Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Child Support Scam
MensNewsDaily.com ^ | April 24, 2004 | Roger F. Gay

Posted on 04/24/2004 8:58:58 AM PDT by RogerFGay

The Child Support Scam

April 24, 2004


by Roger F. Gay

Since the creation of the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement in 1975, government workers and lobbyists for private child support collection companies have been relentless in their efforts to misinform the public about child support payments and collections. A recent article published by WRAL.com in North Carolina provides a typical look at the propaganda effort.

The long title explains the impression that the article is intended to give: "Wake County Child-Support Workers Well-Intentioned But Overburdened; Child-Support Enforcement Needs Short-Changed By County Budget." Before going into detail, let me paraphrase the message; our accomplishments aren't impressive but we want more money anyway.

The background one needs to judge the message has never been presented to the public by the press (that I know of) outside of MensNewsDaily.com and FatherMag.com. Before the federal program was operational, about 70 percent of the amount of child support that was ordered was paid directly by noncustodial parents to custodial parents. An additional amount was paid to the government as reimbursement for welfare entitlements. According to research, divorced fathers (somewhat different for never-married fathers who are more often involved in welfare reimbursement and known to be different from noncustodial mothers) paid 90 percent of what was due, and fully-employed noncustodial fathers paid closer to 100 percent of what was due. Since the creation of the federal child support enforcement program which forces higher payments through expensive government payment systems, the figure previously at 70 percent has dropped to 67 percent. The primary reason for non-payment is that noncustodial parents are not able to pay as much as they have been ordered to pay. And some of the money that is currently paid gets lost in the new system.

The WRAL report begins with an overwhelming statement on the work load of case worker Lewis Jackson. "The Wake County Child Support employee is responsible for nearly 600 cases." What they don't say is that most payments are made voluntarily. No effort is required. When reminders and late notices are needed, they are automatically generated by computer and mailed without any effort being made by a case worker.

"Last year, Wake County collected more than $26 million in child support. Though that is a lot of cash, consider that more than 200,000 parents in the state owe more than $1 billion in payments." What they don't say is that the all payments made through the system, regardless of whether or not a parent has ever been late, are labeled "collections." $26 million in child support was paid in Wake County last year. What they also don't say is that it took more than a quarter century to accumulate the $1 billion arrearage figure. This is not, what might seem to be implied, the amount owed but not paid last year. Not subtracted from the figure are amounts paid off in subsequent years, in other states after parents have moved, settled through legal process, or that should be written off because noncustodial parents have long-since died, become disabled, or are otherwise unable to provide.

"According to Child Support managers, more staff is needed to deal with the problem. But that is not part of Wake County's budget proposal for the coming year." Given that there is no justification for the staff already on hand, and certainly none in an honest view of child support statistics, let's see how moved you are by the example.

"Beth Christo, whose ex-husband owes her nearly $20,000 for the support of their two children, said well-intentioned but overburdened case managers have given her the runaround for three years." "You go to Wake County, and they want to help you, but they just don't have the resources to do it," Christo said. "I have lost my car. I have moved my children twice. There are times when I don't know if I'm going to make it to pay day."

I don't know about you, but that makes me feel sad. What Beth apparently doesn't know is that most of the "collections" process simply involves waiting until a bloke can pay something. Sometimes payments are much more greatly delayed because threats connected to unreasonably high orders create psychological aversion to staying in contact with the system which in most cases is now the only legitimate point of payment. What to do? Let's look at the suggestion.

"Wake County Child Support Director Lillian Overton asked for 17 permanent positions in the next county budget. The request was denied by Wake County Human Services."

There is no word on why Beth's ex-husband is behind, but if he's typical, it's because he can't pay what has been ordered. Putting more workers on the government payroll won't help unless he's one of the people hired; perhaps providing the income he needs to make payments. I really have no personal knowledge regarding Beth's situation, but there are many noncustodial parents who can't make the payments they've been ordered to make. It is a fundamental consideration in setting child support amounts properly, that the amounts are based on what parents are able to provide. When circumstances change, such as loss of employment, timely adjustments need to be made to the amounts they are ordered to pay, so that uncollectable debts don't pile up – as they do now – giving the impression that more collection agents are needed. Custodial parents need to adjust their budgets and spending habits just like married couples and single adults would under similar circumstances. Just because a mother is divorced, doesn't guarantee a particular standard of living.

The lobbying effort is aimed at Wake County Manager David Cooke who presents budget requests to the county commission on May 17 subject to a final vote in mid-June. What should concern Wake County residents as well as people throughout the country, is the extent to which child support program employees misrepresent the status, benefit, and needs of their program. It is extremely unethical for government workers to mislead the public, and quite strange just that child support program employees are allowed to participate in lobbying activities as part of their official duties. Nothing lies within the ethical box except to accurately report as required. What really needs to be examined is whether program managers are violating ethical practice standards to such a degree that it is inappropriate to allow them to continue to hold positions of responsibility.

Roger F. Gay



Roger F. Gay is a professional analyst, international correspondent and regular contributor to MensNewsDaily.com, as well as a contributing editor for Fathering Magazine.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: North Carolina
KEYWORDS: cowardinsweden; deadbeatdad; scam
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-73 next last
To: cyborg
And furthermore, the notion that if the Father loses his job he gets to put off child support is very counterproductive and dangerous. If you were the head of the household in an intact family you would do anything to make sure that family was taken care of. When you're not physically there doesn't give you the right to lay back and give up your responsibility. It isn't right. If you're making just enough to get by and pay your child support, and then you get laid off and get unemployment, (which would just enable you to get by,+) there'd be no incentive to work, would there? You'd be making the same amount to support yourself. Granted, support should be relative to how much the earner makes, not what the custodial parent needs or thinks they need. It's a touchy subject, but I don't think this is the right road to go down.
21 posted on 04/24/2004 1:08:15 PM PDT by Hildy (A kiss is the unborn child knocking at the door.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Hildy
I don't think it's the right road either. Oh well... I think people really need to take marriage more seriously and people should get better premarital counseling. It sounds simplistic yes, but something needs to be done before these problems start.
22 posted on 04/24/2004 1:18:35 PM PDT by cyborg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: RogerFGay
Furthermore, if the wife is receiving child support, she should be required to show the court that it went to support the child.

The current system is heavily in favor of women, to put it mildly.
23 posted on 04/24/2004 1:23:44 PM PDT by clyde asbury
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RogerFGay
tom leykis has been providing radio time on this issue.

i'll bet the rad feminists hate his guts!
24 posted on 04/24/2004 1:55:13 PM PDT by no_problema
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RogerFGay; hellinahandcart; Lil'freeper; big'ol_freeper
"Christo said. "I have lost my car. I have moved my children twice. There are times when I don't know if I'm going to make it to pay day."

Well Beth honey, it is a usual occurrence for me to not "know if I'm going to make it to pay day." I supposedly make "good money" too. Especially since the more than $1000/month that I am paying in "voluntary" child support (my wages are garnished for it even though I was never late with it) is not counted as "income" for the ex-wife. That $1000/month is after-tax income that I get to provide "voluntarily."

Also, there is no tax break for me for this other than the opportunity to claim one of my two children as a tax dependent.

Sorry, honey, I have NO sympathy for you.

Roger, thanks for doing what you do.

25 posted on 04/24/2004 2:58:24 PM PDT by sauropod ("How do you know he's a King?" "Because he doesn't have sh!t all over him.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cyborg
Methinks you need to walk a mile in my moccasins, Renee.
26 posted on 04/24/2004 3:00:25 PM PDT by sauropod ("How do you know he's a King?" "Because he doesn't have sh!t all over him.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ladyjane
"The custodial parent frequently suffers because they see their child doing without."

Neither my kids nor my ex are "doing without."

They have a much higher standard of living than I do.

27 posted on 04/24/2004 3:02:10 PM PDT by sauropod ("How do you know he's a King?" "Because he doesn't have sh!t all over him.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: sauropod
You err in your thinking with all due respect.
28 posted on 04/24/2004 3:05:04 PM PDT by cyborg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Hildy
"And furthermore, the notion that if the Father loses his job he gets to put off child support is very counterproductive and dangerous. If you were the head of the household in an intact family you would do anything to make sure that family was taken care of. When you're not physically there doesn't give you the right to lay back and give up your responsibility. It isn't right. If you're making just enough to get by and pay your child support, and then you get laid off and get unemployment, (which would just enable you to get by,+) there'd be no incentive to work, would there? You'd be making the same amount to support yourself. Granted, support should be relative to how much the earner makes, not what the custodial parent needs or thinks they need. It's a touchy subject, but I don't think this is the right road to go down."

You are wrong. Child support has no basis in reality. At least not in my case.

29 posted on 04/24/2004 3:07:21 PM PDT by sauropod ("How do you know he's a King?" "Because he doesn't have sh!t all over him.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: DeaconBenjamin
With all due respect, BS!

In Minnesota where I live, either parent can request a hearing to adjust the amount of child support every two years.

Both times that I have changed jobs my ex has promptly caused me to waste a vacation day sitting through a court hearing in which it was decided that I should pay more support.

It works in reverse also, though. When I quit a job I was fed up with and went to school for a couple years, my income, needless to say, decreased. I requested a hearing and the judge lowered my support to an amount I could afford to pay. But, as I mentioned before, my ex made sure it was adjusted right back up again (even higher) the very day that she was legally able.
30 posted on 04/24/2004 3:10:21 PM PDT by NorthWoody (Hey, politicians! Stand up, be men, do your jobs and close the borders while there's still time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Gabz
Really? I don't know any women that pay child support.
31 posted on 04/24/2004 3:10:45 PM PDT by SC Swamp Fox (Aim small, miss small.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: cyborg
"Oh well... I think people really need to take marriage more seriously and people should get better premarital counseling."

Been there, done that, didn't help.

32 posted on 04/24/2004 3:35:42 PM PDT by sauropod ("How do you know he's a King?" "Because he doesn't have sh!t all over him.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: cyborg
No ma'am. It is not me who is erring....
33 posted on 04/24/2004 3:36:21 PM PDT by sauropod ("How do you know he's a King?" "Because he doesn't have sh!t all over him.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: sauropod
I'm talking about men who want the benefits of a warm place to put it but not taking care of the results (children). So exactly where am I erring in talking about men taking responsiblity?
34 posted on 04/24/2004 3:37:55 PM PDT by cyborg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: cyborg
Here. From your post #6.

"I'm amazed at people men AND women (because I know one or two who pay) who complain about child support."

35 posted on 04/24/2004 3:40:13 PM PDT by sauropod ("How do you know he's a King?" "Because he doesn't have sh!t all over him.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: cyborg
I agree with your post #34, btw.
36 posted on 04/24/2004 3:42:36 PM PDT by sauropod ("How do you know he's a King?" "Because he doesn't have sh!t all over him.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: sauropod
Complain about paying...I meet too many people who DON'T want to take care of the children that they make. They rather push their kids on the government. They work jobs off the books,etc. and they don't give any money to take care of their children.
37 posted on 04/24/2004 3:43:42 PM PDT by cyborg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: sauropod
Those are the people I'm talking about, not guys getting the shaft from the ex-wife :( I should have made that abundantly clear in the beginning.
38 posted on 04/24/2004 3:45:04 PM PDT by cyborg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: GWB and GOP Man
ping.
39 posted on 04/24/2004 3:47:28 PM PDT by floriduh voter (www.conservative-spirit.org/ GOP HELP TERRI or Constitution Party Here I Come)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: cyborg; RogerFGay
I'm ok with paying a reasonable amount that is based on reality, that is based on the real incomes and assets of the two people involved.

I am paying what is (IMO) an unreasonable amount. My ex's standard of living went way up. Mine went way down.

If you are male, the State assumes you to be a deadbeat dad. It doesn't matter what has been done previous to the State being involved. My wages were garnished even though there was no reason for them to be. That's my State law.

Also, to the poster that said that Child Support levels are not adjusted over the years and that it was wrong that they weren't, I would say that since they are so unreasonable in the first place, i have no sympathy for this view.

It would also help if the Special Master would look at the financial evidence before rendering a decision.

The Special Master in my case didn't do her job. My lawyer advised against appeal.

40 posted on 04/24/2004 3:50:52 PM PDT by sauropod ("How do you know he's a King?" "Because he doesn't have sh!t all over him.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-73 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson