Child
Support is a For Profit Business For
States and Denying Custody to
Fathers Drives Profit Higher
Why Parenting Time Motions Fail
|
Written by Lary
Holland |
Thursday, 16 March 2006 |
TO
EDITOR/STAFF WRITER: (Released
Statewide)
RE: Why Parenting Time
Motions Fail and Child Support
Motions Succeed.
After a Friend of the Court Citizen
Advisory Committee meeting an
attorney indicated that it seemed
that their parenting time motions
seem to fail more frequently than
child support motions succeed. This
was a brilliant observation and I
wanted to take a quick moment and
tell you why.
For every three dollars ($3.00) that
your local court spends on Child
Support Enforcement the court
receives two dollars ($2.00) by way
of federal block grant money.
Additionally to make up the
difference of the remaining one
dollar balance the local courts have
been able to use what is known as
federal incentive grants from the
federal government, which has made
it possible to “profit” from
operating a “successful” child
support enforcement program. An
immense gain by the state is to be
had by operating a "successful"
child support enforcement program
which means that a child cannot have
substantially equal time with both
parents. In order to maximize
federal money the states create the
appearance of an absentee parent for
purposes of the Child Support
Enforcement welfare program.
Successful also means maximizing the
number of participants the state has
in its Child Support Enforcement
welfare program by including the
middle-class at the sole expense of
the U.S. Tax Payer.
See 42 USC 655; “Payment to States”;
See 42 USC 658a; “Incentive payments
to States”;
In a parenting time conflict, there
is disincentive to allow children to
have substantially equal time with
their parents because then the
parents do not fit wholly into the
above welfare program model as being
absent. The more parenting time
provided, typically, child support
is reduced or abated. A reduction in
participants is a reduction in the
justification of federal monies to
the state. Normally the reduction of
expenditures is encouraged by
government but in this case the
oppositeholds true because there is
a profit derived from the excess
influx of funds. Because of lack of
eligibility requirements there is
immense waste in the new Child
Support Enforcement Beuracracy. In
2006 alone, 4.2 BILLION of our
Social Security Fund, nationally, is
being invested into this program
which is a huge disincentive for the
states to allow substantially equal
parenting time with both parents.
The huge mass of money out of your
social security also is the reason
that the State is so eager to
incorporate all the middle-class
into their Child Support Enforcement
welfare programs; that means higher
support awards and an appearance of
more need for federal money now that
there is widespread expanded group
participation.
The new welfare abuser is not the
people, but the states who have
shaped their participant numbers to
create the appearance of need for a
program that lacks eligibility
requirements. The reality is that
there are many fit, willing, and
competent parents that are trapped
in a welfare system against their
will and they are being prevented
from parenting their children
because the state wants to maximize
their federal funding and make them
look absent.
|
Last Updated ( Tuesday, 09 May 2006
)
|