Reform Child Support Laws

As a father who has faced the harsh realities of the child support system in America, I believe it’s time we start a conversation about reform. The current laws are draconian, to say the least. If a father falls behind on payments, his license can be revoked, his wages garnished, and in some cases, he may even face jail time. This system, which was originally designed to protect children, often ends up punishing fathers in ways that destabilize their lives and ability to provide.

But what about other countries? Many have found ways to ensure children are cared for without making fathers feel like they’re indentured servants. For example, Sweden operates on a principle of shared responsibility between both parents, and the state even steps in to provide child support if a parent is unable to pay. The focus there is on creating a system that truly prioritizes the child’s well-being, not punishing the parent. Meanwhile, in Germany, child support calculations are more reasonable and based on income, but there are no harsh penalties like jail time for non-payment.

It’s also important to note that child support laws in many countries reflect a more progressive approach to shared custody. Studies have shown that children do better when they have equal access to both parents. So, why do our laws still favor one-sided financial support rather than promoting co-parenting?

One of the most glaring issues with the system in America is that it creates a financial incentive for divorce. A mother knows that in many cases, she’ll receive substantial child support, which can sometimes even be higher than necessary to raise the child. This encourages some individuals to view divorce as a financial escape route rather than as a last resort. While this doesn’t apply to all cases, the laws seem to foster this imbalance, leaving many men paying the price—literally.

Reforming child support laws to reflect a more balanced, humane approach is long overdue. We need laws that support co-parenting, discourage financial exploitation, and offer fathers the same legal respect as mothers. After all, the ultimate goal should be the well-being of the child, not the punishment of one parent.

U.S. Child Support Laws: A Punitive Approach

In the U.S., child support payments are calculated based on a percentage of the non-custodial parent’s income, often without consideration of their financial capacity to meet other obligations. Missed payments can result in severe penalties, including:

  • License suspension (both driver’s and professional licenses)
  • Wage garnishment, reducing the non-custodial parent’s take-home pay to unsustainable levels
  • Imprisonment, which further reduces the ability to pay and causes long-term financial damage

While these laws aim to enforce child support compliance, they often make it harder for the non-custodial parent (usually the father) to continue providing for their child. Moreover, the punitive nature of these penalties destabilizes families and sometimes encourages divorce by creating financial incentives for the custodial parent.

Germany’s Approach: Shared Responsibility and Reasonable Payments

Germany’s child support laws, grounded in the Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (BGB) (German Civil Code), emphasize fairness and shared responsibility. Both parents are obligated to support the child, and the amount of child support is calculated based on a parent’s actual income and financial capacity—a fairer method than the rigid percentage-based system in the U.S. This is implemented through the Düsseldorfer Tabelle, a guideline that ensures the support amount is reasonable and does not cause undue financial hardship.

Key Differences:

  1. Income-Based Payments:
    In Germany, the child support calculation considers both parents’ incomes, with adjustments made when financial circumstances change. U.S. child support, by contrast, is often set without adequate consideration of the paying parent’s ability to manage other financial obligations, leading to long-term financial strain.

  2. Rehabilitation Over Punishment:
    While the U.S. system imposes harsh penalties like jail time for non-payment, Germany’s approach focuses on allowing parents to meet their obligations without driving them into poverty. For instance, if a parent experiences financial hardship, they can request a modification of payments (§ 1615d BGB) without fear of draconian penalties.

  3. State Assistance for Child Support:
    If a parent is unable to pay, Germany’s Unterhaltsvorschussgesetz allows the state to step in and provide financial assistance to the custodial parent, ensuring that the child’s needs are met without unfairly punishing the non-paying parent. In the U.S., missed payments often result in wage garnishment or license suspension, further crippling a parent’s ability to work and pay.

Sweden’s Model: Shared Responsibility with State Support

Sweden’s Föräldrabalken (Parental Code) and Socialtjänstlagen (Social Services Act) outline a system where both parents are expected to contribute to their child’s upbringing, with flexibility built in to ensure that no parent is unfairly burdened. The system emphasizes shared custody and state intervention when necessary, avoiding the extreme penalties seen in the U.S.

Key Differences:

  1. Flexibility in Payment:
    In Sweden, child support is calculated based on both the needs of the child and the income of the parents, ensuring that payments are proportional and fair (Chapter 6 of Föräldrabalken). If one parent experiences financial difficulties, the state can step in to help through the Socialtjänstlagen, preventing financial distress without severe penalties.

  2. Avoiding Punitive Measures:
    Unlike the U.S., Sweden avoids penalties like license suspension and imprisonment. Instead, the Kronofogdemyndigheten (Swedish Enforcement Authority) provides mechanisms for collecting payments while also allowing for adjustments when a parent faces financial hardship. This focus on cooperation rather than punishment leads to better outcomes for both parents and children.

  3. Promoting Joint Custody:
    Sweden, like Germany, prioritizes joint custody arrangements. Shared parenting not only reduces the financial burden on one parent but also ensures that children have access to both parents. In the U.S., primary custody is often awarded to one parent, which can create a lopsided dynamic that leaves the non-custodial parent with financial obligations but limited involvement in the child’s life.

Proposal for Reforming U.S. Child Support Laws

Drawing inspiration from the more balanced and humane approaches in Germany and Sweden, I propose the following reforms for the U.S. child support system:

  1. Income-Based Child Support Calculation:
  • Replace the current percentage-based formula with an income-based system similar to Germany’s Düsseldorfer Tabelle. This would ensure that child support payments are fair, proportional, and reflective of both parents’ financial capacities, preventing undue hardship for the paying parent.
  1. Promote Shared Custody:
  • Encourage joint custody and shared parenting arrangements, as practiced in Sweden and Germany, to reduce financial strain and ensure both parents are actively involved in raising the child.
  1. State Assistance for Child Support:
  • Implement a state-funded child support system akin to Germany’s Unterhaltsvorschussgesetz, providing financial assistance to custodial parents when the non-custodial parent is unable to pay. This would ensure that children are supported without punishing the financially struggling parent.
  1. Rehabilitation Instead of Punishment:
  • Eliminate punitive measures like imprisonment and license suspension. Instead, adopt a rehabilitative approach where parents behind on payments receive financial counseling, employment assistance, and modified payment plans, helping them meet their obligations without further destabilizing their lives.
  1. Flexible Enforcement:
  • Similar to Sweden’s Kronofogdemyndigheten, create a child support enforcement authority that focuses on flexible enforcement measures, allowing for adjustments when parents experience financial hardship. This would help avoid the vicious cycle of debt and penalties that plagues many American parents.

Conclusion: A Call for Fairness

The goal of child support should be to ensure the well-being of the child, not to punish one parent while creating financial incentives for the other. By reforming U.S. child support laws to reflect the more balanced systems seen in Germany and Sweden, we can create a system that promotes shared responsibility, supports co-parenting, and prioritizes the best interests of the child—without unnecessarily punishing fathers or incentivizing divorce.

The time for child support reform is now. Let’s create a system that’s fair, humane, and truly in the best interest of our children.

2 Likes

Thanks for your thoughtful approach. I also wanted to share my “quick” top thoughts on this matter:

I have been thru this system. The child support system is so much more screwed up and horrible than what people realize. And here is the WORST example: Primary custodial mothers can be ordered to pay the deadbeat dad child support, if she makes more income than him. I currently have 65% custody (after he repeatedly took me back to court to cut away from the previous custody agreement we had) and he has stopped working since about 6 years ago. I could be ordered to pay HIM $800-$1000 child support. (Right now, the child support case is closed. He used that threat, as well as the threat of continued litigation abuse, to force me to close the child support case and to agree to a marital separation agreement more favorable to him.)

I’m actually terrified of the idea that he could take me to child support court. He actually acts like he’s doing me a favor for not demanding child support. Again, he is the non-custodial parent, with a history of abuse, and only gained more custody because he repeatedly took me back to family court as a response to me having filed the child support application. He uses these threats to remain close to me, and manipulate, as part of his campaign of coercive control. Here, I put myself through college and got a decent job because I thought that the financial independence would protect me from deadbeats like him. Instead, I feel trapped, and that I don’t have true freedom in my life, and can’t even think about what I “want” because there’s no viable options for me on the table.

From the perspective of the primary caretaker/mother, I listed additional screwed up things about the child support system, on pages 4-6 and 13-14 on this google doc:

Also, 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.

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:

I agree that custody reform is badly needed. Your proposal is well thought out, and it is certainly a good start to finding the reforms needed for fair and just custody agreements that consider the best interest of the child. I’d like to see a requirement that couples seeking divorce attend reconciliation therapy for a period of times to see if there isn’t a way to restore the relationship because that is really what is best for most children. Sometimes broken trust can be healed, financial trouble can be worked out, and people can rehabilitate to overcome addictions if given the right tools. While I understand divorce is still necessary in some situations, we can probably do more to help prevent it than we are currently doing.

But I agree totally that there has been some very cruel treatment of fathers in this current climate of divorce, and has led to many tragedies that could have been avoided, for all parties involved.

Child support is a difficult thing to be fair on as there is a myriad of reason people get divorced. And there are the money grabbing mothers who are in it just for the money and the deadbeat dads who pay little or nothing. It’s radical my suggestion but if an accurate basic cost of living formula could be made obviously by state as the cost of living varies then this be applied for each child the both parents are liable for 50% as after all it was both who produced the child. There would have to be certain exception like everything but if looked at logically the child is supported before divorce so can therefore be supported after divorce. And yes I have children and am divorced . It also needs to worked out on net income not gross income.
And a way for the payments to be used purely on the children is necessary too. Cash payments seem to rarely be actually spent on the child.
Jail time is counter productive as is directly taking from wages as they quickly take but never repay over payments.

Thank you for all the responses! I’ve edited the original post to include more detailed examples of other systems we could imitate.

After reading the replies posted carefully, I really think the best solution would be ban the punitive measures approach to Family Law (punishing parents) and instead focusing on rehabilitation of the parents and children.

The big question? Funding.

The funding is there already, it goes to the courts and jail systems that treat parents like criminals. We simply need to toss this out!! Spend the state funds on education, counseling, financial services for parents and children.

How does it benefit society to use taxpayers funds to pay for a jail housed with fathers/mothers who have failed to pay child support instead of using this money to help offset their owed child support while also providing educational assistance and opportunities to help struggling parents on their feet?

But the common agreement I’m reading is that the current (and very old) model of punishment and criminalizing parents for child support should be abolished! Let’s help parents and kids! Not jail them!

1 Like

I think you need to address the recourse for a person who doesn’t even try to pay child support. Most people who suffer from the system do everything that is right but there are those that don’t even attempt to and I don’t think the government should just pick up their slack while they have no consequences. Ones who are genuinely trying deserve the support .

Instead of focusing on the consequences of not willingly supporting a child, I’d argue we need to readjust our efforts to focus on rehabilitation of these individuals. Let’s get to the bottom of it. Is it a financial problem? Then let’s help offset those costs while the individual is enrolled in job training programs with direct to hire positions. Is it a character/personality issue? Than let’s offset the costs while the individual undergoes required psychological counseling with the goal being to remediate the individual.

But simply put, as a society, we shouldn’t put parenting in the same category as criminals.

I was just trying to fully understand your proposal fully I mainly agree with you and totally agree that the support payer is crucified but there are those who just don’t pay and giving them excuses or paying for courses while someone else pays is an easy way out for them. I am saying yes definitely help those who do their best but hold accountable the ones who don’t and really couldn’t care less.

Parent and child alienation is a very big problem in this country, And parents that choose to alienate their child from the other parent should forfeit all child support owed and charged with child abuse. My ex cut all of my contact with my son 5 years ago and during Covid I got behind on payments. I cant afford to pay a lawyer, my bills and child support. I continue to try to contact my son but he isnt allowed to speak to me, his sister or any of my family. Now I got a letter saying they have a warrant for my arrest so I cant even go to court without being arrested!

Also- this system is broken all the way around. Arkansas gave custody to dads more than they do moms, and it happens to good moms.

They need to start with looking into all the back child support cases and if/why the “non-custodial” parent is/isn’t in the child’s life. If the child has been alienated without Legitimate proof the other parent is unfit, they should be charged with abuse and lose all support (backpay and future) as well as custody. The parent who has been alienated should be given custody.