shared parenting – Be a MAN! Take political action to support men.

Public Letter to MS Legislative Leaders 02-08-2025

Lt. Governor Delbert Houseman, Sen Pres Pro Tem Dean Kirby, House Speaker Jason White, House Pres Pro Tem Manly Barton PO Box 1018 Jackson MS 39215

Honorable Gentlemen;

I am writing in regards several issues regarding families and society and specifically government interference in the form of “do good” legislation which is anything but doing good.

First up is HB525, the notice of suspension of CDL’s to Employers. I will resist the urge to open with “what manner of idiot thinks it is a good idea to”… and begin more diplomatically with a question. If it is the goal of the state to collect financial child support how is it effective to remove a man’s ability to earn income? Not only should this legislation not be passed but any and ALL suspension of state licenses as they have the inverse effect of their stated goals. Indeed the opposite should be occurring for if a man does not have the ability to earn we should be educating him to earn a higher income and obtain licensing which furthers this goal.

The last federally funded research was in the 1990s and reported by Sanford Braver in Divorced Dads: Shattering the Myth’s debunked the “deadbeat dad” label. The number one reason a father doesn’t pay child support is inability to pay. This has born out in multiple studies over many decades. Worse, the incarceration of fathers for non payment is a debtors prison, an archaic practice banned in all civilized nations a century ago excepting for the persecution of poor fathers today.

I understand that the Child Support System is an unconstitutional federal boondoggle and a misnomer as it is actually a child excise tax designed to reimburse federal coffers for outlays to “single mothers” (https://nymensactionnetwork.org/child-support-reform/). Title IVd of the Social Security Act provides perverse financial incentives to the states to create “single mother” homes and disenfranchised “non custodial” fathers but can we call ourselves “good fathers and family men” if we support a system which disenfranchises fathers to increase federal money to our state?

Mississippi LACKS a Shared Parenting Act. The number one reason a father doesn’t spend more time with his children is a limiting court order and number 2 is a mother who see no value and interferes with the fathers access, which 50% of mother ADMIT to doing. The National Parents Organization (https://www.sharedparenting.org/csreportcard) gives MS a grade of “F” noting it lacks any presumptive parenting time adjustment formula. Ironically studies have shown that fathers with a shared parenting arrangement overwhelmingly pay child support on time and in full. MS is only 1 of 9 states with this ranking, lower than 42 others which recognize we are no longer a society where fathers work and mothers stay home with children.

Instead of helping children these policies have been disenfranchising fathers from their children with negative consequences for society. “Single mother” homes are the bulk of children living in poverty and suffering child abuse and neglect. These children disproportionately suffer greater involvement in crime, drugs and alcohol, and teen pregnancies with lower performance in school with a higher drop out rate in high school. Why not enact a rebuttable presumption of 50-50 shared parenting and a presumptive parenting time formula will reduce the disenfranchisement of fathers and result in better outcomes for children and society?

We seem to be suffering a gynocentric focus arguing for women’s rights without holding them responsible and holding men responsible without giving them any rights. There is no better example than reproductive rights. We allow a woman to abort a baby or give it up for adoption regardless of the fathers wishes yet fathers are forced to be financially responsible with no ability to “abort” it financially. It surprises me that in the debate over abortion we never speak to the responsibility of BOTH parents, that is that excepting rape and incest BOTH parents are BOTH financially and emotionally responsible to raise a child of a sexual union between them. We used to understand it “takes two to tango” but have morphed into a “he got her pregnant” mentality.

Enter as exhibit 1 Sen. Bradford Blackmon’s SB2319, “Contraception Begins at Erection Act” making it “unlawful to discharge genetic material without the intent to fertilize an embryo.” It is enforced with high fines and exempts the use of contraceptives. I have no idea what the intent of this legislation is. I’ll forego diplomacy and ask what manner of idiot thinks it is the states responsibility to regulate a man’s “discharge of genetic material?” While I am relatively certain most Republican’s wouldn’t sign on to such drivel I would be remiss not to point out Republican’s chivalrous gynocentric focus which totally ignores issues of men and boys. Where is the Republican public response opposing this?

As an example of Republican gynocentrism I will point to the “Mississippi Study Group on Women, Children, and Families” which I watched the entirety of the public hearings and also submitted written testimony to (enclosed for your expected avoidance and recognition and lack of discussion on these matters). I need go no further than the title which excludes fathers. In my 10+ year of lobbying NYS Government on parental rights issues I attended many of these “study groups” and “fact finding panels” and was not overly surprised that MS had the same self serving “panels of experts” as did NY, the lettered and “learned” graduates of liberal universities and, of course, no one testifying on behalf of men or fathers. I note that my written testimony was NOT recognized as received and as entered as part of the official record. This stacked deck of lettered, Ph.D., Esq., Judge and Politician excluded any who pays for or receives any of the policy enactments you force upon them. Not a single father, man, boy, or father, man, or boys rights advocate was in sight. Let us gynocentric-ally focus on women and children as chattel to women and force men into responsibility with no rights, even of the first amendment to speak and voice opinions.

I note the most recent, December 2022, Quadrennial Review of Child Support Guidelines had a committee with 1 State Senator, 3 Judges, 5 Attorneys, and 1 Dr. (I assume a Ph.D.) which in my mind is putting the fox in charge of the hen house. The public in put was a 30 day Survey Monkey promoted on the agency’s social media accounts with a minimal return of 243 responses 71.6 percent of which were “custodial” parents receiving “child support” and 3.7 percent who pay. Hardly an impartial and unbiased way to collect information and as such conclusions drawn are speculation and biased opinions not based upon fact. I shall address only “no-fault divorce” here and will respond to other aspects of the quadrennial review in other correspondence.

No-fault divorce originated in California and was signed by then Governor Reagan in 1969. In his defense he did call it the greatest mistake of his political career. It spread slowly across the country and New York State was the last state to pass no-fault in 2010, a fact that I am aware of as the non profit I founded was one of the last secular organizations opposing it as it provided no statutory protection for each parents relations with their child(ren). I am no longer opposed to no-fault divorce even though it encourages divorce, a fact we see in marriages in the US which were nationally at 10.6 per thousand in 1970 staying at that level as no-fault was slowly enacted and at 9.8 in 1990 where it continued its decline to 6.5 in 2018 where it has remained relatively the same since. The fact is marriage subjects a man to government control of his current and future finances even if the marriage produces no children and organizationally we began recommending that to avoid the pitfalls of no-fault divorce one just needed to not get married.

If Mississippi is intent on reducing divorces the state needs to enact a rebuttable presumption of 50-50 shared parenting regardless of the marital status of the parents as states enacting shared parenting see a reduction in divorces. If Mississippi is intent on increasing marriages they need to remove the disincentives for men to marry and the incentives for women to divorce. 85% of divorces are filed by women “who grew apart” but who are awarded custody of children 85% of the time and with this a hefty tax free income transfer from the disenfranchised father who is relegated to, at best, a 4 day a month “visitor” in his child’s life. When the judge “awards” custody he is actually stripping one parent of their parental rights as they BOTH had this right walking into court and one does not have it exiting court.

The Marxist destruction of the American Family began under President Johnson with his war on poverty which was intended to actually, as he stated, “get them ni****s to vote Democrat” and not to eradicate poverty. The 1965 crisis of African American families in the 1965 Moynihan Report have now grown to 80% with increasing government regulation of the family. As out of wedlock births increased this increased pressure on federal coffers so in 1974 Title IVd of the Social Security Act was amended ordering the states to collect child support to reimburse federal coffers from absent fathers. In 1981 Title IVd was amended and child support collections unconstitutionally moved to the federal government mandating each state also create an office of child support enforcement.

Unfortunately poor mothers in need of assistance usually have children of poor fathers and collections under the system were well below costs to run the system. Though the 1990s collection methods were increased up to and including criminal actions, including incarceration, against poor fathers for being poor and not paying their child support. As divorce rates increased the system looked to these divorced fathers who were paying child support direct to the mother under a divorce decree and they too were added into the system as a means to boost statistics. Unfortunately what wasn’t factored in were biases towards mothers in granting custody and control of children which in the 90s was at 90%.

Worse for these divorced fathers was the fact that child support payments correlated to his access to his children but now the system divided these into two different areas with collections removed from access to his children. Additionally, proportional offsets for a father who had substantial time with his children and direct financial support provided perverse incentives to reduce fathers to a 4 day a month visitor in his child’s life to maximize payments into the system. We took fathers who were committed to their family and allowed mothers to disenfranchise them but retain his financial support. Married fathers were treated the same as out of wedlock fathers with the 4 day a month “standard visitation” schedule.

Let’s look at the timeline of family formation in America (US Census Bureau).

Two parent families / mother headed / father headed

1970 58,939,000 / 8,200,000 / 748,000

1975 (slight decrease) / 11,245,000 / 1,014,000

1985 46,149,000 / 13,081,000 / 1,554,000

1990 48,775,000 / 13,874,000 / 1,993,000

1995 abt. same / 16,477,000 / 2,461,000

1999 abt. same / 16,805,000 / 3,094,000

Prior to 1970 fatherless, mother headed, homes held consistent at 4-5% of households and father headed homes were almost non existent. As it now stands marriage is a hostile environment for men and it is decreasing. Having a child also subjects a father to a hostile environment in a system designed to disenfranchise him from his children for which he is then labelled a “deadbeat” for having been beat dead by the government. The federal government provides perverse incentives to the states to create “single mother” homes as it reimburses for;

Establishing paternity (which requires an out of wedlock birth)
Number of Child support Orders Entered (which requires “single parent” homes)
Amount collected versus amount owed (incentive to increase individual amounts owed)
Collection of arrears (incentive to place amount owed higher than can be timely paid i.e. impute income)
Cost of the program, collections versus expenses (incentive to increase program costs to equal collections and increase collections to drag along program costs)

If government was serious about encouraging married two biological parent families then wouldn’t it provide incentives to the states to create them and not provided incentives to create single parent, especially single mother homes as it now does?

1 in 5 Mississippians live in poverty and ranks second to last in child well being among the 50 states (poverty, not in school, no health insurance, teen pregnancies) (MSU Extension). Two biological parents living in the same household with their children greatly reduces the negative outcomes for children. Yet the federal government and Mississippi provide perverse incentives for a woman to have a child out of wedlock and then cohabitate with a man unrelated to her child as in 1968 “the man in the house” rule was repealed and his income is not counted towards any public assistance she can get. For the purposes of setting child support her income, and that of anyone cohabitating is not factored into the award he has to pay. Worse, the sliding scale provides a perverse incentive to have multiple children out of wedlock as 2 kids with one father is 20% of his income but 2 kids with two fathers is 28% (14% times each of 2 fathers incomes).

The 1965 crisis of 25% father absent African American homes in 1965 resulted in the Moynihan Report which was widely dismissed as it focused all the blame on African American Men. Not to be thwarted government kept its gynocentric focus on financially providing for “women and children” neglecting to hold women responsible for their choices in life while we go to no ends to hold a man financially responsible for the choices of women. We have created a hostile environment for men in marriage and when having a child to the point that 2023 saw the lowest birth rate ever recorded in America. The marxist plan to destroy the American Family is working, fostered by well meaning “experts” who meet in committees and decide what is best for the little man with top down policies and with cognitive dissonance we ignore the negative outcomes, blame men, the double down that it is a problem caused by individual men ignoring the hostile environment government has created.

In the normal world the definition of insanity is doing the same thing again and expecting a different outcome. Perhaps it is time for politicians to recognize 60 years of family policy at the federal and state level is the problem? “I’m from the government and I’m here to help” said Ronald Reagan, are the nine most feared words in the English language. Sadly he, and other politicians regulating families seem unable to apply it to themselves and their programs forced upon fathers which is destroying families. We can double down and continue or we can actually repeal these onerous regulations placed upon fathers and their children.

Sincerely,

James H. Hays, Lt. (Ret)

Encl: Missing Fathers: A family crisis of governments making (at https://nymensactionnetwork.org/2022/09/missing-fathers-a-family-crisis-of-governments-making/)

Resume: Genealogist and Historian https://americanman.org, Blogger http://nymensactionnetwork.org, Retired NYS En-Con Police Lieutenant, Past Investigator NYS Governors LI Solid Waste Task Force, NYS En-Con Police Officer NYS DEC DLE, Past SUNY University Police Officer, Past NYS Park Police Officer, Past Centre Island Municipal Police Officer, Past Military Police Officer Ft. Hood, TX and Civilian Liaison with Killeen, TX Police Department, 33 years LE experience.

Co-founder and Past President of The Coalition for Fathers and Families NY, Life Member, American Coalition Fathers and Children, Life Member National Coalition of Free Men, Past President FRA Capital District Chapter, Past Board Member FRANYS, Founder and Past Treasurer NY Men’s Action Network PAC.

Life Member NRA, Life Member NYSRPA, Life member NAGR, Life Member 2A Foundation, Life Member NYS Conservation Council, Retired Member PBA of NYS, Past Chief Steward, En-Con Police Officers and Supervisors, NYSCOPBA, Past Executive Board Member Council 82, AFSCME, AFL-CIO, Member and Past regional representative for the NY Conservation Officers Association (NYCOA), Certified

Critical Incident Stress Management with 1000+ contact hours in individual and peer support for fathers and families in crisis.

Bachelors in Family and Society, SUNY ESC, AS Business Administration, AS Environmental Conservation and Law Enforcement, En-Con Police 8th Basic Academy, Certified Police Special Topics Instructor, (Domestic Violence, EVOC, ATVEOC, SEAVOC, Solid Waste Identification and Enforcement, etc), En-Con Supervisors Academy, University Police Basic Academy, Military Police School, NCO Training School

A timeline of broken families caused by federal programs

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.