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.
