Limit Federal Child Support Enforcement to Welfare Cases

[ANCPR]

Hello,

Here is an excellent article by Dr. Richard Green who is an ANCPR member, in addition
to supporting ACFC and other organizations.  I'd like to take this opportunity,
publicly, to thank Dr. Green for all his hard work and dedication.
 Thank you!

Lowell Jaks, ANCPR http://ancpr.org



http://www.rightturns.com/forum/green/rgcurrent.htm
RightTurns.com - Forum
RICHARD GREEN, M.D.
Limit Federal Child Support Enforcement to Welfare Cases

February 1, 2002





In the early 1980’s, a consensus was reached that America’s poor fathers were
abandoning their children, and that the government should make them pay.  President
Reagan coined the term “deadbeat dad.”  Why should the welfare program support their
girlfriends, ex-wives, and children?  While voices from the right preached
“responsible fatherhood,” liberals vowed to “protect poor women and children.”

In a misguided attempt to offset the financial cost of supporting welfare mothers and
to reduce child poverty, the Feds got into the child support collection business.
Divorced and never-married fathers became “noncustodial parents.”  Fathers of
children on welfare were targeted by both political parties.

The Family Support Act (1988) gave the federal government tremendous centralized
power over all aspects of child support policy.  Child support orders could no longer
be determined by a judge according to the reasonable needs of the children.  Instead,
the Act required each state to adopt its own numerical “guideline” to calculate child
support, or risk losing federal welfare funding.  The only restriction on state child
support guidelines was that awards be “appropriate.”  Federal law funded child
support enforcement programs in every state, and most importantly, rewarded states
with “incentive payments” based on a percentage of money collected.

Child support enforcement has completely failed in the primary goal of forcing poor
fathers to reimburse the welfare program.  According to the House Committee on Ways
and Means 2000 Green Book, in 1998 the federal government spent one dollar collecting
every 74 cents of child support in welfare cases.  That year alone the federal
government lost 1.4 billion dollars on child support enforcement.  Meanwhile, the
program is very popular with states, which in the same year earned 340 million from
child support enforcement activities.

No state has been successful in collecting child support from poor fathers, but the
federal funds keep rolling in.  Ironically, the federal government is now paying
millions to state child support enforcement programs primarily to collect
non-welfare-related child support awards.  In 1998, less than 20% of state
collections were for welfare cases.  These collections do not reimburse the welfare
program, so the federal government and taxpayers lose more and more money every year.
Moreover, there is not a shred of evidence that more than a decade of
non-welfare-related child support enforcement has prevented child poverty.

How have states managed to make child support enforcement profitable?  By inflating
guideline child support awards.

In 1989, to comply with federal law, states hastily adopted the required child
support guidelines.  Conveniently, the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement
(OCSE) heavily promoted one such guideline, “Income Shares.”  This guideline was
developed by Robert Williams under federal contract.  The premise of the Income
Shares guideline is that child support should guarantee children the same theoretical
“share” of parental income that they would have enjoyed had their parents been living
together.  For one child, the children’s share of the parent’s after-tax income was
arbitrarily set at 25%; for two children, 40%; and for three children, 50%.  Omitted
is the troublesome fact that after separation, two households need to be supported.
The guideline was actually designed for welfare cases, and results in child support
awards that for middle and upper income families far exceed the actual costs of
raising children.  Nonetheless, most states quickly adopted the Income Shares
guideline in 1989 so they could remain eligible for federal welfare payments.  Other
states decided to adopt guidelines that require the noncustodial parent to transfer a
set percentage of income to the custodial household, based on the number of children
supported.

Virtually overnight, child support awards tripled.  Inflated child support awards
would maximize state child support collections, justify the administrative expenses
of child support enforcement programs, and ensure the continuing influx of federal
incentive payments.

Although they may help balance state budgets, excessive child support awards are
extremely harmful to working, middle-class divorced fathers.  Most of these fathers
did not request divorce and many have substantial joint physical custody of their
children.  After child support is paid, however, fathers now often find it impossible
to provide an adequate second home for their children.  For example, in California, a
mother earning $35,000 per year, living with two children 75% of the time, would
receive $15,000 tax-free from her ex-husband earning $75,000.  After taxes, the
mother would net $44,000, the father $34,000.  This baseline Income Shares award
excludes child care expenses, special educational expenses, and health insurance
costs, which are “add-ons” to the father’s support obligation.

Federal involvement in child support enforcement has eliminated the normal checks and
balances among the legislative, judicial, and administrative branches of government.
The same branches of government determine, enforce, and benefit from child support
payments.  States have been given carte blanche to empty the wallets of middle-income
divorced fathers for the benefit of bureaucrats and special interest groups, rather
than children.

Child support enforcement is rife with conflicts of interest and overt corruption:

The OCSE contracted with a firm called Child Support Recoveries, Inc. to certify that
state child support guidelines were “appropriate.” This company contracts with states
as a child support collection agency, and has a direct financial stake in high child
support awards.

State legislatures, including California’s, routinely contract with a firm called
Policy Studies, Inc. to review the “appropriateness” of state child support
guidelines. This closely held Denver firm is headed by none other than child support
entrepreneur Robert Williams, who as described above, developed the Income Shares
guideline. Again, in a clear conflict of interest, Policy Studies, Inc. derives
substantial revenue from child support collections. The higher the child support
awards, the more money this company makes.

The original goal of federal child support enforcement, to reimburse the welfare
program, has not been achieved by any state.  This is because welfare-related child
support debt, especially at these absurd guideline levels, appears to be largely
uncollectible.  There is no legitimate federal interest in subsidizing state child
support collections in non-welfare cases.  Indeed, as shown above, the federal
government, through the OCSE and incentive payments, has caused the gross inflation
of child support awards.  Poor fathers simply can’t pay, and middle-income fathers
are financially devastated.

Child support should be set at levels that provide for the reasonable financial
support of children.  Prior to the federal intrusion into domestic relations law,
child support in each case was determined equitably, by a judge if necessary.  Now,
child support awards are specifically calculated to maximize federal funding of state
bureaucracies.

Welfare Reauthorization is an opportunity for Congress to drastically limit the scope
of federal child support enforcement activities, and to reallocate welfare dollars to
more worthwhile causes.  The following simple changes in federal law are politically
possible and would correct many of the distortions caused by the child support
enforcement program:

Amend the U.S. Code so that federal child support laws apply only to welfare cases.
Discontinue federal subsidization of non-welfare-related state child support
enforcement activities.

Use the federal savings to fund state education and job training programs for the
poor.

Require the OCSE to contract with an unbiased economic consulting firm to develop a
uniform set of child support guidelines for welfare cases only, based on the actual
marginal costs of the presence of children in the custodial and noncustodial
households.

Federal welfare money should be used to help poor families.  This truism has been
lost in the child support enforcement program amid a scramble for federal funds and
political power.  It’s time to limit the scope of this corrupt, wasteful, and
ultimately harmful program.

Write Richard Green at Richard.M.Green@kp.org



Richard M. Green, M.D. is Chief of Neurology at the Kaiser Permanente-Los Angeles
Medical Center. He is a co-custodial father of two children and an active member of
the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, the Alliance for Noncustodial
Parents Rights, and the Center For Children's Justice.