Man Dying of Child Support Enforcement

The child support enforcement program is a disease that has probably caused more suffering and death than any other government program. It was introduced by Congress in 1975 and has been engineered into a weapon of mass destruction in the years since. Despite sound evidence of destructive economic, social, and political effects and repeated cases of suicide linked to insufferable conditions created by current practices, politicians and administrative representatives continue to satisfy themselves with less than convincing denials, a few false and misleading statistics, and the claim that "it's for the children."

Various protests have generally been ignored, even when they are so serious as to cause harm to protesters. Potential danger lies in a particular form of protest: the hunger strike. The problems with child support enforcement, which were internationalized during the 1990s, have been met with occasional hunger strikes in several countries. Daniel Chang, a Chinese immigrant, has been the most recent to stage a hunger strike in the United States. His strike began on May 15th in Piscataway, New Jersey. Dr. Chang holds a Ph.D. in computer science and has a professional job. Despite federal involvement based on a pre-existing federal involvement in welfare, this case has nothing to do with the public welfare system.

The federal child support enforcement program is not for the children of course. The money spent on children is just as green whether paid under state rules or through a federal program. The incentive is the billions of dollars that Congress spends each year to keep people interested. States receive "incentive funds" in proportion to the amount of child support collected. In order to maximize the amount of funds they receive, states enrolled as many men as they could and arbitrarily increased the amount they were ordered to pay. All payments are counted as "collections." Everybody in government understands the scheme. It's pork. It's a brand of corruption older than government itself. A prospective enemy was demonized ("dads"), and people were called to arms against them; pledging their money and loyalty to the cause.

My early introduction to the child support enforcement system included a case in which a chiropractor had been involved in a serious auto-accident that resulted in brain damage. He was unable to continue his practice, and his savings was eaten up by medical bills. The state enforcement agency echoed the prevailing political sentiment ? "There is no excuse for not paying child support," and began confiscating social security benefits in an effort to satisfy the very high payments that had been set in light of his previously high income. The crippled man was left without sufficient income to pay for rent and food, and certainly without sufficient funds to pay a lawyer to attempt to straighten things out.

The reason for such harsh measures is the federal funding system. States receive money in proportion to the amount of child support "collected." Taking away social security benefits may have been worth $10 a month to the state; a little bit toward paying the salary of the collection agent who was robbing him of his sustenance.

This is the system that Dr. Chang is fighting. It isn't about reducing welfare expenditure. The money he owed is for support of his daughter from his first marriage. She is now 20 years old (an adult) and studying pharmacy at Rutgers University. He also has a 12 year old daughter from his second marriage. A well-paid professional, the austerity of his home and lifestyle is testimony to payment levels that are out of proportion to caring for children. Someone in his economic position would normally be able to raise two children in reasonably good style.

That judges have become beneficiaries in the enforcement scheme, pay linked to outcome, is a direct attack on judicial independence and therefore our Constitution ? in effect, an attack against the United States. American colonists raised this same issue in the Declaration of Independence; complaining about the King of Great Britain and his manipulations of democracy and the rule of law. "He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries."

Dr. Chang has only protested once before. In June, 1989 he marched with others in New York City to protest the killing of peaceful protesting students and others by the Chinese government. The only pattern seems to be a loathing of government oppression. And this time it's personal. He has been jailed three times (once for 108 days) and has no drivers license due to child support debt. This represents two of the practices fathers so often complain about. Atop arbitrary, unjustifiably high child support orders, often the reason for debt to begin with, spending time in jail and being unable to drive make earning an income to pay child support (and support oneself) ever so much harder. The alleged success of such practices is really a few instances in which friends and family, who do not owe child support, have pitched in to pay debts. That led at least one judge to claim that the practices worked for him. By and large, the expanded practice has left tens of thousands of fathers without licenses and an untold number with unlimited jail time; often until debt is paid, with no way to pay the debt while in jail.

Dr. Chang's experience is one that has been repeated many times across the country over the past fifteen years. Sheriff's deputies literally kicked in the door to his apartment and arrested him at gunpoint - weeks after he had made necessary payments. Employees at the Middlesex County Child Support Department had refused to help weeks earlier after his employer had missed a child support payment and miscalculated another. His employer is charged with making payments after deducting them from his pay, a common practice since the early 1990s. Dr. Chang points out that his employer is generally cooperative with the agency, but had made errors after an end-of-year payroll conversion. He contacted the child support agency and sent the money himself, but that didn't stop the violent enforcement action weeks later.

Give me liberty, or give me death! Or as Dr. Chang puts it: "It is better to die once than live a thousand humiliations." Isn't this just the sort of thing that led to the American Revolution? Is it the kind of government behavior that led to student protests in Tienanmen Square? It's probably deeper than that.

The assault on a man's life typically begins with a mother who decides to "liberate" herself from marriage, simply dealing a father out of his own personal and family life. The process is exceptionally easy. The government has been dedicated to helping women "liberate" themselves from marriage for decades. Once extricated, women often move on to new relationships, taking his children, a portion of his property and future income with them. The engineering of a new life quite often involves keeping the old one (the ex-husband) at an extreme distance, totally disengaged from his own children.

The process and its effects involve the deepest emotions there are. But to that we have now added a government operation designed by people who are using the situation to steal. They're stealing money from these very same fathers, often making mere existence difficult. They are doing it in order to steal money from taxpayers who are paying for the system in proportion to the amount of money taken from fathers. Finally, as if that isn't enough, they're stealing freedom and even life.

Dr. Chang hopes to force a conclusion to his ordeal within one month of the start of his protest. If he can, he will eat again and return to work. He has two weeks vacation and has arranged for a two week extension. This defines his goal of ? in effect ? winning an argument within a month. His water and salt diet is dangerous, especially if it continues for long. Several people have met with him, and have encouraged him to stay alive. When he began his strike on May 15th, he weighed 166 pounds. When I last received an email message from him, May 28th, his weight was 16 pounds less - 150 pounds.

Dr. Chang has vowed to continue until his demands are met. They are as follows (in his own words).

1. I do not owe any money to ex-wife Yee-Sang Yen. 2. If I have a job, fair monthly support money will be sent to the child, Olivia Chang, directly without going through any child support department. 3. The Middlesex Child Support Department repairs the damage it caused to my credit, and informs the Motor Vehicle Services to erase all my driving suspensions and restore my driving privilege immediately. 4. The Middlesex Child Support Department reimburses me the following: $282 for restoring my driving licenses, the cost of repairing the door damaged by the sheriffs, $280 taken from my wallet, $20 for getting from the Middlesex County Court to home.

Thank you so much for that reply. I have been flamed for even saying things approaching it.

It is a problem. I did not pick 30% out of the blue. A blood test study did. I was shocked. I was even more shocked when I found that most states only allow a challenge to paternity within a certain time period, even if the fraud was committed on the named father.

Immagine a horrendous divorce, wife gets kids and child support and immediately marries or shacks up with the guy she's been cuckholding. Guy discovers that the kids are really her new boyfriend's, just made during their marriage.

Destroyed, shocked, humiliated, and now he finds out that the kids are legally his, because the law says even if you know they are not your children, children concieved during marriage are legally those of the married couple. If you don't make a timely challenge, the psuedo father is humiliated once again.

He gets nothing. He's not the father in manner or deed. The only thing he gets is the title of cuckhold and bill payer. What a prospect?

This is not a good system, not fair, not equitable, and not moral.

That's why some of the good guys are pissed.

Don't ask them for more.

DK

Just wanted to personally tell you that you are most definitely not in the definition of deadbeat and I apologize if I offended you. I define a deadbeat as someone who has no regard for their children, either physically, emotionally, or financially. This would obviously include any mothers who don't do the right thing, not just fathers, and not just on the money issue. I have no interest in doing the serious stats like you urged, I have plenty of personal experience in this area, thus the comments earlier. I know lots of divorced moms with similar experiences. I wish our situations weren't the norm, but it certainly seems that way. I know good dads exist, but I can only think of two that I know personally. That says a lot. I don't think I could stomach researching something that hits so close to home. I don't know how your situation ended up the way it was, but it's just more proof that the Family Court system works for no one. Least of all the children. That's why I tell all of my married friends to avoid getting divorced AT ALL COSTS, it's worse for everyone than they could ever imagine.

It is a charged issue without a doubt and everyone who has had any experience with it is going to have a strong reaction. Actually, that situation you described could work the other way as well. Hear me out. This is a situation I was very close to. The girl gets pregnant. The boy is a complete loser and troublemaker. Girl dumps boy. Gets new boyfriend. New boyfriend is a good guy. They want to get married. He wants to be the baby's dad. He is willing to make that commitment. If they marry before the baby is born, the law protects him as the rightful father by his simple declaration of paternity. They don't get married though, until after the baby is born. He still files a declaration of paternity and gives the baby his name. A few months later, useless sperm donor shows up and wants to make trouble. He has no real desire to be a part of the child's life or to support the child. It is more like, "if I can't be in control, neither can you." Baby gets caught in the middle and it's a real mess.

Okay, I realize that perhaps that's the exception, but I throw it out there just to point out that these issues are rarely ever black and white.

I have no objections to anyone that wants to take on that role without fraud. But the Adam Henry (AH for the radio challenged) is still the father.

Adoption is the proper route for a non father to gain parental rights. I know a guy whose wife was really trying to get him to adopt her kids, right prior to their divorce. So a guy has got to be really careful on these issues.

The other ways are just to easy to use for fraudelent purposes.

DK

You know that jerks like that make threads like this hard to discuss rationally!!!

"perhaps someone should look into exactly why so many women feel that they are unfulfilled."

Perhaps I'm oversimplifying here, but I suspect that it is because they have been indoctrinated from Sesame Street on that women must have all, be all, do all and that being fulfilled by a husband and children is an antiquated notion. Just like the unrealistic body image that is projected by media, the image of a "fulfilled" woman that is portrayed by media, feminists, and even "educators" is not only unrealistic, but, in most cases, downright false, and yet if something is so prevalent it must the truth, right?

Oh yeah women who file for divorce file for absolutely no good reason. They're all trying to bankrupt the ex because they're gold diggers. Yeah right!

Nowhere have I said that all women are always at fault. Nor did the article imply any such thing. So, for the record, my belief is that in most cases both parties share blame, although usually not equally. I don't think there is any justification for placing blame predomininantly on persons of either gender. In fact, that's my problem with the current system: men are presumed guilty unless they can show the woman is a real loser.

If you don't want to take the risk. Don't marry don't have children. Nothing in life is risk free.

Actually, I have never married and have no children. And I doubt I ever will, given the way things are in this society. Risk is one thing. Risks unfairly placed on the innocent is another.

I don't think men understand what it's like to be a female. If men think they have it hard. Women have it 10 times harder.

Two wrongs don't make a right. It's morally wrong to try to compensate for whatever wrongs and indignities that women may suffer by blindly hurting innocent men. Only individuals have guilt or innocence. Only individuals have rights and responsibilities. It's the socialists who think otherwise.

"Sounds to me like you think the man has no choice. He is ruled by his hormones and therefore cannot make a choice. That is BS.
It may not be an easy choice, but if a man wants to avoid responsibility for unwanted children then he needs to make the choice to
keep it in his pants. And the best part, it is 100% fool proof."

Ever thought about keeping your gash covered. Your zipper should work just like mine. Part A cannot meet part B without your acceptance. Take some responsibility for your lack of zipper action and then allow us guys to take responsibility. Most of the guys I know would raise that kid once you pop them out.

I'm a year older than you, never married. I'm a recently retired Navy Officer, who thanks his stars every day that I did not settle down. If you are open to advice, I would first advise that you NOT write your wife a note. I have watched a few men do this, only to have it returned with Divorce filing papers when we were out at sea and there was nothing they could do about it.

If you want to eventually have a life, you are going to have to wait until your soby any mond 21 years of age to do so. You must avoid the courts by any means nessesary, except of course killing your wife. What you need to do, is mentally divorce yourself from the situation and do NOTHING to exascerbate things.

I would strongly suggest you take up Golf, or something that can keep you out of the house for long periods of time. Avoid sex with your wife, as it can be used against you in ways you cannot even imagine. Believe me; after living half of my life on Carriers, I have heard everything.

Even if your wife were to have an affair, you can do nothing. Just separate yourself mentally, and bide your time, until your son is gone from the home. Alimony is much more reasonable with grown, independant children, even if your wife doesn't work.

Women are not stupid; you cannot do anything that a lawyer could use against you down the road. Play a role of loving husband and father, dont complain about anything. Once you get into the court system, you can kiss your ass goodbye; even if you think it's worth it. Nothing is sadder than seeing a tough fighter jock reduced to tears in the ready room upon reading that his wife's boyfriend has moved into his home, and he has nowhere to come back to.

Keep the conversation to a minimum, smile, and wait a few years to make your move. With a minor child in your home, your wife can legally make the rest of your life a living hell. Good luck.

Oh yeah women who file for divorce file for absolutely no good reason. They're all trying to bankrupt the ex because they're gold diggers. Yeah right!

The facts of life are that women initiate 90% of divorces, of the 50% of marriages that end in divorce. Shall we assume that in 90% of cases the man is an evil beast, or shall we assume that, with the deck stacked against the male so much, the woman HAS NO INCENTIVE to work to make the marriage work?

I agree that adoption is the best route, but in the situation that I mentioned, when sperm donor showed up he was determined NOT to allow that, although he himself wanted no part of the responsibility. This was several years ago and the battle is still going on and sperm donor has not contributed one penny to child's support while the "dad" has spared no expense to parent this child.

There are often so many variables with these issues and every case is unique. Sadly, our country has become overrun with people without conscience run amuck, and unfortunately they are breeding. There is a reason that God's law reserves sex for marriage. It isn't to spoil our fun; it is to protect the hearts of those involved. It is to allow us to be free to be the best that we can be. It is to provide a garden in which individuals can grow and thrive. Without that, lives are in a constant state of limbo. There is no stability in the relationship between man and woman or between parent and child nor is there security for either. I fear it will get worse before it gets better.

In my instance, the wife is a totally different person than the one I married. We've been married for 17 years, and my son (biological) is 15. I've basically hung in there the last few years for his sake. I have a great relationship with him, but not her. I've been weighing whether or not to leave, but for my son's sake, I've stayed. ... So, I'm 43 and looking at being miserable the rest of my life under the current situation.

Your son is 15. On his 18th birthday, you and he move out, and file for divorce. No child support, since he's an adult living with you. You'll be 46, which is not that old. Hang in there!

Outside of the institution of marrage, men who are legally banned from the decision of wheather a woman gives birth to HIS unborn offspring, should not have to pay for HER decision. Many women get pregant have a baby, and WALK AWAY FROM THEIR PARENTAL RESPONSABILITY by dumping the child at a hospital, or by giving the baby up for adoption. Therefore , outside of the marrage contract, men who don't get a say, shoud'nt have to pay.

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.