Website: cpr-mn.org Email:
As Prepared by Center for Parental Responsibility (“CPR”)
January 2004
Outline (Home)
·
Overview of the Social
Security Act
·
Government Purpose: Protect
Basic Needs
·
History of IV-D: Child
Support Enforcement and Collections
·
IV-D Welfare: Purpose and
Intent
·
Problem with current IV-D
practices and policy
·
Myth: all non-custodial
parents are deadbeats
·
Result
on Children: One parent alienated
·
Federal funding: the motive
is money
·
Minnesota’s
IV-D recipients: the statistics
·
Nonpartisan Solution for a
Nonpartisan Program
CPR Disclaimer: This article is not intended to
exclude anyone due to generalizations. While this article refers to
non-custodial parents as the dad, there are times when the mother becomes the
non-custodial parent, and similar challenges can occur. Additionally, this
article is not meant in anyway to address or diminish the problem of domestic
violence. When it occurs, by either parent, there must be protection available
for the family.
“Of all
forms of Government, those administered by [agencies] are about the least
satisfactory. Being irresponsible, they become autocratic; being autocratic,
they resist [improvement and change]. Unless bureaucracy is constantly resisted
it breaks down representative government and overwhelms democracy. It is the
one element in our institutions that set up the pretense of having authority
over everybody and being responsible to nobody.”
Source: President Coolidge at
Prepared by: Molly K Olson,
Volunteer Executive Director
Direct Phone: 651/490-5060
Welfare for the Affluent
As Prepared by Center for Parental Responsibility (“CPR”)
January 2004
It comes as a surprise to
most legislators and citizens to discover that there is one
Taxes are paid by everyone,
including low-income and working class citizens to subsidize the
self-sufficient so the IV-D welfare services can be provided to anyone who
applies, no matter how high their income. We are, in a sense, stealing from the
poor to give to the rich. This defies the American way – no matter what side of
the political fence you sit.
Overview of Social Security Act
In 1935 the Social Security Act (“SSA”) was created for people who could not self-sustain without government assistance and/or intervention. Every program in the SSA is designed to help low-income people reach self-reliance.
Over the years, the SSA
expanded into 21 Titles, ranging from Veterans Services/Benefits (Title VIII),
services/benefits for the Blind (Title XVI), services/benefits for the aged
(Title I), and unemployment benefits (Title III), to name a few. Title IV
(Grants to States for Aid and Services to Needy Families and Children and Child
Welfare Services) includes, the most well known and most costly cash benefit
payment program – IV-A: TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families). The
goal for TANF is to provide temporary aid to end dependence on the government
and to gain self-sufficiency, and to help families become independent of
assistance. The primary goal is to reduce poverty. The AFDC program provides
funds to states which have implemented plans to aid needy families with
children deprived of parental support due to death, disability, or desertion.
Title IV also includes: IV-B: Safe and Stable Families, IV-D: Child Support Enforcement, and IV-E: foster care and adoption. All these
Title IV programs are designed to help needy children dependent on the
government for support. There is universal consensus that needy children should
not be forgotten. No one disputes this, and we are all ready to fight for the
needy children.
The purpose of welfare is
well defined by the church, "For the Catholic community, the measure of
welfare reform is whether it will enhance the lives and dignity of poor
children and their families. The goal of reform ought to be
to promote decent work and reduce dependence ... The target of reform ought to
be poverty, not poor families" (United States Catholic Conference,
"Moral Principles and Priorities for Welfare Reform," 1995).
All these SSA programs are
paid by the universal money tree – our taxes - your tax dollars. The Title IV-A
(TANF) benefits have been restricted to 5 years max for a lifetime in
Government Purpose: Protect Basic Needs
A “needy” child as defined by the SSA is one who is dependent on the government for public assistance to achieve basic needs. Government programs are meant to help temporarily meet the basic needs of individuals who are unable to do so on their own. The definition of basic needs has been debated by experts and general consensus includes the following as basis needs: 1) food (orange juice not lobster), 2) clothing (KMART not Ralph Lauren), 3) shelter (some place to call home not necessarily a $250,000 house in the suburbs). To some degree, most people are aware of the differences between “need to have” for survival and “want to have” for own self enjoyment. Most of us intuitively know what “needy” is, but that one word has created a vague perception that has given government empires an opportunity to grow.
This is supported by the landmark decision by
the Minnesota Court of Appeals, Moylan v. Moylan, 384 NW 2d 859 at 866 (
The federal government has determined the
financial requirement to meet the basic needs of the family, by establishing
the federal poverty guideline, for application with respect to it’s social programs. States are given the discretion to
provide for their citizens at a rate above and beyond the federal poverty rate,
if the cost of living warrants. In
|
Size of |
Poverty |
|
1............................. |
$8,980 |
|
2............................. |
$12,120 |
|
3............................. |
$15,260 |
|
4............................. |
$18,400 |
|
5............................. |
$21,540 |
|
6............................. |
$24,680 |
|
7............................. |
$27,820 |
|
8............................. |
$30,960 |
For more
information visit Federal
Register (Volume 68, Number 26)
The state of
History of IV-D: Child Support Enforcement and
Collections
In 1974 a new program was added under Title IV of the SSA. The program provided child support enforcement and collection services administered by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The program is a federal-state cooperative effort administrated by the states. The statutory scheme of Title IV-D is clear. It was set up as a collection agency for government debt accrued under Title IV-A (formerly AFDC, now TANF). The federal government believed there was an unacceptably high number of single mothers with children receiving IV-A benefits. Congress believed the reason for this dependence on the government was because the children were abandoned by the father and left with no other financial alternative than public assistance. The underlying assumption of the IV-D program was that women did not have the earning capability to self-sustain nor provide for their children without their husbands or the government. (Thirty years later, society no longer holds this view). Because it is not an entitlement program, but rather a collection program, IV-D did not create an individual right, nor an enforceable right, see Blessing v. Freestone.
Major reform of child support
was completed in 1984 by Congress to protect those women and children who were at
risk of falling back into public assistance once they had left welfare, if they
did not receive child support form the father. Up to this point, the OCSE was
collecting no money for non-welfare cases. Additional enforcement measures were
introduced in 1984 in enhance IV-D collections.
Available evidence showed a high rate of payment but Congress decided to create
the US Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE). In the mid 1980s OCSE
promoted itself as an essential element in the economy fighting a foe so
sinister and destructive that it threatened the nation…they found the “right
hook.” While the 1984 amendments expanded the scope of federal involvement for
the two specific classes it intended to protect, there is no evidence that they
expanded the class to include the wealthy and affluent.
Congressional records support
the constitutional limitations of the program confining the law to only two
classes of individuals for which there is a compelling state interest. There is
no opposition to government intervention when there is a genuine legitimate
government interest. The private class was never discussed, because the private
class was never an intended recipient for the government collection of child
support. The program was designed strictly as a punitive program to force the
willful non-payer to pay child support according to their ability to pay, in
order to reduce a taxpayer burden.
IV-D Welfare: Purpose and Intent
The purpose and intent of the
IV-D program was clear. It was designed to be a welfare off-set program. The
IV-D program was set up as a collection agency for the
purpose of cost recovery or cost avoidance to lower cost to the taxpayer and
reduce the financial burden on the government for those mothers and
children who were dependent on the government for their basic needs. The
The purpose and intent of the
program was to prevent women and children from falling into poverty when they
were abandoned by the chief or sole wager earner, (assumed to be the dad), resulting
in their dependence on the government. And who is funding this program? The taxpayer. This program was based on the belief that men
were the sole financial providers and women were incapable of taking care of
themselves financially. The IV-D program was designed to protect those roles.
The intended beneficiaries of
this program never included wealthy, affluent, or those who could self-sustain
without government intervention. There is no evidence to support a federal
mandate to the states to provide services to the “rich.”
This altered thinking can
distort public policy, resulting in usurpation of congressional intent. The
IV-D system has instead become a paradise of position power for all man-haters
and money grubbing bureaucrats hungry for control.
Problem with current IV-D practices and policy
The program is now costing taxpayers billions instead
of saving millions. The program is now destroying families by escalating the
conflict and driving the father away, rather than bringing dads back to their
families. The program is providing taxpayer subsidies for one parent at the
exclusion of the other parent who receives no similar subsidies.
Most everyone has lost sight
of the purpose of the program, as the state Department of Human Services (DHS)
has gradually expanded their powers beyond the narrow limitations of the
program. Intentionally or not, the DHS
has erroneously interpreted and unlawfully expanded the program beyond its
scope. The program is now costing taxpayers and become an astronomical burden
to the taxpayer, rather than saving taxpayer money. This is a fleecing of
In a 1995 report, the GAO
clarified their observation of the overreach of authority and violation of
congressional intent, when they stated, “The
non-AFDC child support program … many are not within the low-income population
to which Congress envisioned providing child support enforcement services.”
The report noted that “ … the rate at which child support services are being subsidized appear
inappropriate for a population that Congress may not have originally envisioned
serving.”
The DHS has grown in strength and numbers with
unquestioned authority. When their authority prevailed unquestioned, and the
critical factors of purpose and intent were overlooked, the program began
running on pure emotion over the empty threat of a fabricated problem which
promoted the assumption that all non-custodial dads were deadbeats, and nobody
would support their children unless the DHS intervened and forced them to pay.
Furthermore, the DHS has been able to squelch any challenges to their policy
and practice by using the unsubstantiated phrase “the feds make us do it.”
Once the program was expanded
to increase enforcement, analysts at the Cato Institute, known for its
objective analysis, characterized the federal child support enforcement program
as "big brother" government intrusion that threatens privacy rights.
The IV-D program has been expanded to include any and all
private cases where there is no compelling state interest. The Minnesota DHS
testifies and documents a consistent message, “the feds make us do it.” These
unexamined assumptions have become problematic. There are six major problems
with this program, which include: 1) There are NO
eligibility standards being used by the state/county agency for Title
IV-D welfare services. The application requires no evidence of financial need (this
is the only welfare program that is not means-tested). The applicant requires no
evidence of an existing child support order nor does it require previous
private attempts to collect before asking for government assistance.
The application requires no evidence of a collection problem or arrears (no proof of a problem required) before the government intervenes; 2)
There is NO disclosure of applicant’s income required or
requested on the Title IV-D welfare application; 3) There is NO process
in place by the state/county agency to notify the other responsible parent and
let them take charge of the child before the government does, even if
one fit parent is willing and able to provide in lieu of public assistance; 4)
There is NO application approval process in place by state/county
agency – so every applicant gets approved and is encouraged, even solicited,
regardless of need or circumstance; 5) There is NO investigation or
verification of the accuracy of information provided on
the application; 6) There is NO process in place to CLOSE the file when one parent
objects claiming their statutory right pursuant to 42 USC 1301 (d).
To the dismay of most
citizens, music icon Michael Jackson would qualify for IV-D welfare services if
he lived in
This overreach of authority
has become the accepted norm even though there is no basis in law. No one has
questioned this program. Most citizens are not aware of the misapplication of
the program. Most citizens don’t realize that the overreach of government
authority can even be questioned. Most citizens do not know they are not
required by federal law to be in the IV-D program unless the custodial parent
and child(ren) are on public assistance. Most
magistrates (better known as the DHS collection police) seize jurisdiction in
private cases, like an assumable mortgage.
Does Congress require the
taxpayers of
Myth: all non-custodial parents are deadbeats
Like caged birds singing the
company tune, the PR machine went into full gear with the phrase “deadbeat
dad.” The IV-D child support enforcement system was set up to locate and
collect from dads who had abandoned their families, leaving women and children
at the mercy of public assistance. Those who have promoted the overreach of
IV-D authority have done so by marketing two of their favorite arguments: 1)
the exaggerated child support arrears problem, 2) the powerful ploy to demonize
and punish all deadbeat dads and beat them into submission or jail; and somehow
argue that is in the “best interest
of children.” This powerful attack and persuasive pitch displays that to win in
politics is to say the lie often enough that it becomes fact. The truth is, there are very few deadbeats. We must stop allowing
emotions to govern the law of the day.
What is a deadbeat dad? A
well known attorney, and former Speaker of the House in
Much has been written about
the “dead broke” dad, but promoters of the deadbeat dad theory quickly dismiss
those facts (of unemployment, inability to self-sustain, impoverished due to
child support, etc) as rhetoric from “angry men just hiding their assets.”
However, in a widely distributed and often quoted report, the General
Accounting Office has found that 66% of the non-custodial parents in arrears
don’t pay because they can’t afford to pay.
Additionally, the
Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study, a joint project of
The deadbeat dad myth trails
the history of child support. Child support was set up to locate and collect
squeeze payments from those who had abandoned their families. Those who
abandoned their families disappeared and were nowhere to be found. They were
abdicating their financial and moral responsibility, as well as their emotional
support, leaving the family completely void of a very important role in the
family unit.
During the 1970’s, fathers
groups, unclear who the law was meant for, were offended by the term
“abandoned,” so Congress changed the term to “absent,” without every changing
the real definition of the father they were targeting. Then, at some point, the
term “absent” was changed in the law to “non-custodial parent.” Suddenly, the
IV-D child support enforcement program, meant for criminals, was now being
applied to all non-custodial parents. And all non-custodial parents were being
now treated like criminals. The term “deadbeat” dad has become nearly
synonymous with “non-custodial dad” and subsequently has become discriminatory
all-inclusive hate-language that should be abolished.
This inherent
systemic bias colors the judgment that produces unfair and harmful outcomes
which are influenced by flawed interpretations to support the predetermined
bias. Even though we have no-fault divorce, the system is predicated on blame;
the system is predicated on a winner and a loser. Therefore, the IV-D program
provides the applicant (usually mom) a disincentive to cooperate with the
father.
The willful nonpayer,
who purposefully abandons their family to public assistance, cannot be
discounted or let off the hook. No advocate will be an apologist for a true
“deadbeat dad.” However, most scenarios include two competent and willing
parents who want to care for the emotional, physical and financial needs of the
children. The typical story of a non-custodial dad is a hard working
parent who is providing to the best of their ability, wants to do what is
right for the children, and desperately desires to maintain a relationship with
his children. For those who aren’t providing consistently after the divorce,
they probably weren’t providing consistently during the marriage either.
Financial issues probably precipitated that divorce. Why do we think that
divorce will change that? But divorce ensures the mom that she will get
everything she dreamed of financially, if she divorces and uses the weight of
the IV-D system behind her, and she profits. In that respect, the IV-D system
provides a financial and emotional incentive for the mom to divorce.
There is a
systematic removal of one parent from the child(ren)’s
life to maintain the underlying required presumption of the program, that one
parent is “absent” (i.e. abandoned). Because the whole system is predicated on
one parent being labeled the “non-custodial dad” to justify and legitimize the
IV-D program, the system immediately pits one person against the other. Each
parent must given a label, from the very beginning,
and they are given that label in the temporary hearing. The system requires that one parent be
labeled the “custodial parent” and one parent labeled the “non-custodial
parent,” creating the “great wall” of
In the IV-D
system there is no term for a “joint parent.” It’s not an available descriptor
on the application or in the computer. In the eyes of the system, one must be
“custodial” or “non-custodial” and “joint physical custody” is not an option.
Therefore, one parent must be routinely stripped of custody of his children
just because there was a divorce, and now two households instead of one, not
because they did anything wrong. Fit fathers who have been a significant part
of their children’s lives are stripped of custody – no allegations or charges
if abuse or neglect required. Fit fathers are deprived of joint physical
custody of their children taken away from them just because the mom says “we
can’t get along.” Those are the four magic words to get custody, because
“ability to get along” is one of the 13 best interest criteria. The vast majority of these families were intentionally severed
against the will of one parent; usually the dad. Keep in mind, by law, the
judge is never to use one criteria to the exclusion of
the others. But, it’s done everyday in our court system.
Most people who
have not gone through the system believe that a “non-custodial parent has
somehow been deficient and “lost” custody by doing something bad or being
inept. In child protection cases (CHIPS), if mothers are proven unfit and found
guilty of abuse, neglect, or harm to their children, they get a whole year to
follow a case plan and improve themselves to regain
custody of their children. A non-custodial dad is never awarded that same
opportunity. A drug dealing prostitute mom has a better chance of getting her
kids that a nurturing responsible involved father who went to all the piano
recitals and coached his children’s soccer. Once fit fathers get custody of
their children stripped from them, they are never allowed to get it back – even
if it they just want joint physical custody.
Result on Children: One parent alienated
Statistics and
study after study report that virtually all parents in long term
relationships with children and a majority of unwed parents with
children, wish to continue to provide for the emotional, physical and financial
support of their children. It is the
government, through the divorce/family courts, who intentionally and callously
alienate one parent from their children.
The system has
taken away every incentive for a mom to negotiate, mediate or settle the matter
privately, because she will get all she wants and more if she lets the system
take over for her. Parents (usually it is the custodial mom) know they can
abuse the system to their advantage and remove the dad with the support of
county attorney$, ca$eworker$, judge$ and a periphery of other$ who profit from
the divorce/cu$tody battle$, and a whole host of other government workers and
professionals contracted by the system. The unified defense team is always
ready to defend their turf. The longer the system can string out the process,
the more government workers who are guaranteed job security. The systematic
demise of fatherhood means not only the survival but the growth of the
government collections business, and all government workers who are involved in
the process. The IV-D system is the ultimate revenge and it is available at her
disposable for a one time fee of $25. She gets up to 20 years (per child) of
revenge, compliments of the government social service organization and our tax
dollars, as the weight of a very massive, punitive, and unforgiving system is
ready to “capture” their artificially created “criminal” (i.e. parent given the
loser-label of non-custodial parent) at any opportunity.
Most
o
72%
more likely to have a teenage pregnancy
o
86%
more likely to become psychotic delinquent
o
300%
more likely to become involved with gang activity
o
200%
increase in attempted or successful teen suicides
o
100%
correlation with gender identify disorders
o
200%
increase in the likelihood the child will require psychological treatment
o
Lower
self-esteem
o
More
difficulty building stable family life in adulthood
The casualties of
the IV-D system are the children. In spite of all the evidence, courts in
The result is that
nobody is happy. Nobody benefits from the removal of the dad, except the DHS.
The mom becomes bitter because she has to do everything herself (because dad
has been booted out) and dad becomes disenfranchised and distraught, because he
can’t be more involved with his children. The children grow up thinking this is
normal and that dads simply aren’t around much. Boys are socially engineered to
be absent; and girls are socially engineered to marry for money the first time,
get on the child support gravy train, and marry for love the second time.
Federal Funding: the motive is money
The reason
intentional overreach of authority by the IV-D agency is apparent. The state
and county IV-D agencies recognize that by giving these services to
NON-NEEDY cases, they increase their caseload, thereby increasing the amount of
support payments funneled through the county; thereby increasing the amount of
federal dollars flowing back to the states; thereby ensuring job security. The higher the child support payment, the
higher the federal funding, because the federal funding is a total percent of
the total support payments funneled through the state system. The motive is money. NOT money for the children – that
is a marketing ploy – it’s money for the state
program. If it was really the “best interest of the children” that they were
concerned about, there would be an abundance of state program to promote
fatherhood and courts would routinely enforce visitation orders and give dads
joint physical custody when a fit father wants to be involved in the lives of
his children.
The states have
over extended the congressional intent of the IV-D law and have disregarded
eligibility standards for IV-D welfare services in order to maximize the
federal dollars to the state, by subsequently allowing everyone into the
welfare program – whether they need it or not.
The federal
funding is what motivates the Minnesota DHS to declare their main purpose of
child support guideline reform is to increase child support, because that
produces more money for the department. Most enlightened parents know, “more money” is not what children need most. The
entrenched bureaucrats want more money to build their fiefdoms at the expense
of children, families, and taxpayers. The DHS is “pimping” children to get more
money for themselves. When you ask children if they want more time with their
parents or more “things,” they will always choose more time with their parents.
The IV-D program is set up to systematically replace the dad with things. Its about greed for the government agency over need for the
children.
As more parents received
higher orders to pay through the system year after year, OCSE reported
increases in "collections" (which were mostly non-problematic
non-welfare related payments that would have been paid anyway). States (the CSE
program) received more federal funding as a result of reporting higher
"collections."
Federal funding is provided at a rate of 66% - or up
to 76% with incentives. However, this DOES NOT cover all the costs, and with
known and hidden costs, this program is COSTING
The remaining portion unfunded by federal
reimbursements is split equally between state and county taxpayers. Property
taxes pay for the program. In
According to the
Minnesota DHS Child Support Performance Report, October 2003, there are 244,474
child-support recipients of IV-D services in
Each recipient is
provided, by some estimates, well over 100 different government services, in
order to process all the collection and enforcement activities. When reviewing
the 3 of the most regular services provided, the potential cost savings to
To provide the
services for the 189,474 recipients who are potentially NON-NEEDY and possibly
affluent, the taxpayer is footing a postage bill of $1.6 million a year – in
postage stamps, for the monthly billing service. This includes no processing or
transaction fees – it is pure postage. To provide the services for the 189,474
recipients who are potentially NON-NEEDY, the taxpayer is footing a case worker
bill of as much as $18.9 million a year. To provide the services for the
189,474 recipients who are potentially non-needy and possibly even affluent,
the taxpayer is footing a county attorney bill of $118.4 million a year. Each
recipient can get these services for up to 20 years for each child. About
10,000 new recipients are added to the program each year.
Dr. Sherri
Heller, U.S. Commissioner of OCSE, said “people leaving TANF have a 30% chance
of coming back.” That would mean, of the 139,819 “former public assistance”
recipients, 41,945 are “at risk” and are eligible for IV-D services, and 60%,
97,874 are not at risk.
If
Nonpartisan Solution for a Nonpartisan Program
The Congressional record from
1984, when many of the most oppressive child support amendments were added,
repeats over and over that the enforcement of child support from “deadbeat dads
who abandon their families to welfare” is a nonpartisan issue. The solution to
reduce the unnecessary expansion and unintended and unauthorized overreach of
the program must also be a nonpartisan issue.
Taxpayer money
inappropriately spent on the affluent and self-sufficient who
have never been at risk of public assistance could be redistributed to other
programs for the poor, needy, and vulnerable. Less government in private family
matters will preserve the traditional American boundaries of freedom and other
constitutional liberties provided to citizens.
What is good for the DHS
(bureaucratic empire) is not good for
BIBLIOGRAPHY
(work in
progress – to be finished soon-call for details if you need them right away …)
Kagan – CSPAN – book review
“Paradise of Power”
Public Law (P.L.) 93-647:
Social Service Amendments of 1974: Senate report No. 93-1356
1988 Family