Andre Lieven
03-16-2004, 08:50 AM
http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2004/0310roberts.
html
The Follies of Child Support: Dead-Beat or Dead-Broke?
March 10, 2004, by Carey Roberts
Persons who are looking for an example of how good intentions
can turn into a nightmare should consider the case of Alexander
Shire. When Alexander was 14, he was plied with liquor and
raped by Laura Evelyn, then 21 years of age. Evelyn became
pregnant and bore a child. That was back in 1984.
When the child support commissars in Michigan recently found
out about the case, they demanded that Shire pay child support.
You may wonder how this can be, since the offspring is now full-
grown and no longer in need of "child" support. But draconian
child support laws make no provision for that. Shire would be
required to pay for all back payments, plus interest.
How could this banana-republic justice happen here in America?
Back in 1974, the Congress established the Office of Child Support
Enforcement. For years, few knew of this petty bureaucracy.
All that changed on May 4, 1992, when Newsweek magazine
depicted on its cover an affluent white man. He was framed with
a Wanted poster bearing the caption, "Deadbeat Dads: Wanted for
Failure to Pay Child Support." Almost overnight, Deadbeat Dads
became Public Enemy No. 1.
But the Newsweek picture was wrong. Instead of a well-heeled
businessman, it should have shown a guy wearing a faded T-shirt.
Color him disheveled. Call him "dead-broke."
In his acclaimed book, Divorced Dads, researcher Stanford Braver
concludes that "unemployment is the single most important factor
relating to nonpayment." And according to a study of non-paying
dads released by the Urban Institute last year, "only 1% have
recent net incomes in excess of $50,000."
So much for the two-timing executive driving off in his red
convertible with trophy girlfriend in hand.
Teresa Kaiser, former director of the Maryland child support office,
freely admitted to her audiences that support formulas are set way
too high for low-income dads. So the child support "crisis" is
actually an artifact of unrealistic payment guidelines.
But seduced by the stereotype of the dad willfully neglecting his
kids and tantalized by the prospect of reducing ballooning welfare
budgets, the child support zealots moved ahead.
First came wage garnishment in 1977. In 1980, child support agencies
were granted access to IRS wage information. Paternity
identification programs geared up in 1988.
But the early returns were not encouraging. In 1989, moms were
getting $2,252 - only $37 more than they had received in 1983.
So the Clinton administration shifted the campaign into high gear.
The 1996 Welfare Reform Act established two vast databases that made
almost every American a potential suspect for non-payment of child
support: the National Directory of New Hires and the Federal Case
Registry.
Clinton-era bureaucrats dreamed up other programs that, in
retrospect, were simply irrational. Driving licenses were revoked -
just try earning a living wage if you can't operate a car or truck.
And debtor's prison was re-instituted. As you read this article,
15,000 destitute dads are spending time behind bars. Is that where
they're supposed to get training for the jobs of the future?
Last October the Census Bureau issued its report, Custodial Mothers
and Fathers and Their Child Support: 2001. The report reveals that
from 1994 to 2002, the percentage of mothers who received child
support actually dropped, from 76.1% to 74.7%.
Thirty years and many billions of taxpayer dollars later, we must
face the truth: We have unfairly marginalized millions of poor dads
from their families, while betraying the hope and trust of struggling
moms. In the process we have infringed on the rights and privacy of
average law-abiding Americans.
In short, the American child support system has been a depressing
failure.
The case of Alexander Shire was finalized last month in the Michigan
Court of Appeals. State prosecutor Carl Marlinga successfully argued,
"At stake here is not the mother profiting from criminal wrongdoing;
what's at stake here is the child, who is entitled to an appropriately
supported upbringing regardless of how he was conceived."
That statement, notably short on compassion and reason, is the
totalitarian mindset at work. And that's what the $4 billion-a-year
child support dragnet is doing to us.
http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2004/0310roberts.
html
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.
html
The Follies of Child Support: Dead-Beat or Dead-Broke?
March 10, 2004, by Carey Roberts
Persons who are looking for an example of how good intentions
can turn into a nightmare should consider the case of Alexander
Shire. When Alexander was 14, he was plied with liquor and
raped by Laura Evelyn, then 21 years of age. Evelyn became
pregnant and bore a child. That was back in 1984.
When the child support commissars in Michigan recently found
out about the case, they demanded that Shire pay child support.
You may wonder how this can be, since the offspring is now full-
grown and no longer in need of "child" support. But draconian
child support laws make no provision for that. Shire would be
required to pay for all back payments, plus interest.
How could this banana-republic justice happen here in America?
Back in 1974, the Congress established the Office of Child Support
Enforcement. For years, few knew of this petty bureaucracy.
All that changed on May 4, 1992, when Newsweek magazine
depicted on its cover an affluent white man. He was framed with
a Wanted poster bearing the caption, "Deadbeat Dads: Wanted for
Failure to Pay Child Support." Almost overnight, Deadbeat Dads
became Public Enemy No. 1.
But the Newsweek picture was wrong. Instead of a well-heeled
businessman, it should have shown a guy wearing a faded T-shirt.
Color him disheveled. Call him "dead-broke."
In his acclaimed book, Divorced Dads, researcher Stanford Braver
concludes that "unemployment is the single most important factor
relating to nonpayment." And according to a study of non-paying
dads released by the Urban Institute last year, "only 1% have
recent net incomes in excess of $50,000."
So much for the two-timing executive driving off in his red
convertible with trophy girlfriend in hand.
Teresa Kaiser, former director of the Maryland child support office,
freely admitted to her audiences that support formulas are set way
too high for low-income dads. So the child support "crisis" is
actually an artifact of unrealistic payment guidelines.
But seduced by the stereotype of the dad willfully neglecting his
kids and tantalized by the prospect of reducing ballooning welfare
budgets, the child support zealots moved ahead.
First came wage garnishment in 1977. In 1980, child support agencies
were granted access to IRS wage information. Paternity
identification programs geared up in 1988.
But the early returns were not encouraging. In 1989, moms were
getting $2,252 - only $37 more than they had received in 1983.
So the Clinton administration shifted the campaign into high gear.
The 1996 Welfare Reform Act established two vast databases that made
almost every American a potential suspect for non-payment of child
support: the National Directory of New Hires and the Federal Case
Registry.
Clinton-era bureaucrats dreamed up other programs that, in
retrospect, were simply irrational. Driving licenses were revoked -
just try earning a living wage if you can't operate a car or truck.
And debtor's prison was re-instituted. As you read this article,
15,000 destitute dads are spending time behind bars. Is that where
they're supposed to get training for the jobs of the future?
Last October the Census Bureau issued its report, Custodial Mothers
and Fathers and Their Child Support: 2001. The report reveals that
from 1994 to 2002, the percentage of mothers who received child
support actually dropped, from 76.1% to 74.7%.
Thirty years and many billions of taxpayer dollars later, we must
face the truth: We have unfairly marginalized millions of poor dads
from their families, while betraying the hope and trust of struggling
moms. In the process we have infringed on the rights and privacy of
average law-abiding Americans.
In short, the American child support system has been a depressing
failure.
The case of Alexander Shire was finalized last month in the Michigan
Court of Appeals. State prosecutor Carl Marlinga successfully argued,
"At stake here is not the mother profiting from criminal wrongdoing;
what's at stake here is the child, who is entitled to an appropriately
supported upbringing regardless of how he was conceived."
That statement, notably short on compassion and reason, is the
totalitarian mindset at work. And that's what the $4 billion-a-year
child support dragnet is doing to us.
http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2004/0310roberts.
html
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.
