From: noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer)
Subject: CSEA
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1992 20:07:35 GMT

I`ve been providing information for a Child Support Enforcement Agency
officer who is taking a college course on child support at Case Western
Reserve University.  I've sent him several messages, and have tried to
answer all his questions.  He even posted here for information, and I've
been providing everything that I can.   I thought you folks might find
my most recent email message to him interesting, so I'm posting it for
all to see.  Here 'tis.

His comments are. of course, preceded by the ">"s.

>For my report, can you give me a few specific suggestions on
>how the LAWS governing child support could be changed so as to
>be fairer, in your view, to the fathers; and also how the
>ADMINISTRATION of the laws by local child support agencies,
>such as the one I work for, could be made more fair?

Well, it's almost lunch time, and I'm hungry, but I'll do a quick
hitlist.

1.  Custody determinations should be fair.  At present women are
    awarded some form of custody in approximately 90% of all divorce
    cases, in approximately 85% of all cases, they are awarded primary
    custody.  In many cases where women aren't awarded primary custody,
    they voluntarily relinquished it, they were found at fault in the
    divorce and/or perjured themselves or were objectively proven to be
    the parent who was the least likely to facilitate a relationship
    with the other parent, the children were old enough and mature
    enough and decided that they would prefer to live with the father
    (this is probably the most common reason that fathers become
    custodial or residential parents.  This is the case with my
    16-year-old brother.  My father lives in a better school district,
    has a nicer home (he remarried a woman who makes good money too)
    and my brother hasn't had much of an opportunity to be with his
    father, so it is kind of the last couple of years to do so.))
    Basically, shared parenting with a 50/50 to 63/35 split should be
    the default custody award.  There should be no biases in regards to
    tender-years doctrine, primary care-taker or even income (or lack
    thereof) for custody determinations.

2.  Both parents should have equivalent rights after the divorce.

3.  Access should be enforced just as stringently as child support.  If
    the state insists on picking up the tab for custodial parents'
    child support concerns, the state should equally pick up the tab
    for visitation or access enforcement.  The CSEA should be either
    duplicated with another agency for enforcement of access and
    visitation rights or be given access enforcement power too.  There
    are valid, logical reasons for this.  I will discuss them later
    in this message.*

4.  The equation for determination of child support awards should be
    fair.  At present, they are anything but.   The guideline amounts
    should be set based on valid, comprehensive, scientific studies of
    what it actually takes to provide for children (see Center for
    Policy Studies, Inc. Denver, CO).  Child support should take
    both incomes into account and the time that both parents spend with
    the children.   For example, if a father makes 50% of the combined
    income and has the children 35% of the year, he should not pay 50%
    of the child support obligation, but rather 65% of 50% of the total
    child support obligation.  If, in this case, the guidelines dictate
    that the total child support obligation is $1400 per month, the
    father would be obligated to pay $455 per month - not $700 (which
    does not take into account his expenses for the children - the fact
    that he has to have bedrooms and beds and pay for food and pay for
    daycare and babysitters when he has the children).  This is the ONLY
    mathematically logical solution.

5.  Non-custodial/non-residential parents who involuntarily lose their
    jobs due to being fired or laid off should IMMEDIATELY have their
    child support adjusted for their "new" income or lack thereof.
    That the state waits six months before they will even CONSIDER a
    change is ludicrous, illogical, prejudiced and denies due process
    and equal protection under the law.  That the state IMMEDIATELY
    will re-evaluate child support amounts at the request of the
    custodial/residential parent, but makes
    non-custodial/non-residential parents wait six months is so
    blatantly biased and unconstitutional that it is beyond my
    comprehension that any legislature could create such an unfair
    statute.

6.  States should stop denying individual's rights to due process and
    equal protection in all regards to child support--as they have
    chosen to do recently.  Garnishment presumes the
    non-custodial/non-residential parent will not pay, denies equal
    protection.  Absconding professional licenses, property and liens
    without due process is against the law, except when done to the
    ogre of humanity, non-custodial/non-residential parents.

7.  Make the custodial/residential parent who is RECEIVING child
    support accountable for how that money is spent.  This is no big
    deal.  Receipts for food, clothes, books, toys, daycare, rent etc.
    could easily provide proof that the child support money is being
    spent on the children.  Now there is no method of insuring that the
    child support money is even spent of the children.  The children
    might be wearing rags while the custodial parent drives a new car
    and vacations in the Bahamas.

8.  Give the child tax deductions based solely on the percentage of
    income of the combined income of both parents.  If one parent makes
    65% of the income, that parent is entitled to 65% of the child tax
    deductions.  Anything else is illogical and unfair.

I could go on and on, but this gives you an idea of how logically flawed
our system is in handling child support and finances in regards to
children of divorces.

There is another interesting and very important point that I want to
convey to you.  The state has determined that the financial affairs of
the children are VERY important, primarily in the interests of trying
to alleviate state expenses for AFDC.    Rather than condemn women for
lack of responsibility for bringing children into the world when they
cannot adequately provide for them, the state has decided that it is
not these women that are primarily responsible, but that the fathers
who once had sex with them that are the real culprits.  Why does there
have to be such a biased slant against fathers?  Both parents are
responsible for their actions.

It is true that many men stop paying child support.  But the same is
true of women who lose custody.  What is interesting that only about
50% of the men who obtain sole custody even get a child support award.
And when they do, the non-custodial mothers are just as likely as men
to not pay their child support.  Of the women who have valid child
support orders, as many as 25% of them have an ex-spouse that is behind
in child support payments.  But the percentages of men who are due
child support, but have an ex-spouse that is behind in paying, are
roughly the same.

What the state is ignoring is that the emotional affairs of children
are VERY important too.  In fact, in Ohio, the Supreme Court stated that
access and visitation rights are paramount to child support obligations.
Sometimes fathers work in seasonal jobs or get laid off and they can fall
behind.  Trying to make them into instant criminals for being human is
ridiculous and serves no purpose, other than to relegate them to some
sub-servient, lower class within society.

In taking the approach that only the financial affairs of children are
important and that non-custodial/non-residential parents who get behind in
their child support payments are criminals, but at the same time refusing
to acknowledge that the emotional affairs of the children are important
too, the state is creating a demeaning atmosphere that may actually make
the problem worse.  Because the bottom line on child support is that:

	* Fathers with joint custody [shared parenting] pay 90.2
	  percent of the child support owed, on-time, all the time.

	* Fathers with visitation (access) pay 79.1 percent of child
          support owed on-time, all the time.

	* Fathers without either joint custody [shared parenting] or
          access pay only 44.5% of the owed support.

So, fathers who get to see their children and have significant
relationships with them, pay their child support.  But fathers that are
treated like remote taxpayer wallets that aren't important to their
children often don't pay.

But fathers have joint custody or equal shared parenting a mere 7.3% of
the time, and/or have visitation orders only 54.9% of the time.  But 37.8%
of fathers have no access to their children, no visitation orders.

And this was all information provided by mothers with custody.  In fact,
it comes from a report by the US Census Bureau entitled "Child Support and
Alimony: 1989."  [Copies of the Census Bureau report are available from
the US Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.  20402 for $2.50.  Ask
for "Current Population Report on Consumer Income," Series P-50, No. 173
(Order No. 803-005-30020-O-W).]

Yet, a federally funded study (Survey of Absent Parents--by the Urban
Institute and the University of Chicago for the Office of Child Support
Enforcement) previously reported that "there were substantial differences
between custodial and non-custodial parents in terms of reported levels of
payment."

This report (US Census) does serve to highlight the symbiotic
relationships between joint custody, access and compliance.  MOTHERS
WITH CUSTODY REPORT THAT VISITING FATHERS PAY 79.1% OF OWED SUPPORT,
AND THAT JOINT-CUSTODY FATHERS PAY 90.2% OF OWED SUPPORT.  It seems
clear that when fathers are guaranteed time for emotional involvement,
the vast majority provide financial support WILLINGLY, so why not
redirect some of the efforts of the child support enforcement program
towards keeping non-custodial parents/non-residential parents involved
emotionally????

>By the way, we do occasionally refer to an "absent mother";
>something under 10% of our cases at this point are mothers
>paying support to custodial fathers, and the number is
>gradually going up.  Actually, now I think about it, we
>usually refer to either fathers or mothers paying support as
>"absent parents" without reference to sex.  We also use
>"payer" or "obligor" to refer to the party paying the
>support and "payee" or "obligee" for the one receiving it;
>are these terms acceptable?

Actually, I like the terms "mother" and "father."  Period.  Think about
how you would write orders and statutes without using these derogatory
labels.  It can be done, and it doesn't take a great deal of effort.
But in the effort to remain gender neutral and not condemning of
someone because they are required by law to support their children, the
system is not prejudicing humanity against that person.  After all,
isn't the custodial parent also obligated to provide for the children?
Aren't they also an obligor?  But is there any enforcement to insure
that this custodial/residential parent provides such support?  Is there
any way to guarantee that they provide their share of the financial
obligation to the children?  Is there any way to ensure that they even
spend the child support money they receive on the children?  Why not?

>Under current Ohio law, child support and visitation have
>been "uncoupled"; the support cannot legally be stopped
>because visitation is not being granted as ordered, nor
>(at least in theory) can legally ordered visitation be
>denied because support is not being paid.  A father
>whose visitation is being denied can go to court to
>enforce the order but cannot simply stop paying support;
>and likewise (again in theory) the mother can go to
>court or our agency to enforce support orders but
>cannot arbitrarily stop visitation.  However, our
>child support agency has no legal power or jurisdiction
>to enforce visitation orders; we have to refer people
>to the courts for that.

>Is the above arrangement one of the things you would
>like to see changed about current law?

Obviously.  Among many other changes--changes that are not intended to
hurt anyone, but just make things reasonable, fair, less
demeaning--changes that would dramatically ameliorate a terrible problem.
The goal is to get BOTH parents actively involved in being GOOD parents
for their children, and make them both accountable for their actions, but
not to hurt anyone.

It is now 2:40 p.m.  I must eat.  Crap, it's snowing.

Later dude,

Aaron L. Hoffmeyer
TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM 

P.S. Frisch's, here I come.  After lunch, John Schulte update and the
Newsletter....
Xref: sparky alt.dads-rights:2567 alt.child-support:3605