Title: “Ensuring Accountability, Transparency, and Fairness in Child Support Agencies”
Executive Summary:
The current child support system often perpetuates a cycle of punishment rather than encouragement. To address this, we propose reforms prioritizing transparency, flexibility, and accountability. Our goals:
Prevent abuse of power by child support agencies
Encourage payment compliance through incentives
Ensure transparency in child support payments and expenditures
Key Reforms:
Alternative Punishment Structures: Replace harsh penalties (e.g., driver’s license suspension) with more nuanced approaches, considering individual circumstances.
Incentives for Compliance: Offer rewards for consistent payment, such as reduced arrears or modified payment plans.
Transparency in Payment Distribution: Implement blockchain technology or similar solutions to track child support payments and ensure transparent expenditure reporting.
Accountability Measures: Establish independent oversight bodies to monitor child support agency actions and address complaints.
Training and Bias Reduction: Provide agency staff with bias training and emphasize the importance of impartiality.
Rationale:
Current systems often create undue hardship, counterproductive to the ultimate goal of supporting children.
Single mothers working in child support agencies may bring personal biases, compromising impartiality.
A more balanced approach encourages cooperation and timely payments.
Supporting Data:
[State] has already deemed certain child support agency practices unconstitutional.
Studies demonstrate that flexible payment plans and incentives increase compliance rates.
Implementation Plan:
Conduct thorough reviews of existing child support laws and agency procedures.
Engage stakeholders (parents, agencies, legal experts) in reform discussions.
Develop and introduce legislation outlining proposed reforms.
Establish a task force to monitor implementation and ensure accountability.
Conclusion:
By introducing transparency, accountability, and flexibility, we can create a fairer child support system that prioritizes the well-being of children and encourages cooperation between parents.
As both a child of a deadbeat dad, and a wife of a deadbeat dad (who loves his kids & has regular visitation time), I do agree that the child support agencies should find a more effective way at enforcing the child support. They shouldn’t be revoking driver’s licenses so loosely, or for indefinite periods of time, because that not only prevents him from working, but it also prevents him from picking up his kids. I don’t agree with the threat of jail-time for lack of child support. I’m not sure if child support debt shows on credit reports? But if it does, I oppose that idea as well. It’s just overkill, lazy and I think just makes things worse.
I agree that no parent should be ordered to pay super-high amounts, but I also think that there should be a set minimum amount ordered. If the child support system were simplified, it would save everyone a lot of stress, fighting and legal fees.
I personally suggest that we do away with the concept of parenting time-share percentages, and that there should be a federal set minimum, and a federal cap, on the child support to be ordered, such that a judge can only order something in between that. Allowing calculations of time-share percentages typically just causes anti-child support dads to go into a litigation frenzy, just to change percentage points, even if he has no intention of actually spending more quality parenting time with the child.
In addition, for most moms, being the primary caretaker is so deeply tied to our personal identity, that removing that identity from us via 50/50 feels like a threat not just to our identity, but our ability to do our job to effectively mother our children and adequately prepare them for life. Additionally, 50/50 is harmful for young children and babies, because they have a developmental needs for their primary attachment figure, and for routine. Overall, tying child support to time-share percentages compels parents to care more about the percentage, than they do about what the best schedule is for their kids and family overall.
I suggest that one parent is simply marked as the residential parent (to determine the school district, where the child primarily sleeps, who is the primary attachment figure, who makes final child-care/school decisions).
The minimum child support should, perhaps, be the housing portion of the local MBSAC levels that Cash Aid is based on. These levels differ by county and states because of cost-of-living. The maximum child support limit that the recipient should be allowed to receive, perhaps should be the MBSAC level for housing, utilities, food and clothing. The judge could order something in between. Nonresidential parents should be ordered to pay the housing portion regardless of split custody status, because split custody status doesn’t suddenly decrease the residential parent’s rent/housing cost. We must also end the practice of ordering RESIDENTIAL/primary care-takers paying child support to nonresidential/noncustodial parents.
While I wish that child support agencies had more effective collection practices, I would say that if the non-residential parent has financial difficulties paying, then he should be eligible for a pause on the collection efforts. The debt shouldn’t go on credit reports; he shouldn’t go to jail for it; there must be guardrails against the use of revoking his driver’s license.
This google doc has a screen shot of the MBSAC levels for San Diego County, CA, as a reference:
Here’s a couple ideas to help parents work out parenting disputes while staying OUT of the family courts:
We should mandate that Medi-Caid and health insurance offers parents of newborns, as well as recently separated parents, access to an in-home parental coach (independently contracted and selected by the mother), to provide direct, real-time information, advice and assistance to the parents, at their homes, regarding various topics like parenting AND co-parenting skills/advice. These visits may be free or have a co-pay based on each parent’s income. The parenting coach can also advise separated parents on developmentally appropriate parental custodial schedules and co-parenting skills.
The Ohio Task Force provided a comprehensive report with researched-based, consensus-based solutions to custodial disputes. They developed “age appropriate parenting access plans” that parenting coaches can advise parents on, in pages 50-68.
We should put protections into place which prevents narcissistic parents from forcing the other parent into excessive litigation and legal costs, and filling up courts with their lies. This is called “litigation abuse.” We must do more to protect abused children, because they often end up in the custody of the abuser parent.
I have created a more detailed google doc summarizing the injustices in our Family Court/Child Support/DV court system, especially as it impacts abused women and protective mothers.
There should be clear guidelines for the actual cost of raising children. Having an extra bedroom for a child increases housing costs. Utility bills are higher with children due to increased use of electricity, water, and heating. The cost of feeding and clothing children is significant, even when shopping at budget-friendly stores like Walmart. Children also need hygiene products, school supplies, and transportation. Therefore, a basic cost assessment for raising a child should be conducted and split equally between parents.
Regarding arrears, this is money the primary parent spent on the child that the non-primary parent did not contribute to. This money is owed to the primary parent because they were covering the child’s needs. If the primary parent couldn’t afford these expenses, the child might have gone without essential items, which the non-primary parent should be accountable for. If a primary parent fails to provide necessities, they can be charged with criminal neglect. The same standard should apply to the non-primary parent who fails to provide support.
Some argue that the primary parent can access food stamps and other social services. However, if child support isn’t being paid, it would be more logical for the non-paying parent to go through the process of obtaining social services. They should face the same challenges and potential humiliation, and the assistance they receive should go directly to the children. If cash assistance is needed, the non-paying parent should be the one to apply for it, and the funds should be given to the primary parent, regardless of the primary parents income. This way, both parents share the responsibility and effort required to support their children. Child support needs to be looked at as if it were there to support the child, to ensure the child has food clothing and a roof and if you’re not paying your child support then you’re not ensuring your child has a roof, clothing or food. I’m sorry if you have to put some of your bills aside to pay your child support but we all have to set our personal wants and needs aside for children the moment they came into the world your world as being lived for yourself is over you no longer have a self. If you have to live in your vehicle so your child can live in a home that’s what you do. For some reason when it comes to child support the non-custodial parent gets this idea in their head that what they want in their life matters, it doesn’t! As a parent you lost that the day they were born everything about you belongs to that child until they’re 18. And that sounds like it sucks ass but a kid has to have food water and shelter to survive they have to have a loving home and nurturing parents and that means you can’t go to the bar or the liquor store because the money that you’re about to spend on beer can buy milk and bread you’re fun no longer matters.