How to end the war against divorced dads

National Post ^ | March 28, 2000 | Donna Laframboise

[Looking for Diogenes]

You seem convinced, contradictory to all actual evidence, that either we didn't have or they didn't work. ...They lied about the problem prior to 1975 in order to create the new system.

First, what evidence is there, overwhelming or otherwise, that child support was getting paid at better than current rates prior to 1975? Second, who are 'they?'

But the real point is, the use of the socialist model as a replacement for the constitutional system.

What is the constitutional system for effectively enforcing child support? Which specific consitutional right is being violated by the current system? Why do you call the system championed by Ronald Reagan the 'socialist system?'

[Looking for Diogenes]

If the state must provide support money to a child when it is removed from the father's custody without fault, the state cannot impose an obligation as well. They should have left the child in the father's care.

I'm not sure that I follow your logic.

Let's say that instead of taking the child away from the parent, the state takes the parent away from the child, for example by virtue of military draft. Does the parent cease to be responsible?

I would argue that a parent's obligation to support their progeny until maturity is just about absolute. It certainly isn't the state's responsibility, just because the parents chose to divorce or never marry. The state is forced by common decency to help support children who otherwise have inadequate support. But the parents are the primary supporters, regardless of the outcomes of their marriages and divorces.

[Looking for Diogenes]

Under no circumstances should the state, using parens patriae as justification, place a child in the care and custody of an adult who cannot make a living sufficient to support self and child(ren).

What do you think of the concept of presumptive joint-custody, in which absent abuse, both parents retain custody?

[Jim Noble]

If both parties are economically independent (can afford to care for the child[ren]) AND the female half of the equation will not expose the child[ren] to a threatening environment (boyfriend), then I don't object.

Usually, the children will be better off with their father.

[RogerFGay]

I'm not going to be on the internet as much for a while, but I'll try to address some of your questions quickly. And another thing is, I'm starting to get the impression that you want to believe a big huge expensive big brother child support enforcement system is a good thing, regardless of the evidence. So I'm not sure whether I'm wasting my time.

RE: Constitutional Rights, I mean the one's in the Constitution: See: A Return to Welfare As We Knew It?. There's a case decision linked to the article, that will go into as much detail about the setting of the amount of child support as anyone could possibly need. The enforcement system is another problem. For example; you should take a look at Governor Gray Davis: The California Weenie

Why do you call the system championed by Ronald Reagan the 'socialist system?'

I'm surprised you didn't get it from the discussion about individual rights verses the all powerful state. To add reference, the Grandfather of the child support system in the US is a Columbia prof. of Social Work and former head of the Wisconsin Institute for Research on Poverty. Irwin Garfinkel copied the socialist system and resold in in the US. That's where it came from. It wasn't invented in the US of A.

According to Brave, even with all the mechanisms in place, fathers pay only 70-80% of the child support they are liable for. And that's according to the father's themselves. Do you have any statistics for how it was in 1975?

According to mother-only surveys, fathers were paying around 70 percent. That's a number you can get from the Census Bureau. There data also shows that this compliance rate has dropped since 1996 like I said. You can look at the data from any year, and see the extremely strong correlation between payer's income and payment. Braver's survey of divorced fathers showed an overall compliance rate of 90 percent and 100 percent when fathers were fully employed. I puzzeled over the difference for a while until I realized that cps do not receive all that is paid. Part of the money paid goes to the state to reimburse welfare payments. Nowadays, there are other big chunks. The money is paid through middle-persons now. There's a huge amount that goes into the system and doesn't come out. And a significant share of what would have gone to cps, is now reduced by as much as one third, for fees.

[Looking for Diogenes]

I don't know why you get the impression I'm in favor of expensive and intrusive government systems. What I'm against is easy divorce. What I'm against is un-enforceable child support requirements. What I'm against are unsupported children who end up on AFDC. I'm still interested in your proposals for arriving at a fair, just, constitutional system that will actually work. I think that presumptive joint custody, if it can be enacted in 50 states, is a great solution to part of the problem. Getting rid of easy, no-fault divorce would be a big help too, though you don't seem interested in that. You keep mentioning 'overwhelming' evidence that there is no need for the current system, that children were adequately supported in 1975, but you haven't pointed me to this evidence.

Re: Constitutional rights. You haven't said which constitutional rights are violated by the existence of the US Office of Child Support Enforcement. I read the article you wrote. It seems to indicate that the real problem is with the formula used to set child support, not the enforcement mechanism. I certainly don't defend the current use of formulas.

The judgment states three requirements for constitutionally acceptable child support decisions. Both parents have an equal obligation to support their children in accordance with their relative means to do so; regardless of their gender and custodial status. The amount awarded as "child support" must be limited to address only the need for financial support of dependent children. Child support awards must be rationally related to the relevant facts and circumstances of each case.

Child support law existed in the thirteen colonies and has existed in the states since the beginning of the nation's history. Not surprisingly, the requirements presented in the Georgia judgment are reminiscent of traditional law that developed through more than two hundred years of case precedent. Federal reforms effectively blocked the application of established legal principles by extending the use of politically controlled formulae, known as child support guidelines, to non-welfare cases. State courts have been required to apply their state's formula in every child support case and presume that results are correct.

Deadbeat dads: Divorced fathers pay 90 percent of the child support they have been ordered to pay. Fully employed divorced fathers pay all that is due. In addition, they pay visitation expenses. [Depending on the extent of the research providing the result, fathers (all fathers including never married) pay 70-80 percent of what they have been ordered to pay. The low end – 70 percent – relies on recipient surveys that do not account for money that is paid but withheld as repayment for welfare, and possible bias. In all cases, the primary cause of non-payment is that the person ordered to pay is unable to pay.]

Quoting you, 70-80% of all fathers pay what they are ordered to pay. If only 70-80% of your customers paid you what they owed you'd go out of business. I don't know why it would be higher of the current enforcement mecahanisms are changed.

There's a huge amount that goes into the system and doesn't come out. And a significant share of what would have gone to cps, is now reduced by as much as one third, for fees.

Are you saying that if a man has $100 witheld from his paycheck for child support, only $66 is delivered to the custodial parent? That is shocking, since at least $3.5 billion of federal dollars is already spent to support the state systems. Do you have some supporting evidence for that?

In your other writings you suggest changing the way child support is implemented. Here you seem to be suggesting throwing out the entire system. I'm not sure what it is you really want.

[Looking for Diogenes]

If both parties are economically independent (can afford to care for the child[ren]) AND the female half of the equation will not expose the child[ren] to a threatening environment (boyfriend), then I don't object.

Both tests you mention involve intrusive examinations by the court. Both parents had the child, both parents are responsible for the child, both parents should have custody of the child. Sure, if there is a police record of assaults by one parent, that is a good reason to limit custody or even visitations. Other than that, the courts should get less involved, not more involved.

[right2parent]

But single mother households, as a class, are clearly incompetent to care for dependent children, even with AFDC.

I agree. It was a good idea at the time. Most of the moms were widows, not unmarried. The plan just subsidized a slide toward a matriarchal society. Not because it helped keep children out of orphanages, but because the stigmatism that went with it was eventually overcome by the sexual liberation movement. Single mother households became "acceptable", and even encouraged by mother custody and no-fault divorce. AFDC, should never have been available where a father was available and willing to support the family. If the state denies father custody, the state should assume the obligation of support.

[RogerFGay]

I agree that divorces are too easy to get. But more to the heart of the problem, the person filing for divorce (usually the mother) is heavily rewarded for doing so. The policy throughout the US is now -- MOM - if you file for divorce you get everything, including assurance of a higher standard of living than if you remain married.

One of the misconceptions you're continually working with is that the reforms have something to do with AFDC (which is now called TANF by the way). The reforms had very little effect if any on the welfare system; none, so far as recovering money for women on welfare. It's function is to drive tens of billions of dollars in transfers in non-welfare cases through the system; the vast majority of which is money that would be paid even if there was no child support enforcement system. The game is to drive as much money as possible through the system. States receive funding in proportion to the amount "collected." It's the subject of one of my articles Corporate Fraud: It's Clinton's Fault! and mentioned in others. The state systems classify all payments as "collections" thereby collecting federal funding primarily for acting as a middle-man for payments that would be made anyway -- it's government accounting fraud.

You keep emphasizing that only 70-80 percent is paid, and you compare that with what it would be like if only 70-80 percent of a businesses customers paid for their goods. There are differences that you must consider. The price / payment in this case is variable, it's adjusted arbitrarily in an en masse political process, and it's not a one-time purchase (it's payments that go one for 20 years). When there's an opportunity to make the payment higher, they increase it. When a person becomes unemployed or has a lower income, they refuse to decrease it.

You have to understand that these are not customers coming into a business and signing a contract that results in a fixed payment, and then selling the asset to get rid of the debt if they get into trouble. The size of the debt is something the person required to pay has no control over. If the couple was married, they'd adjust their spending according to what they could afford and other financial decisions. Here, someone else is making the financial decisions, often decisions that make no sense in terms of the economic situation of the payer.

The constitutional system demands more than I can summarize. But I can certainly start with child support amounts that are rationally related to the circumstances of the family -- that provide according to children's needs and the ability of both parents to provide. That's not the way it is today. It should never require a person to pay what they are unable to pay. The amounts ordered should not be arbitrarily political controlled as they are today.

For more detail on constitutional violations related to the setting of child support amounts, I hope you'll read the article and go to the linked case that I referred to in my last note to you. A court in Georgia declared their guidelines unconstitutional. I didn't mention it before, because it's awaiting appeal to the state supreme court. But the judge in the case did a good job of stating what's wrong with the mechanism for setting amounts.

I don't do a lot of detailed writing specifically about enforcement. But I've given you an example, the lawyer in Michigan, and his problems with the system as an illustration. I also linked an article in my last note to you re: forcing men who are proven not to be the father to pay child support. There have been cases in which the guy ordered to pay has never even met the mother - and the courts refuse to stop the child support order even when confronted with proof. Hard to believe? It's true. When guys don't get their paperwork returned on time, they're declared fathers by default, and there's no way out of it.

Are you saying that if a man has $100 witheld from his paycheck for child support, only $66 is delivered to the custodial parent? That is shocking, since at least $3.5 billion of federal dollars is already spent to support the state systems. Do you have some supporting evidence for that?

The problem occurs in two ways, as I indicated. One is that a lot of money is collected that cannot be dispursed because the system cannot locate recipients. So it continues to pile up in the bank accounts of private companies that provide financial services for the system. The other way -- is that it goes through a private collection agency. Private collection agencies have contracts with the states to provide collection services. They keep approx. one third of what the receive. They only pass on about two thirds to custodial parents. This certainly is all documented, and there have been a few online newpaper articles about the experience recipients have getting screwed by the system. This isn't for women and children, and it's certainly not for the sake of the taxpayer. It's a system for the profits of the middle-men organizations, including a 60,000 person strong child support enforcement bureacracy.

In your other writings you suggest changing the way child support is implemented. Here you seem to be suggesting throwing out the entire system. I'm not sure what it is you really want.

It should be very simple to understand. I'm not suggesting eliminating child support. I'm suggesting eliminating the federal govenment and federal funding from child support policy, other than welfare cases. It just means going back to the way this was all done before. As I've mentioned more than once, there is no down side to my suggestion. There was no need for the federal government to get involved. The result has only been a huge tax bill and enormous chaos for the people who have been forced to live in the Soviet system in America.

[FReepaholic]

>>...the one who initiates the divorce does not get custody...<<

Interesting thought.

If the law stated that the person initiating the divorce automatically would NOT get custody then there might be fewer divorces. The spouses might just HAVE to learn to make the marriage work.

Interesting thought.

[RogerFGay]

I've explained my proposal several times. You're making me wonder what you're up to when you return to ask once again, for my proposal as though I haven't given you one. All 50 states had divorce and child support laws before Reagan and the welfare reforms that began in 1975. All you have to do to return to a Constitutional system, and a return to marriage, is get the federal government out of domestic relations.

Let me explain that so I'm sure it's clear. The reason marriage is no longer a legal institution in the US, that the divorce rate is high, child support is too high for many men to pay and even men who have proven through DNA tests that they're not fathers are forced to pay, is because there are people who are able to use the current system to steal huge sums of money from parents, children and taxpayers. Taxpayers are paying around 4.5 billion dollars a year to keep the system the way it is now.

All that needs to be done is to allow the system to return to its natural state, which would include a return of legal marriage and constitutional rights. We'll have all that if we stop the fed from paying tax dollars to maintain the current system.

You're keeping me guessing as to why you keep asking for my proposal after I've given it to you several times. Don't forget now -- we had all the domestic relations laws we needed before the fed got involved. Getting the fed out of domestic relations does not leave a void; it simply eliminates the main source of corruption that 's caused most of the problems.

[Looking for Diogenes]

You're making me wonder what you're up to when you return to ask once again, for my proposal as though I haven't given you one. ...You're keeping me guessing as to why you keep asking for my proposal after I've given it to you several times.

Don't get paranoid. You present yourself as an expert on the topic and point out a lot of the failings of the crrent system. I, as an ordinary citizen, would like to see the problems you point out fixed. What you've given are vague platitudes, like the ones below.

All you have to do to return to a Constitutional system, and a return to marriage, is get the federal government out of domestic relations.

That's not a plan.

All that needs to be done is to allow the system to return to its natural state, which would include a return of legal marriage and constitutional rights.

That's not a plan.

We'll have all that if we stop the fed from paying tax dollars to maintain the current system.

OK, that is a plan: simply zero out the budget for the US Office of Child Support Enforcement, if I understand you correctly. That is a feasible plan, all it would take is lobbying a sufficient number of legislators.

If you support this plan, I don't know why you don't push it. I don't see any mention of it in your many articles. I look forward to reading one.

[RogerFGay]

Well, there's nothing at all vague about the solution I've presented to the problem. Now you're labeling. I'm not paranoid. When you use phrases like "vague platitude" to describe a concrete solution, it's obvious you've got some kind of built-in resistence. I'm guessing from your comments that you perceive a need, but you haven't said what that need is yet. I've mentioned that several times, but you still won't name it. You seem to have set a requirement for me to answer a question that you haven't yet asked.

[Looking for Diogenes]

When you use phrases like "vague platitude" to describe a concrete solution, it's obvious you've got some kind of built-in resistence.

I've heard a few 'concrete solutions' from you, spread across various posts: make joint custody the norm, end the Office of Child Support Enforcement, and repeal all federal laws that in any way touch upon marriage or child support. If there is a particular post or article where you provided these together sorry if I missed it. So, is that your plan?

If so, I think there are serious problems with your proposal, as I have pointed out.

I'm guessing from your comments that you perceive a need, but you haven't said what that need is yet.

Sure I have a need. As a tax payer I'd like to see waste reduced, but even more as a citizen I'd like to see an unjust system fixed. From what I read of your work you are mostly focused on providing illustrations of the problem rather than working for a solution. That's fine, there's a role for everyone and you should be lauded for pointing out the need for reform. Thanks.

[RogerFGay]

If so, I think there are serious problems with your proposal, as I have pointed out.

You haven't pointed out any specific problem with my proposal. Getting the fed out of domestic relations is a concrete proposal (not a "vague platitude") and I don't believe you have any problem understanding it. You're objecting without explaining why you object.

As a tax payer I'd like to see waste reduced,

.. Which would certainly happen if the fed stops funding the child support enforcement program.

but even more as a citizen I'd like to see an unjust system fixed.

The unjust system was created by federal funding, used to pay states to operate a corrupt and unjust system. Maybe you're used to thinking things are a lot more complicated than they actually are. The solution to federal laws and payments that maintain corruption is to stop. Repeal the laws, stop the bribes / payoffs / theft from the taxpayers. That's the motivation state politicians have for continuing to operate the corrupt system. Remove the motivation.

From what I read of your work you are mostly focused on providing illustrations of the problem rather than working for a solution.

Certainly, I've spent a lot more time critisizing the system than I'd like to. But if I hadn't, my solutions would fall on the deaf ears of people who'd complain that I hadn't explained what's wrong with what we have now. You're wrong in thinking I haven't provided solutions.

[Looking for Diogenes]

Let's not argue over this further. I support what you're doing and wish you the best of luck.

[Critter]

I would like a policy that penalizes the vows breaker.

Mom wants out, cuz she doesn't love dad any more, with no other compelling reasons, she leaves the house, and the kids with dad, and pays support. Dad wants out to be with the 21 year old secretary from work, well, he leaves the house, and the kids, and pays the support.

Vows are vows. Let's hold people accountable that break them. It's pretty simple really.

[Critter]

In any other contract between parties, the breaker of the contract is the one penalized by law. All we need do is apply the same standards to the marriage contract, and 75% of our problems are solved. :)

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Vows are vows. Let's hold people accountable that break them. It's pretty simple really.

Makes sense, doesn't it?

I've been reading and almost finished, an important book,

The Mind and the Brain

by Jeffrey M. Schwartz MD and Sharon Begley.

I consider it important for many reasons, but in this context the point is that it makes a potent argument against determinism--against, that is, the idea that physical brain processes predetermine human decision. Schwartz does this by pointing out that physical determinism died when Max Plank invented quantum theory. Quantum Theory usually agrees with Newton's laws of motion, but where the two disagree you put your money on quantum theory.

The hammer is that quantum theory predicts that atomic-level events are not determined until observed. In other words, until a human decision. This means that there is a direct connection between mind and matter. And, the brain operates on the transport of ions, subject to quantum theory rather than Newtonian determinism.

All of which is a longwinded way of saying that modern physics does not predict determinism of mental events. Free will exists. And if so, we are indeed responsible for our own decisions.