Child Support Enforcement: Beneficial to Children or Destructive?

In every state, child support and child custody are 2 seperate legal matters. In reality, these two factors intertwine into two very important details, and not taking one factor into consideration when deciding on the other is irresponsible and negligent.

Support vs. Custody

Fact: When a noncustodial has regular, frequent visitation of a child (50/50 or joint custody) such as every weekend, every other weekend, and a large majority of or the entire summer; they are still required to pay 17% of their income for a child for child support to the custodial parent without deductions.

Scenario: John has his son, Jake, for the entire summer. However, he is still paying exwife Jill $50 a week for child support. Jill has the summer to herself, while Jake is with John, so she can use this money to do her hair and nails, pay her electric bill, or go out to dinner with friends. Meanwhile, John is missing $50 every week, restricting amount of funding available to feed, clothe, and entertain Jake.

The obvious problem is discussed frequently. For some reason, it is controversial because people believe there is no problem with John paying Jill child supprot while Jake is with him, because she takes care of Jake "the rest of the year". If this is the case, shouldn't Jill stop recieving child support during the time that Jake is with John? Even better, Jill should pay John money out of her own paycheck during the weeks or months that Jake is with his father!

There is a more subtle problem hidden within this scenario. Jake, being 10 years old, does not enjoy going to his fathers. While he is home with his mom, Jake has access to expensive toys and video games. Mom can buy Jake new clothes when he needs, or wants them. Mom is much happier and takes him out to eat a lot. Jake likes it better at home. Meanwhile, his dad is often mopey and stressed out. His dad works two jobs, so Jake doesn't get to see his father too often and is often bored. Because being at dad's house isn't as fun as being at home with mom, Jake will decide in a couple of years that he just doesn't want to see his dad anymore.

(When this occurs, John's child support obligations will increase based on the fact that he no longer sees his son. How will John react to this?)

If this story sounds farfetched to you, then you have never known a 10 year old who is spoiled at home, and has nothing with the "other parent". And yes, I will mention "how will this make John feel" because the truth is, there are fathers out there... many of them, who are depressed. Considering the way a noncustodial father is viewed and treated, can you blame them?

Monetary Focus of Child Support

Fact: According to the Federal Child Support Enforcement Agency, the purpose of collecting child support is to enhance the well being of children.

Fact: Child support is based on the income of a noncustodial parent, and not on the actual child related expenses.

Scenario: John pays $120 a week in child support to exwife Jill. Different John and Jill. These are just great fictional names. :) This leaves John with $200 a week in actual take home money for himself. Meanwhile, Jill makes the exact same amount of money as John, so her exact take home pay is $320 a week. Of course, she struggles to pay bills too. These days, a person who brings home $500 a week will still be struggling just for the gas to drive to work. Fortunately, Jill has her "child support" to count on, so her actual income is $440 a week.

Clearly, Jill does not spend $120 on her child every week. She is more likely to use this money to help pay the rent, electric, or grocery bill. Even though Jill still struggles, she is able to cover her bills every month to provide a safe and secure home for her child.

So, what's wrong with this picture? As controversial as it may be: everything! If Jill did not have a child with John, she would still have a rent and electric bill. Whether they have a child or not, those bills are not John's. There is absolutely no reason he should be unable to pay his own bills, because he is forced to pay her bills. The point to stress is that these are bills which would exist if there were no child!

Secondly, basing child support on income is a very, very poor decision. No parent in their right mind would spend that much money on their child. When something expensive comes up, for example if a child needs braces, both parents should contribute their share of this expense. However, the financial obligations of child support are a long way from how it should be.

Parents who are together, do what they can. Parents who are seperated is a whole different story. A father is expected to do what the government thinks he can. Sadly, in most cases, the child support obligation is much more than a noncustodial parent can afford to pay. While it is not always more than a mother needs (for the child!), there is no reason to believe that money enhances the well being of a child.

In fact, this monetary focus has proven time and time again to be malicious. Many women will actually use their own child as bait. If a man does not pay, he can not see his child. If a woman wants more money, because she has a child, she is entitled to it.

Add ons to child support are a percentage of child expenses, such as day care. So what is the "original" child support for?

The truth has always been obvious... child support is a method of preventing single mothers from relying on government funds to support their selves and their children. However, when taking money from one individual to prevent "welfare cases"... the system is placing the fathers into an inability to support their own selves. The easy solution?

Child support obligated payments are not factored as an expense when a noncustodial parent applies for public assistance, Even when a man who works hard and lives an honest life is unable to support himself (on remaining income after paying child support) is placed below the poverty line based on child support payments... it is overlooked. In fact, to be eligible for a discount in paying child support, an individual has to earn an amount below the poverty line before support.

"Pay, or Else!"

To top off the fact that men must pay such hefty payments, these obligations are brutally enforced. Men live in fear of falling behinf on child support payments because if you fall behind... you can lose your license, you can lose your home, and you can even be arrested and go to jail.

Simply put, can you imagine being told that if you didn't pay your rent, you could lose everything?

"Deadbeat Dads" include fathers who go into hiding, work under the table, or frequently change jobs to avoid paying child support. If a man goes to such great lengths to avoid responsibilites of a child he conceived, he is a worthless individual who should be punished by law to the fullest extent. Or, he could be a man who is fighting for his own survival.

Perhaps if the system would attempt to be more reasonable towards noncustodial parents, there wouldn't be such a huge federal debt of child support arrears!

Maternal Bias

It is no accident that throughout this entire article, noncustodial parents have been referred to as "he" or "dads". It is automatically assumed that the custodial parent is a woman, because this is most often the case. There are some psychological elements to this that can not be challenged, but it is equally important for a father to remain an active presence in a child's life.

Due to the number of women who deny visitation based on inability to provide financial assistance, this is another of the damages caused to children that can (partly) be blamed on the enforcement of financial child support.

However, there is a deeper problem with the maternal bias of the enforcement of financial child support. To put it in a nutshell, women get away with anything! A woman is not required to show proof of what she spends on daycare, but a man is ordered to pay an amount based on "what she says".

For a deeper understanding of just how each child support case is handled like nothing more than simple paperwork, consider the case of Steve Barreras. For 5 years, he fought his child support case. He provided evidence of a vasectomy a year before the "birth" of the "child". He provided evidence that his exwife was a scam artist with a record of forging legal paperwork and documents. All of this evidence was ignored, and the only response he recieved was a letter claiming "Your child does exist, as I'm sure you already know."

After paying over $20,000 and 5 years of persistence, his efforts finally brought relief. A court hearing was set in which his exwife was required to produce the child. Since there was, in fact, no child and this had been a scam, she panicked and actually kidnapped a child to bring to court with her.

Fortunately, this case (in 2005) recieved its publicity when the ex wife was convicted of several felonies, and attention from the governor asking "How can something like this even happen?" The answer is obvious, but saldy, nothing has changed since.

Deadbeat Moms

With all the stereotyping of deadbeat dads... it is the deadbeat moms who get away with it. It is of no concern to a child support collection agency, or even to a family law judge who forms the order, what the woman does with the money. In cases where a child is neglected and hungry while the mother uses the fathers hard earned money on drugs or personal matters, this is of no concern.

It is darn near impossible for a father to gain custody of his child from a child's mother, because of the maternal bias. In certain cases of a woman who is not ready to be a responsible mother, she is less likely to release custody over to a father because she knows that as long as she has custody, she can get money.

Furthermore, in the cases where a father actually is a custodial parent, a woman is given much, much more flexibility on child support obligations. This is more an error on the behalf of family law judges, but it is a very big injustice.