How to end the war against divorced dads

National Post ^ | March 28, 2000 | Donna Laframboise

[RogerFGay]

How to end the war against divorced dads

Donna Laframboise
National Post

Over the past three days, the National Post has examined the myth of the "deadbeat dad." We've shown how divorced fathers doing everything in their power to live up to their financial obligations are treated disgracefully by the authorities.

How can a system so badly flawed be fixed? How can we stop the misconceived war against divorced dads that is driving good men toward bankruptcy, despair and suicide?

[Looking for Diogenes]

Until we arrive at that utopian ideal(?) what do we do?

Personally, I think that reducing divorce is the best, most lasting cure for the ills of the child support system. What do you recommend?

[RogerFGay]

Parents living in different states was one of the excuses given by advocates of federal involvement. States don't take much interest in out of state cases because they have to split the federal funding bounty with the other state. Certainly, all that's needed is interstate cooperation and coordination. There is no inherently federal role. In fact, domestic relations is not on the federal government's allowed to do list in the Constitution at all. Back in the olden days, non-payment of child support in interstate cases was the leverage used by non-custodial parents when women decided to move with the children and their boyfriends without giving dad a forwarding address. But today, when dad's already signed up to pay through the system ..... there are a lot of fathers being forced to pay child support through the system who don't know where their children are, whether they're safe, or even whether they're alive.

A lot of child support is paid through wage withholding today simply because that's the mechanism the federal government wanted to use. It then goes to private collection agencies and through the government system. That's part of what costs you $4.5 billion a year. There are around 60,000 government employees, all sitting in government provided offices, with government provided computer equipment, networked to a $4 billion computer system that keeps track of intimate details of the lives of every American adult. Not just divorced people. When payments are processed through a private agency, they keep around one third of what they collect. Stealing the baby's milk money. The "compliance rate" -- the percent of what is ordered that ends up being paid, is actually less than it was back in the days when payments were made primarily by one parent sending a check directly to the other.

[Looking for Diogenes]

Certainly, all that's needed is interstate cooperation and coordination.

Other than extraditing the nonpaying spouse, I'm not sure what kind of cooperation states could give each other. Extradition would be a bad solution, since then the non-paying parent will be in prison and totally unable to earn anything to pay with. What are you proposing?

In fact, domestic relations is not on the federal government's allowed to do list in the Constitution at all.

If that is the case then anyone with standing can sue to have the law overturned. Go for it.

Back in the olden days, non-payment of child support in interstate cases was the leverage used by non-custodial parents when women decided to move with the children and their boyfriends without giving dad a forwarding address.

That is pretty weak incentive for a parent to make overdue payments. "Should I pay her the $10,000 I owe so I can send little Buffy a birthday card?" If that had worked, Reagan would not have felt it necessary to find another answer.

The other issues seem more to do with how the fed system is implemented. It sounds horrible. How come with a Republican in office and one house of Congress in Republican hands we can't get this fixed?

As I said at the outset, the only real cure for this problem is to minimize divorce.

[Looking for Diogenes]

The key recommendation of the article you posted is to end sole custody in favor of joint custody in all cases except those involving violence or abuse. What do you think of that recommendation?

[Iron Eagle]

How about a reproduction tax, a marriage tax, and a divorce tax.

1) Marriage tax raises bar for marriage and cuts down on frivolous unions. Money is held in trust past child-rearing years and returned to the couple past child-bearing years if still married. If divorced, money eschews to the State for Social services to support state obligations related to divorce. (higher crime, healthcare, etc.)

2) Reproduction tax. Tax is paid upon birth of child. Held in trust. If divorced before child is age of majority, money is placed in trust for child you screwed!

3) Divorce Tax -- to be paid in equal parts to the state and the child in trust. States can enact comparative fault statute that woud allow assignment of fault for divorce, thus apportioning the rate of tax to be paid by each party.

Since morals and shame no longer dictate how adults conduct themselves in marriage, the State might as well regulate that too. As it is now, the state is left holding the bag when children of divorce raise the cost on society.

How about 5k to get married, 1K for each child, and 10K to get divorced. Hardship waivers in the form of community service would be available for those that cannot pay.

Of course, we could just stop rushing into marriage. And, we could stop glorifying and accepting divorce without stigmitizing it. And, we could get rid of no-fault divorce raise the cost and barriers to divorce. (Which would likely cut down on frivilous marriages).

[Looking for Diogenes]

Of course, we could just stop rushing into marriage. And, we could stop glorifying and accepting divorce without stigmitizing it. And, we could get rid of no-fault divorce raise the cost and barriers to divorce. (Which would likely cut down on frivolous marriages).

I think I like that solution better.

[Z in Oregon]

It was an amendment to the social security act that established the US Office of Child Support Enforcement.

What year?

[Z in Oregon]

OF COURSE, children raised by single fathers do better than those raised by single mothers.

That says it all.

[Z in Oregon]

What would you think about the idea of implementing a national policy of favoring paternal custody in divorce cases?

Absolutely!

[Z in Oregon]

You were right the first time, when you kept it short and sweet:

"OF COURSE, children raised by single fathers do better than those raised by single mothers."

That's all that needs to be said!

[TopQuark]

Many thanks for a very informative post.

[FITZ]

That's why the statistics seem to be highly in favor of single fathers.

Good points, statistics aren't always reliable. Single mothers should be broken down into never-marrieds vs divorced, cause of the divorce (her cheating vs his cheating), plus there are many factors, alcoholism, abuse, number of mother's boyfriends, church attendence, and so on.

[FITZ]

I know a guy whose ex-wife married her drug dealer and let him and his 2 teenage sons move in with her daughters. The drug dealing new husband made a pass at her older daughter who told her mother about and the mother threw the daughter out ---but still wanted child support. It got bad enough that the younger girl moved in with her father, he continued to pay child support just so the mother would leave the girl alone, she was more interested in the money than her daughters.

[RogerFGay]

I see in your questions, that you're looking for alternative solutions in response to my suggestion that the fed be pulled out. I think first of all, you have to understand what the facts are. Fathers had / and still have an extremely good record of paying child support. When the federal government stepped in with its big brother enforcement program, it was not to solve a problem. Federal involvement has not led to any improvement, only intolerable problems. Moving the fed out would only have benefits. Taxpayers would benefit by the reduced cost of government, and the lack of federal funding incentive would dramatically reduce the corruption in the system.

You ask specifically about interstate cases; whether to extradite nonpaying spouses. That question exists with or without the federal involvement. The federal involvement is accomplished through funding. The fed, in fact, is not constitutionally allowed to be involved in domestic relations. So they've written a lot of domestic relations law, and told the states to implement or they would have their funding taken away. I think first and foremost, noncustodial parents must have their due process rights returned to them. I do not support the concept that there should be a punishment (like jail) automatically awaiting anyone who falls behind in making payments. When a mother disappears with the children, I believe it's legitimate to stop paying child support. The mother has opted not to receive it, but cutting the payer out of the loop. Certainly, if she wants payment, she should be sure to inform the noncustodial parent where she is, and even notify the father of her plans in advance.

If that is the case then anyone with standing can sue to have the law overturned. Go for it.

If the courts worked, people wouldn't be complaining about this now. Much of your $4.5 billion in tax money is used to pay everyone involved in the process. Some of it goes into judges' retirement funds. Other parts of it go into the discretionary ("slush") funds of the courts. I wasn't kidding when I said that this has had a powerful corrupting influence. There has been some limited success with lawsuits, but not a lot. The funding mechanism I mentioned above, has been used for a lot of things that the fed is not allowed constitutionally to be involved with. If they couldn't get away with that, we would not have any federal funding for the welfare system for example. Just as an example; there was a guy who won Michigan Lawyer of the Year a few years back. He had been jailed for non-payment of child support, after having had his support amount increased without notification. An agency did it in Michigan. There was no hearing. They didn't even tell him that they did it. He just eventually received notice that he was behind (he had continued to pay the amount that he was aware he'd been ordered to pay) followed by a warrant for his arrest. It took him 3 years, and an estimated $750,000 to win a constitutional case that cleared his name. He got Michigan Lawyer of the Year for that, and Michigan can no longer use computer automated forms in some processes. Even though what's wrong is extremely wrong and obviously wrong, it just hasn't been found so easy to get the courts to fix it. It's not like you can just send the complaint to the court and presto. There have been a few wins, but there needs to be a lot more. I just don't know anyone who has the billions of dollars apparently needed to fund the legal battle.

That is pretty weak incentive for a parent to make overdue payments. "Should I pay her the $10,000 I owe so I can send little Buffy a birthday card?" If that had worked, Reagan would not have felt it necessary to find another answer.

That's way off. I'm sure Reagan was going for votes and campaign funding when he supported this program. It helped him create "Reagan Democrats" and you got a lot less harassment of his administration by the feminists. It was not a solution to a problem. Logically, it's pretty obvious that a custodial parent, in the hypothetical situation you present, could file a complaint over non-payment rather than relying on the ncp to report himself. But that doesn't address the problem in the first place. If the mother is hiding the children from the father, it isn't the father who's wondering whether he should reach out and get in touch. Also, you have to get the facts right. Fathers have a very good record of paying child support and are naturally driven to remain in touch with their children. The primary cause of non-payment is that the person who has been ordered to pay cannot pay what has been ordered. The correlation between income and payment is extremely strong. The "deadbeat dads" you've heard so much about, account for less than one percent of the overall non-custodial parent population. General policy should be appropriate for the normal 99 percent. The courts can handle the exceptions individually.

The other issues seem more to do with how the fed system is implemented. It sounds horrible. How come with a Republican in office and one house of Congress in Republican hands we can't get this fixed?

Because the two party system is nonsense. The idea that Republicans are "conservative" regarding government power and spending simply isn't true. Building the big brother government has bi-partisan support. George Bush's comment in relation to this system is that "we will build on what we already have."

As I said at the outset, the only real cure for this problem is to minimize divorce.

What problem are you trying to solve?

[RogerFGay]

The key recommendation of the article you posted is to end sole custody in favor of joint custody in all cases except those involving violence or abuse. What do you think of that recommendation?

I've been living in Sweden for some years where they have a historical rate of joint custody at around 80 percent. They've been so happy with it, that a couple of years ago, they increased the strength of their joint custody presumption. It used to be that the mother could get sole custody merely by rejecting joint custody. Joint custody is still presumptive, but now the courts can order joint custody even against the objection of the mother. One great advantage that their laws have, is settling custody in a separate hearing before any other issue is addressed. No other issue is dependent on the type of custody, so it doesn't go into the mix. Now all of Scandinavia is a presumptive joint custody zone.

[RogerFGay]

I am not in favor of more taxes. Adjustment of the taxes you suggest would be a way for the central committees of big brother government to manipulate society at its roots -- at the level of the fundamental social unit -- the family. That of course, can only lead to the destruction of life and humanity as we know it.