August 7, 2018
Mr. Andrew Bremberg, Director
Domestic Policy Council
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington DC 20500
https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/
Dear Sir;
I am writing to encourage reform of Title IVd of the Social Security Act and to ask for support for the Parental Rights and Responsibilities Act so that children can have the benefit of two active and involved parents, regardless of marital status.
I understand the White House is proposing reform of welfare programs and food stamps by adding work requirements and looking to obtain “child support from both parents” for this benefit. From what I have read it appears that it’s deja vu all over again as welfare reform will not be addressing the underlying causes of single mother homes and disenfranchised fathers, which is the federal governments own policies, specifically Title IVd of the Social Security Act which fuels the disenfranchisement of a parent by the states, most often the father. (https://nymensactionnetwork.org/child-support-reform/)
President Johnson’s war on poverty resulted in the removal of fathers from families for women and children to obtain benefits. At that time there was about 7% father absent families in America. Child Support at the federal level started in the Ford Administration and was designed to identify absent fathers and recover money expended by the federal government for children receiving welfare, in effect a tax. Ironically, this intent was never realized as recoveries have never been substantial, for lower income Americans, men and women, simply do not have the ability to earn adequate income. This is evident today as the number one reason a father is behind on child support is he’s poor, an inability to pay. (http://www.acfc.org/acfc/assets/documents/Articles/Child%20Support%20In%20America.pdf)
Under President Reagan the system was expanded and an “income shares” model developed which had 4 major flaws. It looked to maintain the standard of living of children if the parents had stayed married, it was NOT based on the cost of raising a child, there was NO guarantee that the “custodial parent” (the mother) would actually spend the money on the child, and there was NO access enforcement for the father as child support was considered separate from child custody. The states were mandated to have a system in place or lose federal reimbursement dollars. (http://www.fathermag.com/907/child-support/ )
Under President Clinton it actually got worse as he expanded the program (1996 PRWORA) and states looked to maximize their return from the federal coffers and so they “massaged” the system and expanded it to include middle class families which had previously had direct payment of child support outside of the system. Thus, fathers who were already paying on time and in full and carried children under their health care were added to the collection system to show “success”.
This developed into a massive government tracking system of middle class America, the New Hires Rule and computer data bases (both state and federal), and draconian collection methods such as wage garnishment, asset seizure, suspension of licenses, and even incarceration in debtors prison. States continue to massage their reporting to maximize reimbursements. One of the ways to maximize the reimbursements is to make the lower income earning parent “Custodial” (usually mothers) and the higher earning parent “Non Custodial” (usually fathers) and to not allow deviations of the standards for amount of time spent with the children (shared parenting arrangements).
Thus the system incentivized single mother “Custodial” households with financially taxed “Non Custodial” fathers. Two out of three dollars a state spends to collect “child support” (actually a child excise tax as it is based on income and number of children and returns to government coffers) comes from the federal government as states massage reporting to maximize returns. In New York State I was advised by child support that payers are “always in arrears” as they are assessed on Monday but pay on Friday, a perpetual arrears collection maximizing federal reimbursements based on fuzzy accounting and reporting methods.
And thus we end up in the conundrum where the federal government provides incentives to the states to break up families and disenfranchise fathers from children by state policy and procedure which maximizes the federal outlays to the states, in turn pressuring federal welfare coffers which causes the punitive federal policies towards fathers who were marginalized and disenfranchised from their children against their will in the first place. Fathers beat dead, driven dead broke, abused, and disenfranchised from their children to maximize state reimbursements from the federal government.
I have one question which should put this in perspective and for which I am sure there are no readily available statistics; How many custodial fathers work and do not rely on welfare for their children? If a single mother can’t work and adequately provide for her child financially why do we pilfer the fathers assets in a transfer to federal coffers while denying him custody (with no or minimal impact to federal coffers)? Wouldn’t father custody allow her the free time to earn a living? And check the system and see (if these stats exist) how many custodial fathers, not receiving welfare assistance, are also not receiving any (or minimal) child support from the non custodial mother?
The current system is also contrary to the U.S. Constitution, violating parental rights which are fundamentally guaranteed. Federalized child custody, support, and marriage initiatives violate states rights and the Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement itself is an unconstitutional federal agency. The fundamental rights of parents (and strict scrutiny) are violated daily to maximize federal reimbursements to the states. (https://nymensactionnetwork.org/prra/) Federal child support payments incentivize the removal of parental rights. (http://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/lawreview/vol86/iss2/13)
The great irony is that all this is done under the guise of protecting children by government but has in fact created a system which places children in harms way as single mother homes show the highest negative outcomes for children in all areas. The safest place for children is in a two biological parent home and absent that an arrangement in which BOTH PARENTS provide for the nurturing (psychological and emotional) and physical needs of the child. The crisis of father absent homes is the result of government interference in the family which tragically, even results in the death of children. (https://nymensactionnetwork.org/2018/05/20/its-a-childs-best-interest-to-be-neglected-abused-or-killed-by-sole-custody/)
The system is broken, ironically broken by those that wished to do good. The myth of the “Deadbeat Dad” was debunked by a federally funded study in the 1990‘s. (see Divorced Dads: Shattering the Myth’s,: The Surprising Truth About Fathers, Children, and Divorce (1998) Sanford L. Braver, Ph.D. with Diane O’Connell) The vast majority of child support arrearages are due to high awards and the inability to pay on the part of the father. Inversely, fathers with shared parenting have an over 90% compliance rate which begs an answer to the question of why a father who has not abandoned his child financially is even in the system in the first place? Federal $$ incentives, obviously. (https://nymensactionnetwork.org/2018/02/24/stopfederalincentivesforfatherlesschildren/)
Non custodial parents under the current system are driven to poverty, this with no guarantee the money goes to the child. The social welfare and federal and state tax systems make it worse and blue collar “non custodial” parents simply can not make the extortion payments and still maintain ANY contact with their children. Just as the draconian collection methods directed at fathers failed to return dollars to federal coffers to offset outlays, so too will draconian collection methods to get “child support from both parents”. (https://nymensactionnetwork.org/2018/07/16/child-excise-tax-free-day-for-non-custodial-parents/)
Just as government policies under welfare in the 1970‘s provided financial incentives to remove fathers, so too does the current system of child support. By choosing to have an out of wedlock child a woman guarantees her income from either child support collections or a multitude of welfare programs or both. Not only does child support undermine marriage, as does welfare, it incentivizes a woman to have multiple out of wedlock children with different fathers as 17% for each child (34%) of two men’s incomes is better than 25% of one man’s income for two children (sliding scale income shares model).
STOP BLAMING MEN AND FATHERS. The rise in the crisis of father absent homes, from 7% in the 1970’s to over 40% today (and 60% in the African American community) correlates directly with the federal governments increasing interference in the family. If the government wishes to reduce expenditures more excise tax schemes and draconian collection methods will not work. Simply, you need to remove the financial gain to single mothers for the lifestyle decisions they make which disenfranchise fathers.
To this end I encourage reform of Title IVd to incentivize two parent households by basing payments to the states for the number of married households with children and for unmarried parents with shared parenting and private agreements which are not through state collection agencies, thus providing incentives for the active involvement of both parents in a child’s life and removing the incentive for the states to create “custodial” and “non custodial” parents and broken families living apart.
I encourage policy changes supporting parental rights and enactment of the Parental Rights and Responsibilities Act to restore the primacy of parental care and control of children superior to the well meaning but omnipotent moral busybodies of bureaucratic government. For indeed, the child support and welfare systems have fostered an ever increasing imposition of government standards and mores over all parental actions, even those of married parents biologically related to their children. This denial of parental rights is destroying American families and is undermining the liberties parents have under the Bill of Rights. (https://nymensactionnetwork.org/2018/08/06/undermine-parental-rights-to-undermine-all-other-rights/)
Blaming men, making men pay for the choices of women with no choice themselves, and ignoring the violations of men’s and fathers constitutional rights, especially parental rights, by government laws, rules, and regulations caused this mess. More of the same will not make it better and will only make it worse.
CC: Alex M. Azar, Secretary, DHHS, 200 Independence Ave., SW, Washington, DC 20201
Sonny Perdue, Secretary USDA 1400 Independence Ave., SW Washington DC 20250
Vice President Michael R. Pence The White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington DC 20500