While directed to NYS the following letter can be used as a template in other states with minor modifications.
Chief Administrative Judge Lawrence Marks, NYS Unified Court System 25 Beaver St. New York, NY 10004
Commissioner Michael P. Hein, Office of Temporary Disability Assistance 40 N. Pearl St. Albany, NY 12243
Commissioner Scott Lekan, ACF, Office of Child Support Enforcement 330 C Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20201
Dear Sirs;
I am writing on behalf of the New York State child support payers for information and with suggestions to help in these trying times. With 10 million jobless claims in the past 2 weeks alone it is apparent that the system is going to see massive filings to reduce payments due to loss of income through no fault of the payers. I am asking what measures are being put into place to ensure that everyone get due process and no one falls through the cracks and is penalized by the system?
I am unsure if relief payments will be seized in the Federal and State Tax Offset Programs for payers in arrears and look for clarification of this fact. Also, how is the per child payment to families to be calculated, to those that get the child deduction on the 2018 tax filing? Or “custodial” and “non custodial” status on custody agreements? If circumstances changed after the 2018 tax year how would parents ensure the child relief payment gets distributed correctly?
I see NYC Family Court allows virtual courts, is this being expanded outside of NYC due to the current travel restrictions? And to prevent persons from having to travel unnecessarily, what measures are being put into place to allow filing of documents by electronic means such as email or web page platforms with fill in the blank forms? Are filing rules being loosened to allow electronic filings in place of time stamped documents?
Government is asking mortgage holders, landlords, and creditors to delay collection methods and to not apply interest and penalties for missed or late payments. Is the Child Support Collection System going to do the same?
Certainly some vindictive parents will use the shelter in place order to deny a parent their parenting time with the children. What system of expedited filing and methods for enforcement is in place? Given that the children are not attending school and both parents are likely at their separate homes, either out of work or working from home, what is the procedure to handle the filings for physical shared parenting as parents are now equally available to parent their children during this crisis?
I suggest that the system stop all methods of punitive arrears collection (suspension of licenses, garnishments, etc.), including suspending the Federal and State Tax Offset Programs for the duration of the crisis. We all know the number one reason a person doesn’t pay is inability due to poverty and the current financial mess is certainly bound to add many more to those unable to pay.
I suggest that judges waive mandatory filing rules so that filings can be considered based upon a preponderance of the evidence of the actual date of change and not the date of filing. Also, the system needs to accept electronic filings to prevent both court personnel and users from having to interact in person subjecting all to possible infection by this dreaded virus. And a system of conference calling needs to be in place of physical hearings.
I close thanking you for your attention to these matter and I look forward to hearing from you. I am available by email, through the web site, or by phone on request.
In 1970 there was growing concern regarding fatherless homes when it reached over 7% of African American families (see The Negro Family: The Case for National Action [Moynihan Report], Daniel Patrick Moynihan 1965. Annotated copy at https://www.theatlantic.com). Today, in 2019 it is a widely accepted fact that 48% of children live absent their biological father and in the African American community it may be as high as 60%. The U.S. Census shows living arrangements for children 1960 to present but what is glaringly absent from these statistics is the number of homes with shared parenting arrangements. This bias to break down children’s family structure into single parent (mother or father) or married parent families neglects shared parenting arrangements and is directly related to federal biases in the Social Security Act, Title IV part d section 458 “Incentive payments to states”.
The question is, are states encouraging our of wedlock birth’s which undermines their support for marriage and post divorce/separation working against shared parenting arrangements? Federal financial incentives to states require that families be divided into two classes; married or single parent. Currently states are reimbursed for for; 1. establishing paternity, 2. number of child support orders entered, 3. amount collected versus amount owed, 4. collection of arrears, and 5. the cost of the program (collections versus expenses). Given the federal financial incentives to the states it is apparent they benefit from the creation of single family households. Comparing single parent households and federal child support programs over time does seem to highly indicate a correlation, discussion which follows.
In 1950 the Federal Government began to require states to notify local law enforcement when providing Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) which was later renamed Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) and is common referred to as “welfare”. This was an effort to force parents to be responsible for their children and relieve the taxpayer from that burden. The Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act was enacted to allow enforcement over state lines (pushed by the American Bar Association).
When the Moynihan Report came out in 1965 ( The President Johnson Administration) there was much backlash against the report with 2 major faults noted. First, it focused on fatherlessness in the black community, ignoring that per capita that there were more fatherless white children than fatherless black children. Second, it blamed African American fathers for abandoning the family when in many instances it was against their will. In effect it was seen as somewhat both racist and sexist. In 1970 there were 58,939,000 two parent families and 8,200,000 mother headed homes and 748,000 father headed homes. (see the US Census Bureau for statics used here)
In 1974 (In the Ford Administration from policies in the Nixon Administration of which Moynihan was a part of) the Social Security Act was amended and Title IV d required states to establish their own individual child support collection agencies which were designed to seek reimbursement from absent parents (usually the father) for payments made from welfare coffers. The money paid went into federal accounts and was not disbursed to the welfare recipient. This fact makes it a tax designed to go into federal coffers which is unrelated to financial child support. By 1975 two parent family homes decreased and mother headed homes increased to 11,245,000 and father headed homes increased to 1,014,000.
In 1981 (The President Reagan Administration) the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act authorized the IRS to withhold refunds to those persons who were delinquent, states to withhold a portion of unemployment benefits, and prevented child support from being discharged in bankruptcy for those cases with court ordered child support. In 1984 The Dept of Health and Human Services developed the Federal Child Support Guidelines Project which modified the Social Security Act in 5 areas; 1. Mandatory enforcement, 2. Improved interstate enforcement, 3. Equal services for welfare and non welfare families, and 4. Collecting spousal support (alimony) when child support was in place, 5. Formulate guidelines for determining child support. In 1985 two parent families declined to 46,149,000 and mother headed households increased to 13,081,000 and father headed households increased to 1,554,000.
Throughout the early 1980’s (The Reagan and H.W. Bush Administrations) many changes were proposed to Federal Law and incentives to the states to enact the Guideline project recommendations. When child support guidelines were enacted it mandated the states have them in place the legislation only gave a one year window prior to the states being financially penalized. While each state was entitled to have their own standards in place it was easier for the states to enact the Federal Model which was an incomes shares model, a percentage of income (i.e. 17% for one child, 25% for two) and was to be rebuttable, meaning the payer could present evidence on why they should be lower. Additionally, the percentage of income was based upon gross income thus 17% is 35% of income, 25% is 48% of income, etc.. The 1988 Family Support Act mandated guideline use by judges and required states to establish paternity among a host of other changes. In 1990 two parent families went up but at a much lower rate than mother headed families to 13,874,000 and father headed families to 1,993,000.
In 1992 The Child Support Recovery Act (The President H. W. Bush Administration) was enacted. This allowed states to prosecute parents who willfully chose not to pay child support. Notably absent was provision excepting those who did not have the ability to pay the amount set due to circumstances beyond their control, including poverty. This was the creation of a modern day debtors prison for as previously noted you can’t remove child support arrears even in bankruptcy. This includes attorney fees as they are considered “in the nature of child support”. 1995 saw single mother homes increase to 16,477,000 and single father homes increase to 2,461,000.
In 1996 (President Clinton’s Administration) the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliations Act (PRWORA) was enacted. This created a Federal Registry of Child Support Orders. Thus what is supposed to be a state issue (matrimony and child welfare) was now fully taken over by the Federal Government. It mandated a Directory of New Hires where government mandated employers provide information on all new hires for enforcement across state lines. This data base holds information on ALL new hires regardless if they owe child support or not, a wide net cast to catch a very few. The law also allowed fathers to voluntarily acknowledge paternity at the time of birth. 80% of out of wedlock fathers are in the hospital at the time of birth and these young men are pressured to “be responsible”. These ‘voluntary” acknowledgements provide NO parenting time with their child and worse, could not be overturned even if DNA later showed it to be false paternity.
In 1998 The Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act increased penalties for “willfully choosing” to not pay child support making it a Felony with fines of $10,000 and imprisonment for up to two years if the child is in another state (or the payer moves to another state). Again ability to pay is not taken into account and a payer can be held responsible under the law even if he went across state lines to secure employment to pay the child support due. In 1999 mother headed households continued to increase to 16,805,000 and father headed households to 3,094,000.
To recap, from 1970 to 1990 we saw married households decrease from 58,939,000 to 48,775,000 and single mother homes increase from 8,200,000 to 16,805,000. Single father homes increased from 748,000 to 3,094,000. Prior to 1970 fatherless homes held consistent at about 4-5% in the population. In 1970 the federal government stepped in and through unconstitutional federal laws and incentive payments to states set out to “help” and at each decade of increasing interference we see increased single parent households. Ronald Reagan said, “The most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help”. If only he and the other Presidents had taken this advice.
After the backlash to the Moynihan Report the focus on African American fatherless households diminished and to show it was not biased programs switched to target fathers in general and to keep the backlash down for sexual bias the government differentiated between “responsible fathers” and “deadbeat dads”. But the “deadbeat dad” label was debunked in federally funded studies by Sanford Braver (Divorced Dads: Shattering the Myth’s) in the 1990’s. Studies still show that those in arrears on child support are due to poverty and inability to pay, two categories which proportionally negatively impact minority men and results in their incarceration in debtors prisons. Braver also found that the only reason a father doesn’t spend more time with his children is a limiting court order, number 2 a custodial mother who interferes with his access in a system with NO access enforcement. The number one complaint of fathers is that instead of being treated as a nurturing parent they have been turned into a wallet, forced to transfer income with no accountability of how it is spent and then reduced to, at best, being a visitor to their child.
The focus on fatherless homes started first blaming black fathers and then continued to blame all fathers. Chivalry and gender bias gives women a pass for irresponsible behavior. As the programs to collect dollars were increased so were the conferences and programs which looked to find out what was “wrong” with fathers these days and build “responsible fatherhood”. All these ignored the findings of Sanford Braver. Increased “father involvement” as a visitor and increased paternity establishment, of course, means greater reimbursements to the states which is the incentive definition of a responsible father under the child support system. This sexual bias against men flies in the face of the increasing number of father headed households indicating a willingness for fathers to be residential fathers. And the myriad of National and State Father Rights Organizations (in every state) shows a willingness for fathers to be there IN PERSON for their children.
To classify families as “married” “single father” or “single mother” fails to capture the many classifications of shared parenting arrangements between single mother and single father families. Any arrangement which has two involved parents, even if one is labelled “non custodial” means that you have two one parent families, both a “single mother” and “single father” albeit one with more and one with less residency. It also ignores the many faces of “step” families which may contain at any time her children, his children, and their children rotating in and out to other biological parents.
Garbage in, Garbage out as the saying goes. The Federal System breaks the family down into 3 classes. For divorced/separated and out-of-wedlock parents it labels the “single” parents “Custodial” and “Non Custodial” even though they are both alternately residential custodian and both share responsibility to financially provide for the children. The measure of a “responsible” parent is only on the one ordered to pay an income transfer to the other and if they meet these payments. There is no accountability that any money is spent to benefit the child and worse, there is no accountability for ensuring both parents can spend time with, and parenting their child. Shared Parenting isn’t counted as it doesn’t fit the focus on financial child support which is the only Federal measure for responsible parenting.
From 1970 to the present we have seen an ever increasing number of single parent families as opposed to 2 parent families. And while I assume many of these are co-parenting and share in the rights and responsibilities of raising their child, we have no idea as no such statistics exist in the Federal system. And as outlined in increments above, every time the Federal Government enacted programs to “help” maintain two parent families for the benefit of children we see no leveling off or reductions and in fact never ending increases.
2019, It is safe to say that the federal programs enacted over the past 50 years, costly to taxpayers and further bloating the federal bureaucracy, have not worked to benefit children and families. If we take the Census Bureau Living Arrangement of Children Chart showing percentage of decreasing two parent households we could use the same declining line to show the effectiveness of Federal Family Programs over the same time period. And given the incentive payments to states increase as single parent families increase it’s easy to see that the states have incentives to do so and the numbers indicate they are doing so. If the Federal Government is serious about helping children by securing two active and involved parents they need to completely overhaul its Title IV d Program and the incentives to states and stop creating what they purport to want to end.
The New York Men’s Action Network endorses Larry Sharpe for Governor of New York State. Larry Sharpe, running on the Libertarian Party line has come out strongly for shared parenting as natural and normal and believes parental rights should not be restricted unless a parent is proven bad and an unfit parent (see his campaign meme above). You can see Larry Sharpe speak to these issues on Long Island Back Story.
For the parents, men and women, and families abused by New York States incompetent and corrupt (anti) family courts the choice of Larry Sharpe is a no brainer for he is the FIRST statewide candidate in the last 20 years to come out publicly calling for family court and child custody reform. He has gone so far as to include it on one of his campaign buttons and other campaign materials.
Let’s address the nay sayers who will dismiss this endorsement asking for support for their party. For the last 20 years each party has controlled one house of the legislature and held the Governor’s Office about 1/2 the time, yet neither party has seen fit to pass ANY reform legislation. Additionally, NO candidate for statewide public office of either major party has publicly come out in support for reform of the system in any fashion.
Republican’s will point to the anti family policies of NY Democrat’s, and while it is true Assembly Democrats like disgraced leader Sheldon Silver and (then) Judiciary Committee Chair Helene Weinstein have blocked ALL legislation, especially shared parenting legislation (which enjoys over 80% support from all New Yorkers) Senate Republican’s have also been active in opposing shared parenting, with Senators like Republican Betty Little leading the opposition to reform. It is an unholy alliance of “opposing” parties which blames the other for inaction to reform a system they put into place together.
The “deadbeat dad” legislation introduced by Republican Sen. Kathy Marchionne is a classic example of the unholy alliance of Republican’s and Democrats. Studies have shown that the reason for default on child support is due to high awards and inability to pay. Thus the system impacts poor fathers, disproportionately fathers of color, and yet Democrats readily jump on the “deadbeat” bandwagon, even though these fathers are beat dead and dead broke. Democrats and Republicans alike turn a blind eye to fathers incarcerated for non payment, a debtors prison for poor men, mostly men of color.
Republican support to label disenfranchised dads deadbeats 2013
A constituent letter to Assemblyman Angelo Santabarbara and Senator George Amedore has went unanswered by both deadbeat politicians for over a year now. Now that they are running for reelection they freely contact constituents for support. Deadbeat Santabarbara sent a snail mail notice with contact information on his office stating, “I encourage you to call me, send me an email, or visit my web site… I want to hear from you”. A blatant lie given the non response to parental rights issues before him which went unanswered, without even a form letter of acknowledgement. Deadbeat Amedore announces his “lime disease” Committee work and “FREE document shredding” by snail mail. Taxpayer money spent on reelection while he ignores the plight of children and destroyed families. Deadbeat Santabarbara went so far as to block the constituent on LinkedIn when he posted about the death of Gabby Boyd due to his legislative inaction on reform.
Vote for me because the other guys is worse is NO reason to vote for them. The 2 party status quo (crazy) do the same thing over and over again and expect a different outcome people (Republican Molinaro) will tell you a vote for a “3rd party” candidate (LARRY SHARPE) is a “split vote” working for the Incumbent (Democrat Cuomo). Perhaps if the supporters of either major party wished the support of father, mother, and family advocates they would have done something to reform a system instead of creating this one which is harming children and destroying families.
Can Larry win? What we say is does it matter if another status quo do nothing for reform politician wins (Democrat or Republican)? But if recent elections are any indication, the answer is yes, he can. But even without a win we have established the need for reform and if any future candidates want the support of family advocates they will have to begin to address the issues. A good showing on election day for Larry Sharpe is good for reform advocates, families, children, and parents. See Larry Sharpe on the Rubin Report speaking on this topic. He’s also on Joe Rogan here.
NY MAN is a non partisan political action site dedicated to men, father, and family issues. We believe in the EQUAL rights of BOTH parents, the right of children to BOTH parents, and in PARENTAL RIGHTS as superior to government bureaucrats, lawyers, and politicians who act as as if they know best how to raise your children, treating them, and you, as dependent on and working for the state. Morally superior “professional” busybodies telling you how to live your daily life and raise your children “in your best interest” while they plunder your assets while telling you the tyranny is for your own good need to be voted out of office.
It always amazes me that the vast majority of sheeple (Americans) just accept the government propaganda and allow men to be thrown in debtors prison for not paying a child excise tax (child support). The media is the worst, never asking the simple $64 questions, why and how, and looking the other way at the blatant sexist misandry which says men pay for children and the gynocentric sexist system which grants children to mothers automatically yet does not hold THEM financially responsible for the children. So lets list a few questions to ask.
Did Mr. Father support his children financially before the divorce? (YES).
Was Mr. Father’s custody of his children removed without cause? (YES)
Are the children suffering due to the non payment of this money? (NO)
Is Mrs. Mother held accountable to provide financial support for the children or will we subsidize her with income (welfare) is she asks? (NO, she isn’t and YES we will)
A brief recap is in order of the making of a “dangerous hardened criminal” out of a father. First you remove his parental rights without cause, then you tell him he has to transfer income to his ex for “support” with no accountability that it is spent on the child, the support amount is an arbitrary number not based on the needs of the children but a percentage of income, set the payment level not on what is actually earned but is expected to be earned and leave it there regardless of actual earnings in the future and ability to pay. When the man falls behind suspend his drivers license and any licenses he needs to make the money, then threaten him with jail, put him away for 6 months (keep the financial charges running while he is in jail). Let him out and threaten him with another 6 months if he doesn’t pay up.
When he gets mad at the injustice of loss of his children, loss of his career, and loss of his freedom, life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness he is then labelled “angry” and “dangerous”. Enter one Mr. Leon Koziol, esq. , as reported on by local media. It is now news as Mr. Koziol has reportedly stated he’ll not turn himself in, is avoiding arrest, nor will he go willingly if caught. Lost in the sensationalism is the oppressive tyrannies he suffered to get to this point. The $64 question not asked is how does a man go from being an active and supporting father, a respected member of the legal community, and end up a dangerous hardened criminal? The answer is the system made him.
The Sean Delones cartoon (banner on top) is from an incident in New York City in 2006 where a Doctor lost everything in a divorce, including his house, and went home and blew himself and the house up. These are not isolated incidents and they occur every day to varying degrees. It’s obvious by the cartoon this is an acknowledged problem in society evidenced by the cartoon ironic, “wonder what made him snap”. Destroyed families, lost children, assets plundered, men driven to ruin, violence, and suicide and this occurring every day all over America. And you ask why are these men angry? Really??
To stand up to the system results in the system labelling you the deadbeat dangerous dad. It is easy to imagine Mr. Koziol’s fight for parental rights added to his persecution, and the labels “disgraced attorney” and “bad dad’ who doesn’t pay his child support, designed to label and disgrace. We know “deadbeat dad” isn’t true, Sanford Braver proved that in the 1990’s (Divorced Dads: Shattering the Myth’s). Yet the abuse of fathers, and the labelling, continues. In 2006 the following flyer was distributed to show the level of injustice which is driving men to kill themselves. The result was court administrators and government officials complaining that we were “inciting violence”.
So we ask you Mr Government Official, is it not violent to remove a persons children from their care, custody, and control? Is it not violent to plunder a person’s assets in a star chamber of lawyers who are violating the most basic human right, parental rights? Is it not violent to force a person to work and take the fruits of their labor as spoils for the oppressor? Is it not violent to destroy a man’s reputation? Is it not violent to have armed men chase a man with continuous threats of incarceration in debtors prison? Is it not violent to put him into debtors prison for non payment of a debt he did not accrue on his own actions?
Indeed, the system is so bad and ruins so many that it is amazing that MORE people aren’t lashing out at the system. “when a long train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government… For over 30 years Government “child support” bureaucracies and the Courts have been violating parental rights and persecuting fathers to the point we now have 40% of children suffering without a father to the detriment of their children and society as a whole. It does seem a design to reduce men to despotism which certainly deserves men to declare their independence from.
No, I’m not advocating violence or the overthrow of government. Claims which will certainly be thrown in response to this post. But I do advocate for every act of civl disobedience, including direct protest at individual omnipotent moral busybodies who hide behind the bureaucracies which persecute people and destroy families in violation of the U.S. Constitution and the individual rights guaranteed under it. A person deserves to get as they give.
I’m sure the system will run down the 60 year old former father and former attorney, over react to the “dangerous” 60 year old former father and attorney at the expense of his physical safety, and with moral authority throw the “deadbeat” 60 year old former father and attorney into jail at taxpayer expense. Hounded, he’ll be run down and captured.
So one last $64 question for the blind media and despots who make up this system. What do citizen’s and society in general gain by government removing children from fathers and then making beat dead, dead broke, abused and disenfranchised men of fathers?
Senator Charles Grassley, Sponsor PRRA
135 Hart Senate Office Bldg., Washington DC 20510
Senator James Inhofe
205 Russell Senate Office Bldg., Washington DC 20510(OK)
Dear Senators:
I am writing concerning Parental Rights and address this to you as you were a sponsor, co-sponsor, or historically a co-sponsoring state.I have enclosed information on PRRA and Title IVd reform from the https://nymensactionnetwork.org web site which I encourage you to review and to support reform of the system which is destroying families in America to the detriment of children.
Parents, regardless of marital status, have seen their parental rights slowly eroded under the guise of “the best interest of the child”.A couple in Washington State brought before the court by child protective for sending their child to church twice on Sunday, and ordered that once is enough.A couple in Albany, NY brought in by the school district and ordered to place their child on drugs for A.D.D for deciding to try alternatives first.A father, labelled “non custodial” denied access to his daughter by police and prosecutors only to see her killed, https://nymensactionnetwork.org/2018/05/20/its-a-childs-best-interest-to-be-neglected-abused-or-killed-by-sole-custody/. Unfortunately, these are not isolated instances of denial of parental rights.
Daily courts remove children from a parent, resulting in millions of American children removed from parents by states desire to maximize reimbursements under Title IVd, which states readily admit to, most recently in Illinois (video making the rounds on social media).It drives both divorces and out of wedlock births, and even provides incentives for women to have children with multiple fathers.Combined with father bias, this system has resulted in 40% of Americas children living apart from their father.
It is widely recognized that single parent households result in harm to children, abuse, neglect, poverty and strains on the budget to provide programs to assist these broken families.It is an ironic conundrum that the government provides the incentives to create single parent homes fostering bigger government to “solve” the problems they created.One must certainly suspect this a design of an oppressive moral busybody Orwellian government looking to enlarge itself at the expense of individual parents. https://nymensactionnetwork.org/2018/07/02/parents-declare-your-independence-from-a-despotic-government/
It’s time to reform this system of injustice and restore Parental Rights.
CC:
Sen. Roger Wicker, 555 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg
Washington DC 20510
Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith, G12 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg.
Sen. Richard Burr, 215 Russell Senate Office Bldg.
Sen. Pat Roberts, 109 Hart Senate Office Building
Sen. Mike Enzi, 379 Russell Senate Office Bldg.
Sen. Marco Rubio, 284 Russell Senate Office Bldg.
Sen. Lamar Alexander, 455 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg.
Sen. Steve Daines, 320 Hart Senate Office Bldg.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski, 522 Hart Senate Office Bldg.
Sen. Johnny Isakson, 131 Russell Senate office Bldg.
Sen. Todd Young, 400 Russell Senate Office Bldg.
Sen. Dan Sullivan, 702 Hart Senate Office Bldg.
Sen. Rand Paul, 167 Russell Senate Office Bldg.
Sent to these legislators with attachments on 1-25-18. Copy, Paste, and Modify to fit your desires AND SEND IT TO YOURS!
Senator George Amedore
20 Park St., Fonda NY 12068
Assemblyman Angelo Santabarbara
2550 Riverfront Center, Amsterdam NY 12010
Dear Senator and Assemblyman:
January 25, 2018
I am writing as your constituent to obtain your assistance in securing legislation which will benefit families in NYS.
Most states and the Federal Government have failed to move with the times and have lagged in updating and modifying their laws, policies, and procedures to stay with current trends of two working parents, often unmarried and living apart, yet both actively involved in the raising of their children. Unfortunately, NYS is worse. New York’s “standard visitation order” is stuck in an outdated sexist and biased system from the 1950’s of a stay at home mother and a working father. The presumptive order of a “custodial” mother and a “Non Custodial” visiting, child support paying father is the norm with almost no deviation from this “one size fits all” model.
Worse, NY Courts are biased against men and fathers. As far back as 1986 a NYS Office of Court Administration study of bias against women in the courts found not only bias against mothers but also extreme bias against fathers concerning child custody and support payments. Studies, Commissions, and revues over the years bear this out, yet nothing is done to correct the problems. False allegations and perjury are an accepted norm, fostered by attorneys with “a wink and a nod” coaching their clients to “win”.
Long delays in court are the norm, most people can’t afford the attorney fees to navigate it and end up going Pro Se (especially men and poor people). Our nine tiered court system is widely recognized as antiquated and confusing, even to those who work within it, yet court restructure and reform remains elusive and undone to the detriment of NY citizens. Family and Supreme Courts operate with no oversight, a virtual star chamber, which seems to serve no man, woman, or child with balanced blind justice. This made worse when you don’t have adequate legal counsel.
To correct this I am calling on you both to sponsor or co-sponsor legislation which would:
Legislation for proper terminology by replacing “visitation” with “Parenting Time”.
Legislation to make shared parenting and equal parental rights and responsibilities
the law of this state.
Legislation to provide mediation and/or collaborative law as an option to litigation.
Legislation to secure Court restructure and reform.
Legislation to remove the “star chamber” under which family courts now operate by opening courts to the public (unless a finding for closure is on the record), mandating electronic court recording, and allowing the parties to individually record ALL court proceedings.
Legislation to provide for access enforcement of parenting time by law enforcement agencies for clear violations of a court order.
Legislation to modify Child Support consistent with parental involvement and direct expenditures to ensure payments don’t restrict parenting time or result in a child having reduced standards of living with one parents household versus the other.
Legislation to ensure both parents have access to child’s to records health care, education, and welfare unless restricted by court order.
Legislation to mandate at birth DNA testing for out of wedlock births to determine paternity and allow for DNA evidence of false paternity to be introduced at any time and false paternity shall relieve the person from mandatory parental obligations.
Legislation to establish a fathers parental rights at the time of paternity establishment.
Legislation to mandate that the OTDA conduct quadrennial reviews as required by Title IV-D of the Social Security Act and that stakeholders input include organizations which represent parental, children, and family rights during the review process.
Discussion:
Terminology changes. We need look no further than the 2010 Review of the New York State Child Support Guidelines (2010 Review”) to find support for terminology change. Not only does it propose to eliminate the negative term “visitation” it also proposes to eliminate the term “custodial” and “non custodial” as not descriptive of todays social norms. Long proposed by parental rights advocates, it is high time this piece of legislation passed into law.
Shared Parenting. A cornerstone of family rights and children rights advocates is enactment of shared parenting as the law of the land. Although hiding behind the excuse of “judicial discretion”, NY now currently employs a default “visitation schedule” ironically referred to in the NY Courts as “the standard NY order” of visiting every other weekend and one mid week visit of 4 hours. This denial of one parents access to children has been shown to be detrimental to a child’s health and well being. In effect the “standard NY order” is NOT in the best interest of the child. And in cases where there is cause Judges could still restrict a parents access. The 2010 Review of NYS Child Support Guidelines recommends shared parenting be the norm.
Mandatory Mediation and/or Collaborative Law. The cost of divorce/separation and settlement of child custody and support issues is now a very expensive endeavor which removes assets which could better be used for the child. The adversarial “winner” mentality of court has parents focused more on not losing their children (rightfully so) and less on the needs of the child. Mediation and/or collaborative law has been shown to reduce animosity between parents and result in reduced litigation and increased compliance with orders post legal action. It reduces burdens on the court as the only issue which have to be litigated are those where agreement can not be found between the parties.
Court Restructure and Reform. Has bipartisan support and is supported by the Judiciary. As it requires Constitutional changes reform enacted this cycle will have to be considered in the next cycle. As the Constitutional Convention is not being held I call upon you to get this done.
Open Courts and recording of ALL actions before the court. While certainly there are situations where the court of its own volition, or at the parties mutual consent, where the courts would restrict all, or some, public access for cause. This does not negate the right of the parties themselves to have accurate video and/or audio recordings of all proceedings. In any minor traffic infraction we require the proceedings be recorded to protect the rights of the individual, yet when litigating family matters we ignore the rights of individuals to a true and accurate accounting of the facts? Let’s secure legislation to end these star chambers.
Access Enforcement. Right now there is NO access enforcement for parents save for a costly return to court which after the fact results in the parent losing time with the child even when it was ordered by the court. It is criminal contempt in the penal law to violate the order of a court yet law enforcement agencies will not enforce custody orders. Just as we have mandatory arrest for violating an Order of Protection we should have equal mandatory arrests for violating custody orders of the court.
Child support reform. The 2010 Review calls on modification lowering percentages for higher income brackets. Additionally, it reports that deviations from base amounts, currently authorized by law, are not being used by lower income brackets, most likely caused by the lack of legal representation and also the systems not adequately explaining the guidelines and deviations to people. I encourage you to work with OTDA to enact reform to correct this.
Access to official records. Right now schools and other institutions tend to view the designation of “non custodial” parent as removal of parental rights. Many parents report difficulties in accessing their child’s records. While the Federal Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) guarantees a parents rights to school records I encourage you to put forth state legislation which guarantees that parental rights not be infringed based upon a label or designation and unless the parental rights are specifically restricted, applying strict scrutiny, and removed by the court.
At birth DNA testing. And false paternity is a fraud perpetrated on both the man and the child. Responsible Fatherhood starts with identifying the biological father and a child has a right to know who his real father is. Unfortunately over 30% of DNA tests of men identified as fathers find out that they are not the biological father of the child. And once a man signs on as the father he can not challenge the fact even if DNA later shows he has been daddy duped into thinking he was the father. I encourage you to put forth legislation which mandates mandatory at brith DNA testing for all out of wedlock birth’s and additionally to put forth legislation removing a man’s responsibilities to children found not to be his by DNA testing regardless of the length of time he had been duped.
Paternity AND parental rights establishment. Paternity establishment is one of the federal reimbursements under Ttitle IVd SSA. 80% of out of wedlock fathers are at the hospital at the time of the birth of their child and were already willing to admit paternity. Unfortunately, in addition to the problems with false paternity, the signing on as a father makes him financially responsible but does NOT secure his parental rights. I believe the OTDA should be mandated to aid and assist a father obtain his parental right in addition to securing his financial responsibility and ask for legislation to do this. Child support is BEING THERE and I believe we should all work to ensure a child has both parents.
Quadrennial Reviews timely and to include father participation. To my knowledge NO father or “non custodial” parent has ever been invited to submit comment for a review. Nor has an electronic forum ever been provided to collect their views. Simply, how is it that OTDA can address the issues of men/fathers if they do not bother to ask what they are? They can’t, and they haven’t. The recent review for 2010 was completed in 2017 and to my knowledge has never been up to date. Outdated information excluding the needs, wants and desires of men/fathers and “non” custodial parents is sure to produce policies and laws which do not meet their current needs and this is the current system that we have. Let’s get up to date, and include fathers views.
The U.S. Tax freedom Day is estimated to be on April 19, 2018 but for those who pay a child excise tax (AKA Child Support) the tax freedom day occurs later, much later, in the year. Our estimate is that a non custodial parent has to work until August 1 to pay the combined tax load. That’s into the 8th month of the year before you see a penny of your hard earned dollars.
Why is it a Child Excise Tax and not “child support”?
Matrimonial issues, including child custody and support are issues reserved to the states. But the federal government’s “war on poverty” begun under President Johnson was increasing in costs over the years. The federal government formed the Office of Child Support under the Reagan administration which worked on Child Support GUIDELINES (developed in 1987) to be given to states with a mandate that they have a system in place to ensure working non residential fathers were financially supporting their children to reduce the monetary impact to benefits paid out of federal coffers. As an incentive to comply (passed in 1988) the federal government tied payments to the states with a deadline of 1989, a scant one year to comply or lose $$. (See “Child Support Reform” for current incentive payments to states and “Parents; Declare Your Independence” for the unconstitutional nature of child support)
Prior to the guidelines state courts were free to set child support payments based upon a showing of need, a “Costs Shares” Model which allowed both residential and non residential parents to share in the actual costs of raising the child. Income transfers from one parent to the other were minimal and usually occurred as an exchange when the non residential parent was exercising their parental time with the children, an incentive to both parties to pay and allow access pursuant to the court order. A non residential parent could be ordered to pay expenses directly, such as medical insurance coverage or costs or school extra curricular expenses.
The Guidelines sent out by the federal government, however, were an “Income Shares” Model, a set percentage of income with an increasing sliding scale upwards based on the number of children. As it is a fixed percentage dependent on quantity it is an excise tax and an income transfer, with the government as middle man, from one parent to the other. The model is flawed as it presumes the custodial parent makes the payments benefitting the children directly and it transfers the money from the non custodial parent to the custodial with no accountability for the custodial parents child expenses actually paid. Further, it has no relationship to the actual cost of raising a child in that state or the costs based on actual circumstances of the child. The guidelines themselves were derived from income and expense models for intact families and thus ignored the real world economics of maintaining two households for the children. Health care, child care, and extraordinary expenses are added on after the income transfer is set, thus skewing the percentage even higher.
It should be noted that the Income Shares submission from the feds to the states was a guideline and states were free to modify, change, or put into place any plan, but the short turn around (enactment 1988, deadline 1989) and the fact that ALL states had guidelines in place on time indicates the states just enacted the guidelines generally as proposed. The federal governments own studies on enactment showed the states did little more than quick reviews, minor changes and enacted the guideline as a mandate. This simply to maximize the states reimbursements $$ from the federal government. For New York State the income transfer amounts were set at 17% for one child, 25% for 2, 28% for 3, etc. and were based on GROSS income plus add ons and a expenses based on pro rata income of the parents.
1st Rule of Accounting; Net Income = Assets – liabilities.
Using general numbers we can break down the actual cost for a custodial parent and a non custodial parent who has the standard NY visitation order of every other weekend and one day mid week for 4 hours with 2 children. Assuming a $16 an hour 30 hour work week for CP and a $24 an hour 40 hour work week for NCP, rounded numbers and general tax bracketing.
Custodial Parent 2. Non Custodial Parent
Gross Income (after FICA) $25000 $50000
Federal Tax – $0 -$11000*
State Tax – $1250 – $3250
Federal EITC + $6444 + 0
After Tax Income $30194 $35750
Medical Insurance Premiums $0 – $7500
Child Care Expenses – $3467 – $6933
Extraordinary Expenses – $670 – $1330
Excise Tax Income Transfer +$12500 – $12500
Net Income CP $38557 NCP $7487
Tax Freedom Day 0 days – January 1 213 days – August 1st
*This is filing status single for the NCP and Head of Household and both child deductions for the CP. If an agreement in the order is in place NCP may be able to file head of household with one child exemption but it is not guaranteed (abt $2000 reduction). NCP medical insurance cost shown is increase due to keeping a family plan to carry the children, cost of single plan deducted from both. Child care expenses are set by CP and beyond NCP’s control, even if NCP has available kith or kin care for free and lacking a “right of first refusal” for care of the children specified in the order. Extraordinary expenses are dental (braces), eye care, etc. and again the choice of provider and expense levels are controlled by the CP.
In NYS there is no set proportional offset for time with the children. On the remaining $144 a week net income the NCP needs to ensure adequate space for children during parenting access time. It is plainly apparent the NCP will have to seek extra work and income to survive thus reducing the time available to interact with the children. Additionally, increased income may result in the court revisiting the order and increasing the child excise tax based on higher income.
Once income is set, any reduction is considered a voluntary reduction in income and income levels can be imputed and set at the higher level. The child excise tax is an order for the employer to deduct and is taken out before net pay (just like the other taxes) leaving the NCP the take home pay. Should a NCP be assessed a child excise tax which results in garnishment of greater than 65% of his gross income, the level of deduction is capped HOWEVER, the amount is still owed and is added to the NCP’s arrears which, when hitting certain levels results in automatic suspension of drivers licenses, seizure of registered automobiles, suspension of professional licenses, and even incarceration. Loss of driving privileges or professional licenses, and even involuntary incarceration for the non payment of the child excise tax is considered a VOLUNTARY reduction in income and the assessment still accrues and adds to the arrears during this time.
Taxation without representation?
It’s important to note here that the NCP never financially abandoned their children and there was no clear and convincing evidence that being a “non custodial” parent would lead to them NOT financially support their children in the future, a clear violation of parental rights and the strict scrutiny standard for government to intervene. The limited time “visiting” with the children, against the wishes of the NCP, is further violation of the individuals constitutionally protected parental rights. Worse, the transfer of income has an inverse action on time with the children for as the income transfer increases the ability to spend time with the children decreases. Taxation without representation.
Stripped of our children without our consent. Without our consent, taxed for the violation of our right. Our petitions for redress of these grievances answered only with more injury. Given the assault upon out natural, God given parental rights, by a government which is supposed to be protecting those parental rights, one does wonder when the tea will hit the harbor.
Why do we continue to allow the denial of parental rights on a routine basis, without cause, and contrary to the U.S. Constitution? The problem lies in acceptance of the system by those of us within the system believing it has authority over our parental rights and decision making. As a movement we need to understand the unconstitutional nature of these government actions against parents. Unless you abandon, abuse, or neglect your child the removal of your rights is unconstitutional. Unless you abandon or neglect your child financially then child support (actually a child excise tax) is unconstitutional. Any process that does NOT take into account you have not abandoned or neglected your child is a violation of your parental rights.
It seems to me that the beauty of the Declaration of Independence was that one need not be some legal scholar or person of high learning to understand it. Simply, we all individually have unalienable God given rights which the government can NOT remove. Life, liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, is mine to define and pursue how I see fit. It is tyranny when government controls my life and restricts my liberty and in so doing removes my pursuit of happiness and violates my God given rights. All men are created equal, we all have equal protection under the law (14th Amendment).
Parental rights are a fundamental right and the state must apply strict scrutiny to interfere with them and child custody shall not be removed without clear and convincing evidence of abuse and/or neglect. As a parent I, as the vast majority of parents do, placed the health and welfare of my children above even my own. A standard I believed to be well above the threshold of a clear and convincing showing of abuse and neglect which should keep me free from government intervention. And should allegations to the contrary be made I certainly expected to be given due process prior to removal of my parental rights for easily no cause to do so existed. I was wrong, so terribly, terribly, wrong.
The decision to remove my children from my care and custody and to garnish a large percentage of my income for “child support” was all against my wishes and more importantly, all without cause. I stood ready to exercise care and custody of my children and to provide for them financially, and absent abuse, neglect, or abandonment the courts had no clear and convincing evidence to interfere with my fundamental right of parenthood. Worse, I was DENIED due process of law and the strict scrutiny standard for state intervention was never met. I expect your case was exactly the same.
Make no mistake about it, the wholesale removal of parental rights without cause is the NUMBER ONE CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE OF THE 21ST CENTURY. The unconstitutional nature of this is made worse as all 3 branches of government at both the federal and state level operate in collusion to violate your rights. The entire Orwellian system is so lacking in common sense it is almost laughable were it not so tragic for men, women, children, families, and society. Many published legal argument exist for reform of the unconstitutional system (see Parental Rights and Due Process by Donald C. Hubin as an example) and books have been written about the injustices (see The New Politics of Sex by Stephen Baskerville as an example). Yet many, if not most, of those negatively impacted still do not fully understand the violation of their basic rights.
Understanding that men are disposed to suffer abuses before acting on them, we suffer a long train of abuses of our parental rights here which forces us to recognize that government regulates the family not in the interest of the family but in the interest of government itself, a series of bureaucratic despots removing life, liberty, due process and happiness at every turn. With 40% of children disenfranchised from their fathers and living absent them one wonders how long before parents throw off this absolute tyranny? Do we accept that the nanny/daddy state is superior to families and fathers to raise children?
I ask, can the court award me air? I have this right to breathe, as all do, and need no court to award it to me. Yet when I stood in court with an equal parent the court “awards custody to the mother” which she already had in concert with me. And so in fact it was government double speak for what the court was really saying is that I was denied my parental right to the care and custody of my children. There was no equal or equitable distribution of both parents rights. I was made a “Non Custodial” Parent and removed from my children. What ludicrous government double speak is next, an award of air to another which deprives me of life?
I had a 15 year history of providing for my children financially and there was no evidence presented to indicate that I would not do so in the future. Yet without a showing of neglect or abandonment, nor with a showing of need on the part of the children, I was assessed an excise tax. It was a percentage of income based upon the number of children (48% of my gross salary), income transferred from my control to the other parent. Apparently I was adjudicated a pre-crime sentence with no showing of cause to prevent a future neglect or abandonment which might occur.
Even though matrimonial matters and child welfare are rights reserved to the states the federal government operates a system of financial incentives to create single parent homes. The Constitutionally illegal Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (USOCSE) was created to collect “child support” as reimbursement for welfare benefits paid out and to be returned to government coffers, in other words an excise tax on non residential fathers of mothers choosing to receive public assistance. A “non custodial” parent is necessary for a child support order which the state needs to receive federal reimbursements and as such the state has a perverse incentive to keep parents apart, or to break up existing marriages.
The USOCSE bureaucracy feeds a State Office of Child Support (S-OCSE) which also serves to maintain proper accounting to maximize collections from the federal government. Another incentive to the states is the collection of “child support arrears”. Thus the state has an interest in setting the child excise tax as high as it can to ensure arrears occur. Temporary orders of support are often set below the standards, with the bureaucracy working months before a final order is entered, ensuring that there will be arrears right from the get go. And payers will be forced to pay at the rate set, any change in job is considered a “voluntary reduction in income” and ludicrously, even incarceration is considered a “voluntary reduction” with the arrears building.
Married parents present a problem as it is built in shared parenting arrangements, no orders to add to incentive payments. So enter “no fault divorce” to provide incentives to break families apart. Unilateral divorces of convenience, “we grew apart”, are now common. An 85% mother custody rate and the resulting child support income transfer fuels the filings, about 50% of all marriages. Combined with out of wedlock births, the system has steady continuous supply of “clients”.
State family courts have no legal restriction to not award shared parenting but this would minimize federal reimbursements so it is not done. Ironically, in arguing against shared parenting the NYS Bar Association stated that it would “limit judicial discretion” this in spite of the system referring to the every other weekend of visitation and one mid week 4 hour visit by “Non Custodial” Parents as “the standard NY order”. These court of equity (and not law) are designed to work “in the best interest of the child”, yet never does a court go on the record to explain exactly how “the standard NY order” is in the interest of a child.
The greatest shame within the system, over and above the violation of parental rights, is that the system which is supposed to protect children from harm is putting them in harms way. The volume of evidence to support positive outcomes for children with two active and involved parents is overwhelming. Societally, support for shared parenting is well over 80% among the population, liberal, libertarian, and conservative alike. In spite of this, state legislatures fail to act to reform the system. The courts continue to order parents and children apart. Executive Agencies continue to plunder parents assets. All under the guise of doing good, ‘in the best interest of the children”.
While often portrayed as a conservative v. liberal issue, or a man v. woman issue, the rightful point of blame is with an overbearing intrusive government which has overstepped its Constitutional authority and violates individual God given rights. Many celebrate July 4 and recognize this National Day of Independence as freeing us from tyranny. But for us beat dead with no due process, dead broke for payment of child excise taxes, abused by a tyrannical omnipotent morally superior government, disenfranchised parents there is no freedom or justice.
As of June 26, 2018 there has been no Republican response (to my letter which follows) with a platform or policy from either the Republican National Committee or the NY State Republican Committee, any Republican Candidate for statewide office, nor any action during the 2018 legislative cycle from either major party.
Republican support to label disenfranchised dads deadbeats 2013
January 30, 2018
Chairman Edward F. Cox, NYS Republican Committee, 315 State St. Albany, NY 12210
Dear Chairman,
A simple question from this registered Republican;At what point will NY Republican candidates realize that pandering to Democratic votes doesn’t result in Republican Candidate victories?I put forth as an example of this the loss of the NYS Senate majority these past 10 years.This question is not new as I have asked it for 15 years now, it goes all the way back to Rick Lazio running against the carpetbagger Clinton and Gillibrand’s rise in NY politics first as Congresswoman.
I personally worked with legislators on the Family Court Reform Act (currently http://nyassembly.gov/leg/?bn=A06054&term=2017) which was originally introduced by Jay Dinga and then carried by Bob Prentiss (my Assemblyman, at our request).As Brian Kolb took over sponsorship of this legislation when I noted he was running for governor I immediately began to lobby men’s rights/father rights/parental rights organizations (MRA/FRA/PRA) to support him.Then the Assembly Minority Report on DV came out and the question was why we should support a candidate who puts forth anti male propaganda such as this? When I brought up sponsorship of the reform act I was asked what had the Republican’sactually delivered for us these past 20 years?I had no answer for indeed the answer to the question is they have achieved nothing for us.
Years back, in my lobbying for MRA’s, etc. I had the opportunity to meet with Lazio and his people in his run for US Senate against Clinton.In discussing support of his campaign it was stated we had to support them, “after all what are you guys going to do, vote for Clinton”.I expect that mentality resulted in zero support for him.Congressman Sweeney had put forth anti male federal alimony legislation.We met with his staff and Saratoga County Republican leaders and got the same response, even when he was challenged by Gillibrand they stated, “What are you going to do, vote for her”?This time public support for the Democrat was given, the dismissiveness enough to drive votes to her, and cost him the re-election.Ironically we had asked him to modify domestic violence legislation for protections for the accused (often falsely) and it was his failure to act which contributed to his loss under the shadow of mere allegations.
Political party enrollments within the ranks of the men, fathers, women, and families who suffer the injustices of this anti family court system mirror statewide enrollments.Given the large enrollment edge of the Democrats it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that Republican’s need to pull a large portion of not only independent voters, but also democrats to make any headway into returning Republican’s to power in NYS, especially in a statewide election.These disenfranchised dads, moms, and families are a prime target for votes, yet not only do Republicans not go after disenfranchised Democrats, they disenfranchise their base, registered Republican voters like me who were beat dead, driven broke, and disenfranchised by the system.If local, state, and national Republicans wish to garner the votes and support of these disenfranchised Republican, Democrat, and Independent voters you need to not only take policy positions which address these injustices, but actually achieve some level of reform.
The portrayal and treatment of men as if they are “deadbeats” and “abusers” of women and children has got to stop if you expect any support from MRA/FRA/PRA groups.The Parental Rights of BOTH parents needs to be protected (which also protects the rights of the child and is also in their best interest).Domestic violence programs need to be reformed to serve ALL victims of domestic violence, including men.The rights of individuals accused need to be protected with equal application of laws and due process.False allegations need to be addressed and in those instances where it rises to perjury and false statements on the record the violators prosecuted.
Many of these problems are driven by federal monetary incentives such as Title IVd of the Social Security Act (More HERE) and the denial of Parental Rights through government double speak (More HERE).By labelling “non custodial” parents at the state level to increase the perverse financial incentives under the act the label is then used as a basis to deny parental rights guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution.The $1 Billion a year funding of the Violence Against “Women” Act based on the Duluth Model is nothing more than financing of liberal policies regarding families which is detrimental to Republican’s.There is, however, much the state can do to lessen these violations of parental rights which are destroying families.By supporting policy changes and passing legislation supporting families, parents, and equality for individuals at the state level Republican’s can expect to increase their support from these disenfranchised people.
I have enclosed a few items in support of these positions and can provide further discussion and/or information on request:
Bill memo for A06054 The Family Court reform Act,
Letter to President trump in support of reform to Title IVd of the Social Security Act,
Discussion and text for the Parental Rights and Responsibilities Act,
NY Men’s Action Network blog regarding the lack of political support for men in NY,
“Duluth Model Buries Key Facts on DV”, by Erin Pizzy (founder of the first refuge in the world for DV victims).
I thank you for your time in this matter and look forward to working with you in the future for Fathers and Families.
Sincerely yours,
Lt. James Hays, (Ret.)
CC: RNC; Ronna McDaniel, Bob Paduchik, NYGOP Staff; John Burnett, Jason Weingartner, Pierry Benjamin, Oliver Tan, Marie Mclam, Jim Thompson.
The Coalition of Fathers and Families New York Inc., (FaFNY) a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation working to keep fathers and families together, is calling on President Trump to modify the child support provisions of the Social Security Act to ensure that children have a continuing nurturing relationship with both parents.
As currently written the Social Security Act provides financial incentives to the states to remove a parent from their child by labeling them a “non” custodial parent. States are reimbursed for for establishing paternity, number of child support orders entered, amount collected versus amount owed, collection of arrears, and the cost of the program (collections versus expenses).It does not provided any incentive for parents to get, or stay, married and outside of marriage for a shared parenting arrangement.Nor is there any incentive for access enforcement for a parent to access to their child.
Married parents and those parents who have a shared parenting arrangement outside of the child support collection system place no burden upon federal coffers.Even within the system, as studies have shown, a parent with shared parenting currently pay child support on time and in full in over 90% of cases thus lessening the burdens upon government agencies.Studies have shown that for those parents in default on child support assessments the overwhelming reason is an inability to pay the amount charged. Nowhere in the system are states rewarded for policies which encourage the active involvement of both parents negating the need for welfare benefits in the first place, including marriage.
When child support was enacted in the early 1980s we had about 7% of children living in single parent homes. Additionally, we had a divorce rate in single digits. Over the next 20 years our divorce rate skyrocketing to 50% and the number of children living in single parent homes is now over 40%. I’m sure government bureaucrats would argue that the increase in the need for child support enforcement corresponds to these increases but the few studies that have been seem to indicate otherwise.The adage goes, “you get what you pay for” and the federal child support enforcement system payed the states to generate unmarried “custodial” and “non custodial” parents to enhance the number of child support orders entered.
Ironically through the years of declining marriage rates we have seen an increase in shared parenting arrangements.The most recent NYS Quadrennial Review even calls for changes within the child support collection system to more closely match how parents raise their children with both parents equally responsible for children financially and emotionally.Absent married biological parents, studies have shown that children fare best with two active and involved parents.Unfortunately the current system of federal reimbursement to the states provides incentives for single parent homes only.
Due to sexual bias towards mother custody we now have about an 85% mother custody rate which equates to 34% of children in the United States who live absent their father (85% custody rate X 40% single parent households).Contrary to the “deadbeat” dad myth, the number one reason a father doesn’t spend more time with his children is the limitations of a court order and number two is a “custodial parent” who interferes with their access due to no access enforcement (a federally funded study showed 40% of custodial mothers admit to interfering with access).And while the system is taking credit for “paternity establishment” it is widely recognized that well over 80% of out of wedlock birth father are in the hospital at the time of birth and are willing to be a parent to their child.Cleary, the “dead beat” is actually a beat dead, often dead broke, and disenfranchised father.
Indeed, one does wonder why we have a Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement when the issues of parents and families have been reserved to the states under our US Constitution.That said, the Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement is under the Administration for Children and Families within the US Dept. of Health and Human Services which oversees the payments of federal dollars to the states.Both individually and collectively we call on President Trump to repeal the perverse incentives which reward states to create unmarried parents and “non” (custodial) parents which creates single parent households to the detriment of children, both parents, and families in these United States.
