The Law Perverted! Child Support and Politicians alike have taken the position of Marxist Principal in the Freeworld by dominating and exploiting the working class. Made to perform more labor than is necessary.
Alienation-denotes the estrangement of people from their humanity.
Child Support has nothing to do with justice, it is a panoply of plundered pops, and overwhelmingly now more than ever, Child Support is a regime whereby a father is forced to finance the filching of his own children.
What is most striking is that this witch hunt of zealots has come entirely from government officials. No public outcry ever preceded these measures. The public never demanded that the government take action, nor has any public discussion of this alleged problem ever been held in the national or local media.
Needless to say the voices of pursued parents are seldom heard amid the chorus of condemnation. The bipartisan certainty of their guilt is sufficient to set aside their right to trial and declare them public enemies by general acclaim. Yet there is reason to believe that this problem is an optical illusion and that what is being portrayed as irresponsible fathers is in reality a massive abuse of government power.
In recent years, a few cracks have appeared in the monolith. William Comanor writes that “child-support obligations” the only form of “obligation” or “debt” that most of the debtors have done nothing to incur- “are now treated far more harshly than any other form of debt.” Attorney Ron Henry characterizes the system “as an obvious sham” a “disaster,” and “the most onerous form of debt collection practiced in the United States.” “The overwhelming majority of so-called ‘deadbeat dads’ are judicially created,” says another attorney. “Why all this talk about so-called ‘deadbeat dads’? Because there is a lot of money to be made through that myth.”
When one begins to research the objective data and the research of independent scholars, it turns out that the problem is mostly the creation of government officials. In fact the myth of deadbeat dad has already been discredited conclusively by Sanford Braver and other scholars. We have already seen that few married or not married fathers seldom voluntarily abandon their children. Beyond this Braver has also shown that little scientific basis exists for claims that large numbers of fathers are not paying child support. Braver found that government claims of nonpayment were derived not from any compiled database or hard figures but entirely from surveys of mothers, and these alone, in setting enforcement policy against fathers, and no effort is made to balance them with surveys of non-custodial parents. Yet Braver found that fathers overwhelmingly do pay court-ordered child support when they are employed, often at enormous personal sacrifice.
STATE REVENUE VIA CHILD SUPPORT
A look at government machinery reveals that it was created not in response to claims of widespread nonpayment but before them, and that it was less a response to “deadbeat dads” than a mechanism to create them. Like new divorce laws (and shortly after their enactment), the child-support regulations and criminal enforcement machinery were created while few were paying attention.
Under pressure from bar associations and feminist groups, President Gerald Ford signed legislation creating the Office of Child Support Enforcement in 1975, warning at the time that it constituted unwarranted federal intrusion into families and the role of states. Contrary to professions of concern “for the children,” the principal purpose was never to provide for abandoned or impoverished children but to recoup welfare costs for the government. In fact, no study has ever been undertaken by the Department of Health and Human Services, Congress, or any branch of government to explain the reason for the agency’s existence.
Almost immediately the program began to expand exponentially, increasing tenfold from 1978 to 1998. The massive growth of law-enforcement machinery and reach was federally driven. In 1984, the Child Support Enforcement amendment to the Social Security Act required states to adopt child support guidelines. The legislation was promoted by the OCSE itself and by private collection companies—again less to help children than to save the government money under the theory that it would help get single-mother families off of welfare by making fathers pay more. Because most unpaid child support is due to unemployment, and because most “non-custodial parents of AFDC [welfare] children do not earn enough to pay as much child support as their children are already receiving in AFDC benefits,” according to researchers Irwin Garfinkel and Sara McLanahan, higher child-support guidelines could not help these children.
Then, with no explanation or justification (or constitutional authority), guidelines and criminal enforcement machinery conceived and created to address the minority of children in poverty were extended, under pressure from OCSE and other interests, to all child-support orders, even the majority not receiving welfare, by the Family Support Act of 1988.
This vastly enlarged the program and transformed a welfare provision into an entitlement. Today welfare cases, consisting mostly of unmarried parents account for only 17 percent of all child-support cases, and the proportion is shrinking. The remaining 83 percent of non-welfare cases consist largely of previously married fathers who are usually divorced involuntarily and who generally can be counted on to pay. With wage withholding, “the number of dollars passing through the government collection system exploded,” mostly from non-welfare cases for which the system was never designed, which currently accounts for 92 percent of the money collected.
The 1988 law also made the guidelines presumptive and, for all practical purposes, compulsory. By one estimate the new guidelines more than doubled the size of awards. Yet that point was already known among policy makers and scholars that, with the exception of the relatively small number of poor and unemployed fathers, no serious problem on nonpayment existed. Not only was Braver presenting the results of his research, but a federal pilot study commissioned four years earlier by OCSE itself was published with similar findings. Originally the full-scale government-sponsored study was planned to follow up the pilot, but that was quashed by the OCSE when the pilots findings threatened the justification for the agencies existence by demonstrating that non-payment of child support was not a serious problem. The Congressional Research Service also concluded at about the same time that no serious problem existed.
Promoted as a program that would reduce government spending, federal child-support enforcement has incurred a continuously increasing deficit. “The overall financial impact of the child-support program on taxpayers is negative,” the House Ways and Means Committee reports. Taxpayers lost $2.7 billion in 2002.
This money does not vanish. It ends up in the pockets and coffers of state officials, for whom it constitutes a lucrative source of revenue and income. “Most states make a profit on their child-support program,” according to Ways and Means, which notes that “States are free to spend this profit in any manner the State sees fit.”
In other words, federal taxpayers (who were supposed to save money) subsidize state government operations through child-support. This also transforms family courts from impartial tribunals into revenue-generating engines for the state government.
In addition to penalties and interest, states profit through federal incentive payments based on the amount collected, as well as receiving 66 percent of operating costs and 90 percent of computer costs. (When two states collaborate, both states qualify for the incentive payment as if each state had collected 100 percent of the money.) Federal outlays of almost $3.5 billion in 2002 allowed Ohio to collect $228 million and California to collect $640 million. “There is a $200 million per year motive driving this system” in Michigan alone, attorney Michael Tindall points out. “It dances at the strings of federal money.”
To collect these funds states must channel payments through their criminal enforcement machinery, further criminalizing involuntarily divorced parents and allowing the government to claim its perennial crackdowns are increasing collections despite the program operating at an increasing loss. In January 2000, HHS Secretary Donna Shalala announced that “the federal and state child-support enforcement program broke new records in nationwide collections in fiscal year 1999, reaching $15.5 billion, nearly doubling the amount collected in 1992.” Yet these figures are not what they appear.
In simple accounting terms, the General Accounting Office, which appears at face value all the official HHS assumptions and data for what is “legally owed but unpaid,” found that as a percentage of what it claims is owed, collections actually decreased during this period. “In fiscal year 1996, collections represented 21 percent of the total amount due but dropped to 17 percent of the total amount due in fiscal year 2000,” writes GAO? “As a result the amount owed at the end of the period is greater than the amount owed at the beginning of the period.”
These facts are gathered from a book published by Cumberland House Publishing Inc. The Title is Taken Into Custody- The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family. By Stephen Baskerville For the sole purpose to stir up concern for rights of people.
((Something needs to be done.))
Below is contributed by: xzxeddiexzx CNN I-Reporter
While the states claim they have increased the collections of unpaid child support. It does not use the actually collected figures. It only relies on the documented back child support claims of over inflated arrears unconstitutionally delivered to the non-custodial parents.
So the weight of supporting the entire welfare system lands on the backs of a selected group of American citizens that are in turn refused and denied Equal Justice under the law. They are refused the fundamental right to due process and in most cases are limited in the relationship with their very own natural and biological children.
During this new economic downturn, this very method of miscalculated, mishandled Judiciary infringement of civil and constitutional law on only a select group of society is nothing short of modern day slavery and discrimination from the Governing bodies unto the citizen taxpayers in a bias approach to assault one gender over the other. Putting parents of the children involved, at war destroying the foundation the children rely on and need to become productive members of society.
Instead of the system finding common ground and exercising equal justice under the law. They infringe on the civil and constitutional rights of a singled out group primarily (men). But cases such as mine has the female gender in the non-custodial position. But all the literature given by the State funded agencies are bias.
Painting the male gender with a bad brush. The literature does not use the terms when talking of the noncustodial parent (He / She) or (Mother / Father) etc.
It plainly says if you are having problems collecting money from HIM. We can garnish HIS wages. Issue a offset on HIS tax returns or any state funded monies.
So you see the biasness? You see how someone in my position of a unwed father with primary residential custody would find this issue insulting and discriminatory?
When will society understand that one of the primary reasons we are having the economic crisis we as a society are having today has been because of States like Tennessee that have violated public trust in a attempt to cover up the lavish spending on private and personal items on the the taxpayers money, while using the child support systems as their own personal bailout program. This is why we have the over inflated arrearages set in child support cases against the weakest party that does not have the same rights to the judiciary process as the favored party that helps them generate the funds to run the scam on society.
This is totally unconstitutional and attacks the civil liberties of a singled out group that are suppressed by not being awarded the rights that is awarded to the side that the States have taken up interest in. Which is the custodial parents because they are working together to extort money from the federal government while hiding behind the statue in the child’s best interest. These proceedings have nothing to do with the child’s interest at all. It is only the interest of the state to take any measure to fund their practice of over spending the tax dollars.
Why should we allow as a society any group to be singled out and destroyed while the evidence is clear that they would violate your rights if they stood a chance to gain a dollar from doing so.
So today it is the child support issue and once they see that they do not meet any challenge in this matter they will focus on other subjects within our communities.
I would love to hear some input about this very important issue that effects all of us citizens that pay taxes or have children of our own.
Do we not deserve to have a fair balanced Justice system?
Do we not owe our children equal protection and both parents ?
Do you think a selected group should be singled out and violated by a government either state , local or federal?
The sums they calculate for the retroactive support orders also take into account the elderly on the welfare system. I personally think that the taxes we all pay covers the cost for them to have the coverage they need. I also think that both parents should be held to 50% of the costs involved with raising the children.
If this means that the woman that retains custody can not be a full time stay at home mom because she would also have to work and fund her fair share of the obligation then there needs to be provisions that their would be shared time with the child between each others job requirements.
It took two people to create the child and bring it into this world. If they was not prepared then they both have to work harder in order to become prepared and supportive to the obligation to the child.
There are other models and methods that would be more beneficial to the child and the family structure but the government would not want to lend a ear to the results because they would not be able to manipulate the taxpayers and profit while lying to the general public and the facts about the fairness and constitutional upholding within the organized crime ring supported by the states via federal funding while the municipalities fall out of compliance with the federal rules and regulations set forth, and continue to collect the federal dollars as if they were complying…
Embedded Corruption has the Economy in greater risk of crashing. The mishandling of the critical tax dollars that so many are reliant upon are in jeopardy if reform measures are not take swiftly in this area of government corruption to restore equality unto it’s people that it is suppose to protect and serve equally without bias agendas.
The following link leads to the Social Security Administrations investigation into this very matter. The findings are correct and accurate but have increased since the study was conducted in 2006 before the economy imploded.