The Honorable Carl Levin
459 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Levin,

Your office sent a letter dated March 2, 1999 to one of our members in Macomb, Michigan, describing why you endorse child support.

You describe the long string of failed legislation that Congress has passed since 1975 regarding child support. It's been a policy failure now for over 24 years - how much longer will our country have to suffer until the laws are changed to emphasize parental involvement (that means both parents) instead of money?

Next you describe the incredible erosion of personal liberties, freedom and loss of privacy - of which you are proud to have had a hand in creating. Nonsensical policies such as revoking driver's licenses will hurt both the noncustodial parent and child, further exiling them out of each other's life. How well is the license revocation program working? Given Detroit's emphasis on "booting" cars, it's my guess that you have now created a new class of criminals - those who will now drive without a valid license…and registration…and insurance.

You boast about how collections have increased twelve-fold from 1978 - 1996. Senator, can you explain to me why our children are worse off today than they were in 1975 when you started this program? Can you tell me why child psychologists measure children's health using "child well-being," yet politicians and bureaucrats use money collected? Is there a correlation between money collected and child well-being? Yes. Studies show that states with the highest welfare and child support payments rank lowest in child well-being. They are inversely proportional. That's bad news for the child support industry. Why is this? Income was not the determining factor - intact families were. In fact, children living below the poverty line in intact homes outperformed children living above the poverty line from broken homes. So for all the money collected, you have children who are shooting each other in schools to show for it. Child support is a single-parent household enabler.

And now, instead of dismantling this highly destructive policy, you wish to "create a more efficient system…," in other words, you want to destroy families faster and cheaper. Thanks. Apparently, you consider zipping off a check once a month as a definition of responsibility. Raising a child takes a lot more than that. Do you consider an able-bodied person who always parks in handicapped spots to be responsible - as long as they pay their fine? I don't.

Child support - with its excessive awards and draconian punishments - only serves to force the noncustodial parent into exile, causing irreparable harm to children. Shared parenting eliminates the concept of custody and the need for child support. It demands responsibility of both parents and also relieves one parent from overload - something your programs never have. For proof that child support is excessive, consider the quote from radical feminist Karen Winner, who in her book Divorced From Justice, writes: "There is accumulating evidence that men are challenging their wives for custody of the children precisely because it is cheaper to keep them than to pay child support." (p. 52). I couldn't have said it better myself.

Sincerely,