ALL the responsibilities but NONE of the rewards in life.

Never said that. As a matter of fact, I was married for 25 yrs to a very emotionally/mentally abusive man. I left after the last kid married. I didn't accept alimony or his retirement package..(which I was entitled to)...made sure every bill and loan was paid off....left him the house and half the furniture, plus the checking and savings. (Mean ol' lady....that's me!) I could've been bitter and angry about all the years I wasted on this man.....but I sure didn't take it out on the rest of the male population. A few years later, I remarried and all is well.

You have striped me and those like me of any possible happiness in the future.

I haven't done a thing to you...or anyone like you. Reread the above. In an earlier post to someone on this board...you related you've never been married. Are you just anticipating or what? Divorce is nasty...and it's never "fair". There are evil people in this world.....both men and women. The liberals have destroyed the family by brainwashing women into thinking they can be men.....and brainwashing men into believing they should be. Messed up the whole system.

So I say to you, shut-up.

How old are you? Did you get grounded or something? *chuckle*

You got married and moved on and didn't stick forks in him, good for you.

My best friend is almost twenty years older than me and on her second marriage to a guy my age! I can't believe it.

She's a pretty redhead woman who always talks about her teenage sons, what she tells them about life, and how they react to it. She also always gives me the best advice. She's still friends with her ex-husband, but said he was an alcoholic, so, finally, she left him with the 2 kids, but didn't make it a point to rub his face in it and make him suffer forever like some sadist.

I've never met a better woman truly. Everything she says and does is positive for the men in her life and she's happy. She's told me the mistakes she's made and yet, she still guts it out at a lame job and just started going back to school. Unreal.

Although I don't think I would settle down with an older woman, her sons and husband are very fortunate to have such a good woman in their life.

Once upon a time, women said, " A good man is hard to find ..." How things have changed! You've come a long way (cry) babies!

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.