From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: Duck and Jive (was Re: Pre-Sex Contract )
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 18:09:18 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.162939.28197@netcom.com> barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
)In article <1993Jan5.184830.27903@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:

)>Here's my understanding of the situation.
)>
)>When the woman names the father, she gets child support from the father, and
)>can choose to give this up in reuturn for for AFDC (usually because he won't
)>pay.).
)
)	No. When she applies for AFDC, child support information is
)taken at that time. If she's got court-ordered child support and it's
)up-to-date that income will be figured in when determining her AFDC
)eligibility. It may disqualify her for AFDC if the support is large
)enough; if not, it's kept by the county, and she gets AFDC instead.
)
)	If there's past-due support or no court order, she's required to
)pursue child support thru the DA's office.

That seems logical.  I would like you to clarify the bit about 'required
to pursue child support thru the DA's office, though.'  My info is that
she is required to pursue child support as you say, but can still choose to
get AFDC, in which case she forfeits most of any collection that may be made.
(Statistical abstracts mentions that she gets the first $50 per month of
any collection, so she doesn't forfeit all of the collection).  In the 90%
of cases where no collection is made (S.A. again) this is to her benefit.

 ....

)	It's a wrong conclusion. I don't know how often unmarried
)mothers are awarded support, but I do know they don't fail to name the
)father when applying for aid. Why would they? General relief is a
)pittance even compared to AFDC, and is in most ways _harder_ to qualify
)for - you have to be even poorer. Most typically, when no child support
)is coming in it's because the guy has an order against him, but isn't
)paying. In some cases no order may have been obtained yet; in a few the
)state may have failed to secure an order because the named man denies
)paternity successfully, but this is rare. In my experience paternity was
)rarely disputed.

According to the 1987 data in 'Statistical Abstracts' in 1987, there were
2,4625,000 single (never-married) women with own children under 21
years of age present from absent fathers, as of spring of the following year.

Only 517,000 of them had 'payments awarded' which was 19.7% of the total.

430,000 of them were supposed to recieve support in 1987.  83.3 percent of
these received payments.  (For 'all women', the corresponding figure was
76.1%).  These appear to be 'received partial and/or full amount of payment'
statistics, BTW.

[This is Stat Abst info, ultimately from Census bureau figures, Current
Population Reports].

I don't see how this is compatible with your statement about how 'most
typically when no child support payment is coming in it's because the guy
has an order against him, but isn't paying'.

This is from the xerox of the appropriate page of 'Statistical Abstracts'
for 1987, right in front of me at this very minute.

Newsgroups: soc.singles