Posted on 03/27/2008 3:39:44 PM PDT by PercivalWalks
By Jeffery M. Leving and Glenn Sacks
Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley and LA County Child Support Services Department Director Steven Golightly recently announced a sweeping new campaign against so-called “deadbeat dads.” They say their new “Most Wanted Delinquent Parent” list is modeled on the FBI's fabled “10 Most Wanted” list. On paper the 10 offenders owe over $2 million, but it’s very questionable that Cooley & Golightly will be collecting much--according to the California Judicial Council, 80% of California child support debtors earn poverty level wages.
Golightly’s action is particularly remarkable considering that the California Department of Child Support Services, which supervises the LACCSSD, issued a report in January which contradicts any possible rationale for this campaign.
According to the CDCSS, there are four primary factors creating child support arrearages in California: “high child support orders established for low-income obligors”; “a limited number of child support orders adjusted downward"; “establishment of retroactive child support orders”; and “accrual of 10 percent interest on child support debt.” Over a quarter of these arrears is interest.
The report was based on a study CDCSS contracted from the Urban Institute. According to the study, “assuming every effort was made to increase child support collections and reduce future arrears…only a quarter of the existing debt is collectible.”
The study found that California is particularly prone to turning dads into “deadbeats”—California arrearages are piling up “much faster” than those in the rest of the country. With only 12% of the US’ population, California’s arrearages represent 20% of the nation’s whole.
Unlike the “Most Wanted Deadbeat Parent” lists put out by most states and counties, the LACCSSD’s list does not contain the occupations of the “deadbeats.” One can understand why. Nationwide these lists are never comprised of well-heeled businessmen, lawyers, and accountants, but instead of fathers who do low wage and often seasonal work, and owe large sums of money which they could never hope to pay off. It is rare to find a person with even a college degree on these lists.
In recent years there have been several highly-publicized actions similar to LACCSSD’s, generally coupled with arrests. For example, last year Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott released the Texas “Top 10 Most Wanted Child Support Evaders.” Yet by Abbott’s own description, the Top 10 consisted of three general laborers, three construction laborers, a landscaper, a salesman, and two tradesmen.
Virginia’s “Most Wanted” list was topped by a laborer, a carnival hired hand, and a construction worker, who collectively somehow owed over a quarter million dollars in child support. Similarly, Kentucky’s list during its campaign sported only one obligor with an education, and the most common designation for occupation was "laborer." Near the top of Arizona’s list during its campaign was a maintenance man who owed $90,223 and a roofer who owed $240,581.
How do men of such modest means end up with such fantastic arrearages? The child support system is largely impervious to the economic realities working people face, such as layoffs, wage cuts, unemployment, and work-related injuries. According to the Urban Institute, less than one in 20 non-custodial parents who suffers a substantial drop in income is able to get courts to reduce the support obligation.
To Cooley’s and Golightly’s credit, they did explain that some of the “deadbeats” they’re pursuing may be able to use California’s Compromise of Arrears Program. COAP allows some obligors to settle their artificially-inflated paper debts to the state for realistic amounts.
The problem is there has been little outreach done on COAP, so few obligors are aware of it. Less than 5,000 have used it since its inception in 2003. Moreover, it’s unlikely that those on the list will view the “Most Wanted” approach as much of an invitation to turn themselves in.
Golightly says he’s doing this so the “deadbeats” will “take care of their children.” This is misleading, because 70% of California’s child support debt is owed to the state, not to custodial parents.
It is understandable that taxpayers want money spent on welfare benefits to be repaid. Yet it makes little sense to hound low-income fathers, particularly since research shows that in some cases, were it not for child support, the men would still be playing a role in their children’s lives.
The Cooley/Golightly approach may be good politics, but it’s counterproductive policy.
This article first appeared in the Los Angeles Daily News (3/26/08) and the Daily Breeze [Los Angeles] (3/27/08).
Jeffery M. Leving is one of America's most prominent family law attorneys and the author of the book Divorce Wars. His website is www.dadsrights.com.
Glenn Sacks’ columns on men's and fathers' issues have appeared in dozens of the largest newspapers in the United States. He invites readers to visit his website at www.GlennSacks.com.
[Note: If you or someone you love is faced with a divorce or needs help with child custody, child support, false accusations, Parental Alienation, or other family law or criminal law matters, ask Glenn for help by clicking here.]
the revenge of the Bitch State.
I work with a guy who got back together with his ex. He has CS taken out of his check every week. They want to stop it but she would have to take him back to court. It would cost them over a hundred dollars to have him served with papers so they could set up a court date to get the judge to stop the money from being taken out of his check.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Society is going to wake up some day and realize how badly the non-custodial parents are treated in this nation. Here’s to hoping it doesn’t take too many more decades.
Government is painfully insufficient at mandating personal responsibility if it doesn’t come from within.
For some reason this reminds me of the lyrics to Gold Digger
>>18 years, 18 years
She got one of yo’ kids, got you for 18 years
I know somebody payin’ child support for one of his kids
His baby momma’s car crib is bigger than his
You will see him on TV, any given Sunday
Win the Superbowl and drive off in a Hyundai
She was supposed to buy ya shorty Tyco with ya money
She went to the doctor got lipo with ya money
She walkin’ around lookin’ like Michael with ya money
Shoulda’ got that insured, GEICO for ya moneeey(your money)
If you ain’t no punk holla’ we want pre-nup
WE WANT PRE-NUP!, yeah
It’s something that you need to have
‘Cause when she leave yo’ ass she gon’ leave with half
18 years, 18 years
And on her 18th birthday, he found out it wasn’t his?<<
The refrain is
>>Now I ain’t sayin’ she a gold digger
But she ain’t messin’ wit no broke ******* <<
So we'll confiscate more taxpayer funds to take care of you.
Here is the money quote.
I think if they did a little research, they could do this on their own with a few fees to have the affadavit of service notarized. You do not have to pay for official service if the other party is willing to be served.
Back in WA, we had a “Department of Support Enforcement”. Wonder why we never had a “Department of Visitation Enforcement.”
He checked with the court and the lawyers involved. He has to be served and subpoenaed to court. It's the law in CT.
Obviously something is wrong with the system.
For the past 7 months, I've been fortunate (yes, that was sarcasm) to watch this particular ugly part of our court system. Once a month, I've gone in to observe what is referred to as "Contempt Fridays"
This month there were only 49 cases on the Friday I observed- the previous month there were 73.
Out of those people there was ONE woman who was behind on her child support. In all fairness she hadn't gone back for a modification while she had custody at one point. her fault, but still not a deadbeat.
More than 70% of those men had quit a job once Child Support had caught up to them and started garnishing. There were truly a couple of hard luck stories - but mostly, it was men who just simply didn't want to make a priority to pay for their child.
One that went to jail for 30 days, had been working under the table to support a new wife and child, but hadn't paid anything to his first daughter in over 2 years. TWO YEARS!
If you can afford groceries, and clothes, and gas for your car, you can afford to pay something/anything towards child support.
Other examples were the day laborers who were no longer working because construction is low - BUT he was getting unemployment and working for cash for his uncle. There was the man who owed 175,000 in past child support - the least amount was $7,000 in arrears.
There is no such thing as buyer's remorse when it comes to children, and there is NO reason to not support a child. If you can't afford it on your salary, get a second job, or a third one - no excuse for not taking care of your kid.
I'm cranky. I think I need a break.
It was that way for my folks. When they divorced we first lived with my mom and my dad had child support taken out through Friend of the Court. I moved back in with my dad, then so did my brother but instead of going through all the hassle of changing things, when the check came to my mom she signed it back over to my dad. They (FOTC) make life far harder than it needs to be.
I agree - but it sure takes a long time to get them there, and once they are the whole thing starts from scratch again.
Yeah, the courts and lawyers tell you that, that’s their livelihood. It can be done, although the learning curve can be steep for someone who thinks it makes financial sense to continue have his income dinged by the state because it cost a hundred bucks to do the paper work.
>>Hey, Johnny, your fathers a “deadbeat” because he can’t afford to pay his rent and give your mother 30% of his gross.<<
Yes but... there is something about personal responsibility to the child
And distortions thereof. I do believe the point is left unmade to some; probably will remain that way.
Assuming that a mother is paying her own mortgage/rent and utilities, what do you think is then a fair amount for the father to kick in?
How the hell should I know? Is this some sideways attempt to make a point?
Does some beaurocrat know? Is it the beaurocrat's business to begin with?
You go figure it out -- oh, wait, I'm sure you already have: "If it's The Law, it must be right, dammit."
ROTFL. You're the one who came up with the 30% Einstein. Now you're not sure?
You know, it's scary sometime what grown-ups think passes for logic.
Let's go over yours.
You presented a hypothetical situation and asked me what I would propose. The only right answer is, "How the hell do I know?" Do you?
Of course you don't.
Now, I made a remark, more like a one-line play, to prove a point. It was a complete artifice. I said "Johnny, your dad's a deadbeat because he cannot afford to pay his rent and give your mother 30% of his gross."
There are several points being made in this line, but I regret that you demonstrate they are buried too deeply for you to get. My condolensces.
In the mean time, the 30% comes right out of the Child Support Guidelines for a certain state, for a certain size family; and is probably right in the ballpark for most states.
But, look, these are too many facts for you. Let me try your approach to reasoning: I'll turn it into a question for you: Could you support yourself on 67% of your gross? Remember, you still have to pay taxes on 100% of it.
I don't really want to know the answer, so there's no need to reply to me.
Yes you did and you made it clear that you thought that was too much money. So I then gave you the hypothetical of the mother paying her own mortgage and utilities and asked you what you then would think was fair for the dad to kick in. Given that you are apparently so familiar with the Child Support Guidelines, why is that such a difficult question for you to answer? Come on, just ballpark me. You can do it.
>>the revenge of the Bitch State.<<
Precicely. A young man is a fool to marry in the US, unless he is impotent, AND refuses to adapt children.
And I have three twenty-something daughters.
>>So we’ll confiscate more taxpayer funds to take care of you.<<
I tend to agree. Once the state, via the power of the gun, removes a man from his children’s household, they assume his responsibility to support them.
And if there was cause to separate him from his children, he should be in prison for that cause, whatever it may be.
Our easy divorce system is creating a class of indentured slaves and “virtual” orphans - wards of the state.
>>...and there is NO reason to not support a child. If you can’t afford it on your salary, get a second job, or a third one - no excuse for not taking care of your kid.<<
Once the state removes the child from under my roof, it is no longer mine. They took it, they can support it. It happened to me. Almost all the money I paid for support ($2600 a month) went to my ex’s savings while I kept buying kids clothing and going to their plays and parent teacher conferences. If I could do it over again, I would leave the country with no forwarding address to ANYONE.
I am a sleeper. This happened to me over a decade ago and thank God my youngest was ten at the time! Funny thing is that my anger is not at my ex that did all this terrible stuff. It is at the state that enabled her.
>>It was that way for my folks. When they divorced we first lived with my mom and my dad had child support taken out through Friend of the Court. I moved back in with my dad, then so did my brother but instead of going through all the hassle of changing things, when the check came to my mom she signed it back over to my dad. They (FOTC) make life far harder than it needs to be.<<
That’s amazing. Similar thing happened to me but when I stopped paying support when the my oldest moved back in with me, she came to my place screaming that she should still be getting the support. I’ll never forget her waving the original court order in my face right in front of her daughter. The court sided with me. In the end I even got my youngest “back” but I had to go to court to get her. The ex’s attorney embarrassed herself in front of the judge while I sat back calmly observing. She had a strong Hillary style. Seriously.
>>Assuming that a mother is paying her own mortgage/rent and utilities, what do you think is then a fair amount for the father to kick in?<<
If the father was removed against his will from his children, nothing. The state assumed responsibility when it forcibly separated him from his children.
What if it was an agreed upon divorce?
It speaks volumes of your character that you would want to just leave your kids if you had it to do over again.
People that actually know me think my character is just fine, thank you.
I consider this an actual war, you see. In war there are casualties.
Oh, and this war has definitely been lost. That is, there is no turning back for our country. It will be too little too late. I WILL be expatriating.
It is oddly funny really. I am, right now, trying to put together a band where my three daughters are the front singers (they are all disgustingly good singers, very attractive and in their 20’s) but there is a weirdness in our relationships because their narcissistic mother, empowered by the state, destroyed our family. They are more like nieces than daughters. I see myself more as a favorite uncle than a father.
The United States stripped my children from me without cause. And that speaks volumes about this country's character.
And I will never forget.
You bear no responsibility for marrying this mother? It’s just easier to blame the evil women than looking at your own choices and what choices you made in your marriage partner.
The law is tilted toward the woman in the system. A father with custody has to prove he actually has the kids.
I tried to take my grandson to the ER once. I had a permission note from my son. I was repeatedly asked about the child's mother, where was she, why don't you have a note from her. I finally had to explain “She's in prison, you sambas!”. I was trying to be delicate about the situation in front of a 3 year old.
Now the second part of my rant. I've known many men who have custody of their kids. Not a one got any child support. The majority of the mothers paid no support. Mostly because the reasons they didn't have their kids made them incapable of holding down any kind job. Or they just got knocked up again and went on welfare. Now I don't hear much about deadbeat moms.
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.