U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

74–742 2001

CHILD SUPPORT AND FATHERHOOD PROPOSALS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JUNE 28, 2001

Serial No. 107–38

Printed for the use of the Committee on Ways and Means

(

ii

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS

BILL THOMAS, California, Chairman

PHILIP M. CRANE, Illinois

E. CLAY SHAW, JR., Florida

NANCY L. JOHNSON, Connecticut

AMO HOUGHTON, New York

WALLY HERGER, California

JIM MCCRERY, Louisiana

DAVE CAMP, Michigan

JIM RAMSTAD, Minnesota

JIM NUSSLE, Iowa

SAM JOHNSON, Texas

JENNIFER DUNN, Washington

MAC COLLINS, Georgia

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio

PHIL ENGLISH, Pennsylvania

WES WATKINS, Oklahoma

J.D. HAYWORTH, Arizona

JERRY WELLER, Illinois

KENNY C. HULSHOF, Missouri

SCOTT MCINNIS, Colorado

RON LEWIS, Kentucky

MARK FOLEY, Florida

KEVIN BRADY, Texas

PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin

CHARLES B. RANGEL, New York

FORTNEY PETE STARK, California

ROBERT T. MATSUI, California

WILLIAM J. COYNE, Pennsylvania

SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland

JIM MCDERMOTT, Washington

GERALD D. KLECZKA, Wisconsin

JOHN LEWIS, Georgia

RICHARD E. NEAL, Massachusetts

MICHAEL R. MCNULTY, New York

WILLIAM J. JEFFERSON, Louisiana

JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee

XAVIER BECERRA, California

KAREN L. THURMAN, Florida

LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas

EARL POMEROY, North Dakota

ALLISON GILES, Chief of Staff

JANICE MAYS, Minority Chief Counsel

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES

WALLY HERGER, California, Chairman

NANCY L. JOHNSON, Connecticut

WES WATKINS, Oklahoma

SCOTT MCINNIS, Colorado

JIM MCCRERY, Louisiana

DAVE CAMP, Michigan

PHIL ENGLISH, Pennsylvania

RON LEWIS, Kentucky

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland

FORTNEY PETE STARK, California

SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan

JIM MCDERMOTT, Washington

LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas

Pursuant to clause 2(e)(4) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House, public hearing records

of the Committee on Ways and Means are also published in electronic form. The printed

hearing record remains the official version. Because electronic submissions are used to

prepare both printed and electronic versions of the hearing record, the process of converting

between various electronic formats may introduce unintentional errors or omissions. Such occurrences are inherent in the current publication process and should diminish as the process

is further refined.

iii

C O N T E N T S

Page

Advisory of June 21, 2001, announcing the hearing ............................................. 2

WITNESSES

Brookings Institution, and Annie E. Casey Foundation, Ron Haskins ............... 34

Castle, Hon. Michael N., a Representative in Congress from the State of

Delaware ............................................................................................................... 15

Cox, Hon. Christopher, a Representative in Congress from the State of California ..................................................................................................................... 12

Johnson, Hon. Nancy L., a Representative in Congress from the State of

Connecticut ........................................................................................................... 9

National Center for Strategic Nonprofit Planning and Community Leadership,

Jeffrey M. Johnson, accompanied by, Raymond Byrd, Baltimore, MD ........... 29

National Council of Child Support Directors, Virginia Department of Social

Services’ Division of Child Support Enforcement, National Child Support

Enforcement Association, and Eastern Regional Interstate Child Support

Association, Nathaniel L. Young, Jr. .................................................................. 22

National Women’s Law Center, Joan Entmacher ................................................. 45

Sorensen, Elaine, Urban Institute ......................................................................... 41

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

Alliance for Non-Custodial Parents’ Rights, Burbank, CA, John Smith, statement ...................................................................................................................... 72

Association for Children for Enforcement of Support, Inc., Sacramento, CA,

statement and attachment .................................................................................. 75

Austin, Rev. Dennis, Salisbury, NC, statement and attachments ...................... 85

Brien, Robert E., Ledyard, CT, letter .................................................................... 86

Caffrey, Patrick R., Seeley Lake, MT, statement .................................................. 89

Chandel, Tom, Bridgton, ME, letter ....................................................................... 90

Children’s Defense Fund, Daniel L. Hatcher, statement ..................................... 91

Children’s Legal Foundation, Charlotte, NC, Bill Wood, and Jay Gell, statement ...................................................................................................................... 94

Children’s Rights Council, David L. Levy, statement .......................................... 103

Citizens Against Paternity Fraud, Decatur, GA, Carnell A. Smith, letter

and attachments ................................................................................................... 105

Comanor, William S., University of California, Santa Barbara, CA, letter ........ 110

DADS of Michigan, P.A.C., Southfield, MI, James Semerad, letter and attachments ..................................................................................................................... 111

Davis, Martha, NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, New York, NY,

statement .............................................................................................................. 114

Gell, Jay, Children’s Legal Foundation, Charlotte, NC, statement ..................... 94

Green, Richard M., M.D., Los Angeles, CA, letter ................................................ 112

Hatcher, Daniel L., Children’s Defense Fund, statement .................................... 91

Hemenway, Jim, San Ramon, CA, letter ............................................................... 113

Hodges, William Whitley, Society of Just Men, Columbia, SC, letter ................. 129

Levy, David L., Children’s Rights Council, statement ......................................... 103

NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, New York, NY, Jacqueline K.

Payne, and Martha Davis, statement ................................................................. 114

Overton, James R., Pittsburgh, PA, letter ............................................................. 120

Payne, Jacqueline K., NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, New York,

NY, statement ...................................................................................................... 114

Peterson, Paul W., and Wendy G. Peterson, Cary, NC, statement ..................... 126

Protecting Marriage, Inc., Wilmington, DE, Phyllis H. Witcher, letter .............. 128

Semerad, James, Dads of Michigan, P.A.C., Southfield, MI, letter and attachments ..................................................................................................................... 111

Smith, Carnell A., Citizens Against Paternity Fraud, Decatur, GA, letter

and attachments ................................................................................................... 105

Page

iv

Smith, John, Alliance for Non-Custodial Parents’ Rights, Burbank, CA, statement ...................................................................................................................... 72

Society of Just Men, Columbia, SC, William Whitley Hodges, letter .................. 129

Witcher, Phyllis H., Protecting Marriage, Inc., Wilmington, DE, letter ............. 128

Wood, Bill, Children’s Legal Foundation, Charlotte, NC, statement .................. 94

(1)

CHILD SUPPORT AND FATHERHOOD

PROPOSALS

THURSDAY, JUNE 28, 2001

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES,

Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:10 p.m., in room

1100 Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Wally Herger (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.

[The advisory announcing the hearing follows:]

2

ADVISORY

FROM THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: (202) 225–1025

June 21, 2001

No. HR–7

Herger Announces Hearing on

Child Support and Fatherhood Proposals

Congressman Wally Herger (R–CA), Chairman, Subcommittee on Human Resources of the Committee on Ways and Means, today announced that the Subcommittee will hold a hearing on oversight of the child support program. The hearing will take place on Thursday, June 28, 2001, in the main Committee

hearing room, 1100 Longworth House Office Building, beginning at 2:00

p.m.

In view of the limited time available to hear witnesses, oral testimony at this

hearing will be from invited witnesses only. Witnesses will include Members of Congress, program experts, advocates, and researchers. However, any individual or organization not scheduled for an oral appearance may submit a written statement

for consideration by the Committee and for inclusion in the printed record of the

hearing.

BACKGROUND:

The Child Support Enforcement (CSE) program, created in 1975 and authorized

under Title IV–D of the Social Security Act, is a State-Federal partnership developed to collect child support payments from parents who do not live with their children. It serves families that are recipients of the Temporary Assistance for Needy

Families (TANF) program and non-recipient families.

The 1996 welfare reform made significant changes to the child support system.

It included provisions requiring States to: (1) establish an integrated, automated

child support system; (2) increase the percentage of non-custodial parents (mostly

fathers) identified; (3) implement more techniques to obtain support collections from

non-custodial parents; (4) intercept or seize periodic or lump sum payments; (5)

withhold, suspend, or restrict drivers, professional, and hunting and fishing licenses;

(6) advise the Secretary of State about debtor parents so passports could be revoked

or restricted; and (7) conduct data matches with financial institutions and seize resources of debtor parents.

In 2000, the program collected $18 billion in child support payments for single

parents and their children—up from $8.9 billion in 1993, a 100 percent increase. In

1999, paternity was established in over 1.5 million cases (up from 676,000 in 1994),

and nearly 1.2 million new child support orders were established.

Proposals to enhance the operation and efficiency of the public child support enforcement program are often considered along with efforts to improve the employability and earnings of non-custodial parents, most often fathers. For example, in

the current Congress, Human Resources Subcommittee Members Reps. Nancy Johnson (R–CT) and Ben Cardin (D–MD) have introduced H.R. 1471, the ‘‘Child Support

Distribution Act of 2001.’’ This legislation is one of a number of proposals, including

the President as part of his fiscal year 2002 budget proposal, seeking to enhance

the role of noncustodial fathers in today’s families.

3

For single-parent families, the financial and emotional contributions of the noncustodial parent can make a tremendous difference in the lives of children. Unfortunately, unmarried poor fathers tend to have elevated rates of unemployment and

incarceration compared to other fathers. Legislative initiatives the Subcommittee

will hear about are designed to prevent the cycle of children being reared in fatherless families by supporting projects that help fathers meet their responsibilities as

husbands, parents, and providers. The proposals promote marriage among parents,

help poor and low-income fathers establish positive relationships with their children

and the children’s mothers, promote responsible parenting, and increase family income by strengthening the father’s earning power.

In announcing the hearing, Chairman Herger stated: ‘‘This hearing will bring us

up to date on the performance of the child support enforcement program. We are

particularly interested in how the reforms made in the 1996 welfare law have affected the child support system and in proposals to better serve parents, children,

and noncustodial parents. We also will learn more about current proposals to enhance the role of fathers in their children’s lives.’’

FOCUS OF THE HEARING:

This hearing will focus on child support and fatherhood proposals.

DETAILS FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS:

Any person or organization wishing to submit a written statement for the printed

record of the hearing should submit six (6) single-spaced copies of their statement,

along with an IBM compatible 3.5-inch diskette in WordPerfect or MS Word format,

with their name, address, and hearing date noted on a label, by the close of business, Thursday, July 12, 2001, to Allison Giles, Chief of Staff, Committee on Ways

and Means, U.S. House of Representatives, 1102 Longworth House Office Building,

Washington, D.C. 20515. If those filing written statements wish to have their statements distributed to the press and interested public at the hearing, they may deliver 200 additional copies for this purpose to the Subcommittee on Human Resources office, room B–317 Rayburn House Office Building, by close of business the

day before the hearing.

FORMATTING REQUIREMENTS:

Each statement presented for printing to the Committee by a witness, any written statement

or exhibit submitted for the printed record or any written comments in response to a request

for written comments must conform to the guidelines listed below. Any statement or exhibit not

in compliance with these guidelines will not be printed, but will be maintained in the Committee

files for review and use by the Committee.

1. All statements and any accompanying exhibits for printing must be submitted on an IBM

compatible 3.5-inch diskette WordPerfect or MS Word format, typed in single space and may

not exceed a total of 10 pages including attachments. Witnesses are advised that the Committee will rely on electronic submissions for printing the official hearing record.

2. Copies of whole documents submitted as exhibit material will not be accepted for printing.

Instead, exhibit material should be referenced and quoted or paraphrased. All exhibit material

not meeting these specifications will be maintained in the Committee files for review and use

by the Committee.

3. A witness appearing at a public hearing, or submitting a statement for the record of a public hearing, or submitting written comments in response to a published request for comments

by the Committee, must include on his statement or submission a list of all clients, persons,

or organizations on whose behalf the witness appears.

4. A supplemental sheet must accompany each statement listing the name, company, address,

telephone and fax numbers where the witness or the designated representative may be reached.

This supplemental sheet will not be included in the printed record.

The above restrictions and limitations apply only to material being submitted for printing.

Statements and exhibits or supplementary material submitted solely for distribution to the

members, the press, and the public during the course of a public hearing may be submitted in

other forms.

4

Note: All Committee advisories and news releases are available on the World

Wide Web at ‘‘http://waysandmeans.house.gov/’’.

The Committee seeks to make its facilities accessible to persons with disabilities.

If you are in need of special accommodations, please call 202–225–1721 or 202–226–

3411 TTD/TTY in advance of the event (four business days notice is requested).

Questions with regard to special accommodation needs in general (including availability of Committee materials in alternative formats) may be directed to the Committee as noted above.

Chairman HERGER. Welcome to this afternoon

f ’s hearing on child

support and fatherhood proposals.

Our hearing today will provide oversight on the child support

program as well as allow us to explore further changes such as

those in legislation introduced by our colleagues, Nancy Johnson

and Ben Cardin.

Substantial reforms of the child support enforcement program

were enacted in the 1996 welfare reform law. For example, we have

seen the creation of a new hire database, improved paternity establishment, use of financial institution data matches, and revocation

of driver’s licenses and other privileges for parents delinquent in

paying child support.

This Subcommittee has and will continue to monitor the effects

of such changes. Here is what we know already. In 2000, $17.9 billion in child support was collected, which is a 50-percent increase

since 1996. By using the passport denial program, $7 million in

lump-sum payments were collected in the last year, and the number of paternities established in 2000 reached a record 1.6 million,

an increase of 46 percent since 1996. Overall, the system seems to

be operating more efficiently with total collections per program dollars spent on the rise as well.

Yet, with all that, we also know that in 1999, the program collected child support payments for only 37 percent of its caseload.

So this leads to a number of questions: which of the recent changes

have been most effective, which need further refinement, and what

else can be done to improve child support collections?

The options for further improvements include the second topic of

our hearing today, fatherhood proposals. Single-parent families

benefit in many ways from the contributions of a noncustodial parent, most often a father. Unfortunately, many fathers are poor, and

as a group, unmarried poor fathers face greater challenges than

other dads such as elevated rates of unemployment and incarceration. Some were themselves raised by single moms, often without

the benefit of a positive male role model.

The fatherhood initiatives we will hear about today are designed

to help break this cycle, to help fathers meet their responsibilities

as parents, providers, and hopefully husbands. That should improve child support collection, but this effort is about much more

than just that.

For too long, government seemed to care only about the provider

side of this role, which is important to be sure. But children need

more than just financial support to grow into healthy, productive

members of society. Every child deserves a father for all the roles

5

a dad plays in a child’s development—parent, mentor, disciplinarian, coach, and friend.

In addition to helping fathers and children improve their emotional and financial connections, fatherhood programs also can help

both fathers and mothers better understand the positive aspects of

marriage.

For example, a recent study indicates that teenagers living with

their married biological parents have lower levels of emotional and

behavioral problems, higher levels of school involvement, and fewer

school suspensions or expulsions than teens living in step-families,

with single mothers, or in cohabiting families.

I am encouraged that many fatherhood programs let young people know about the benefits of marriage, especially for their children. The House is on record supporting such efforts, and the

President has proposed additional funding. So support seems to be

growing, at least in part, because, as we will hear, the need for fatherhood programs is great.

To discuss these topics and more, we have a distinguished group

of witnesses with us today. We will start by hearing from Members

of Congress about proposals they have introduced. Then we will

hear from the States, advocates and researchers, about what is

working and what more should be done.

Finally, I note that Ron Haskins is joining us as a witness today

for the first time since his departure as this Subcommittee’s staff

director last year. We welcome him back and thank him for his

many years of service to this Committee and the Congress.

Without objection, each member will have the opportunity to submit a written statement and have it included in the record, and at

this point, Mr. Cardin, would you like to make an opening statement?

[The opening statement of Chairman Herger follows:]

Opening Statement of the Hon. Wally Herger, a Representative in Congress

from the State of California, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Human Resources

Welcome to this afternoon’s hearing on child support and fatherhood proposals.

Our hearing today will provide oversight on the child support program, as well

as allow us to explore further changes, such as those in legislation introduced by

our colleagues Nancy Johnson and Ben Cardin.

Substantial reforms of the child support enforcement program were enacted in the

1996 welfare reform law. For example, we have seen the creation of a new hire data

base, improved paternity establishment, use of financial institution data matches,

and revocation of drivers’ licenses and other privileges for parents delinquent in

paying child support.

This Subcommittee has and will continue to monitor the effects of such changes.

Here’s what we know already. In 2000, $17.9 billion in child support was collected,

which is a 50 percent increase since 1996. By using the passport denial program,

$7 million in lump sum payments were collected in the last year, and the number

of paternities established in 2000 reached a record of 1.6 million—an increase of 46

percent since 1996. Overall, the system seems to be operating more efficiently, with

total collections per program dollar spent on the rise as well.

Yet with all that, we also know that in 1999 the program collected payments for

only 37 percent of its caseload. So this leads to a number of questions:

• Which of the recent changes have been most effective?

• Which need further refinement? and

• What else can be done to improve child support collections?

The options for further improvements include the second topic of our hearing

today—fatherhood proposals.

6

Single-parent families benefit in many ways from the contributions of a noncustodial parent, most often a father. Unfortunately, many fathers are poor, and as a

group unmarried poor fathers face greater challenges than other dads, such as elevated rates of unemployment and incarceration. Some were themselves raised by

single moms, often without the benefit of a positive male role model.

The fatherhood initiatives we will hear about today are designed to help break

this cycle—to help fathers meet their responsibilities as parents and providers, and

hopefully husbands. That should improve child support collection, but this effort is

about much more than just that.

For too long, government seemed to care only about the provider side of this role,

which is important to be sure. But children need more than just financial support

to grow into healthy, productive members of society. Every child deserves a father,

and all the roles a dad plays in a child’s development—parent, mentor, disciplinarian, coach, and friend.

In addition to helping fathers and children improve their emotional and financial

connections, fatherhood programs also can help both fathers and mothers better understand the positive aspects of marriage. For example, a recent study indicates

that teenagers living with their married, biological parents have lower levels of emotional and behavioral problems, higher levels of school involvement, and fewer

school suspensions or expulsions than teens living in stepfamilies, with single mothers, or in cohabiting families.

I am encouraged that many fatherhood programs let young people know about the

benefits of marriage, especially for their children.

The House is on record supporting such efforts, and the President has proposed

additional funding. So support seems to be growing, at least in part because, as we

will hear, the need is for fatherhood programs is great.

To discuss these topics and more we have a distinguished group of witnesses with

us today. We will start by hearing from Members of Congress about proposals they

have introduced. Then we will hear from the States, advocates, and researchers

about what is working, and what more should be done.

Finally, I note that Ron Haskins is joining us as a witness today for the first time

since his departure as this Subcommittee’s Staff Director last year. We welcome him

back, and thank him for his many years of service to this Committee and the Conout that Ron Haskins is here so I have the opportunity to crossgress.

Mr. CARDIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am glad you pointed

f examine him when he gets up here. I have been looking forward

to that for a couple of years.

Mr. Chairman, let me thank you for holding this hearing. We

need to look at our child support collections system, and we need

to reform it. We can work in a very bipartisan way in order to try

to improve the quality of life for families to depend upon the collection of child support.

I particularly want to acknowledge our colleagues that are here.

Mrs. Johnson, the distinguished Chair of this Committee in the

last Congress, forged a very strong coalition among Democrats and

Republicans to reform our child support system. It wasn’t her first

actions last year, and when we were able to pass a bill very similar

to the one that we are considering today by a vote of 405 to 18 on

the floor of the House, but for over the years that she has been

working on the child support issues.

It was my pleasure last year to join her in that legislation, and

again this year to join her in the legislation that reforms our child

support system so that more money, in fact, can go to the families

and that we can make it simpler for our local governments to administer our child support system.

7

I also want to acknowledge Mike Castle, who has come up with

a very important tool to help families collect child support, and I

applaud Mike’s actions on this issue.

Chris Cox has come up with a proposal to help use our Tax Code

in a more effective way to help families collect child support. So I

appreciate all three of our colleagues being here today to assist us

as we develop legislation to reform our child support collections

system.

Mr. Chairman, child support should go to the children. I guess

that is why we call it ‘‘child support,’’ but, today, the arrearages in

many cases go to government, not to the families. Our laws require

that the governments be paid back first. If a State wants to pass

through more child support to the families, the Federal laws penalize those States by requiring the State to pay the Federal share

which can be anywhere between one-half to three-quarters of the

total amount that is passed through to the family.

We just recently had a debate on the floor of this Congress about

what marginal tax rates should be, and I heard many of my colleagues talk about in-the-thirties percent being too high of a marginal tax rate. Well, we have 100-percent tax rate on child support

collections today, 100-percent rate for the poorest people in our

country, and that makes absolutely no sense at all.

That is why we need to enact legislation that Mrs. Johnson and

I have been working on that would allow States to pass through

child support to the families first. Many of these families are not

on welfare today. To encourage work, we should be doing this,

without having to pay the Federal share as long as the State disregards the money for the purposes of determining eligibility.

I think that makes a lot of sense. I think we need to move forward on that legislation. Let me just give you a few reasons more.

First, it will provide resources to families that need it. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated this will be about $6.3 billion over the next 10 years going to these families. That is a significant amount of resources going to low-income families.

Second, it is incentive for the noncustodial parent to pay child

support. If it goes to the families, it is much more likely that the

noncustodial parent will, in fact, pay child support.

Third, it helps the family unit to work together. The noncustodial

parent feels that he is part or she is part of the family, which is

not the case today in many cases.

Last, as I mentioned earlier, it certainly simplifies the administration of the child support systems in this country.

So, for all of these reasons, I hope that this Committee and this

House will do what we did last year and pass this legislation and

hopefully convince the other body to do the same.

Last, let me point out that the fatherhood provisions that were

worked on and passed at least twice by the House in the last Congress were carefully worked on by Mrs. Johnson and I and a group

of people in a very bipartisan way, which sets up a way that we

can really work to help the noncustodial parent, by developing

some national models and some local efforts to improve efforts to

help the noncustodial parent be part of the family and a constructive provider of support.

8

So I would hope that the Committee would look kindly on this

legislation, and I do look forward to hearing from all the witnesses

today.

[The opening statement of Mr. Cardin follows:]

Opening Statement of the Hon. Benjamin L. Cardin, a Representative in

Congress from the State of Maryland

Mr. Chairman, I commend you for holding this hearing to evaluate proposals on

improving our Nation’s child support enforcement system and on promoting responsible fatherhood. I hope today’s hearing represents the first step towards this panel

passing long overdue reforms to the child support system.

I am very pleased that we are joined today by a panel of our colleagues who have

considerable experience in these issues. Nancy Johnson has been a pioneer in improving our child support system, and I was very pleased to join her earlier this

year in reintroducing the Child Support Distribution Act, HR 1471. An almost identical version of this bill passed the House last year by a vote of 405 to 18.

We are also joined by Mike Castle, who has championed an expansion of an existing child support collection tool (a proposal that is included in the larger Johnson

bill), and by Chris Cox, who has proposed a change in the tax code to encourage

the payment of past-due child support.

Mr. Chairman, if you took a poll that asked whether child support payments

should go to the children for whom it was paid, I am sure the vast majority of Americans would say—Yes, of course those payments should be used to support children.

That’s why we call it child support.

Unfortunately, our child support laws provide a very different response to that

question. Current law actually penalizes States that send child support collections

to families struggling to leave welfare, and in some cases, to families that have already left public assistance.

For example, if a State sends a child support collection to family on welfare, it

still owes the Federal government between half and three-quarters of that same

child support payment. This has discouraged States from passing through child support—and encouraged them to adopt an effective 100% tax rate on child support

payments to certain families.

The Johnson-Cardin Child Support Distribution Act, HR 1471, would end this disincentive for States to send child support to families. This bipartisan measure would

provide States with various options to send child support to low-income families—

with the Federal government acting as a financial partner, rather than a financial

barrier. For example, States would be permitted to pass-through up to $400 a month

to families receiving cash welfare, as long as the amount is disregarded for welfare

payment purposes. In addition, States could send all support to families that have

left cash welfare.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates these reforms would send an additional $6.3 billion in child support to low-income families over the next ten years

compared to current law.

There are three primary benefits to passing through more child support to current

and former welfare families. First and most obviously, the policy will result in more

resources to provide food, clothes and shelter for some of our Nation’s poorest children.

Second, passing through child support will encourage non-custodial parents to pay

support because they will know their payments are going to benefit their families,

rather than going to State and Federal treasuries. Perhaps just as importantly, this

enhanced sense of financial responsibility may actually foster closer emotional ties

between absent parents and their children.

And third, this change will greatly simplify the administration of the child support system, which will free up caseworkers to ensure the payment of child support,

instead of spending precious time on complying with complicated and time-consuming Federal regulations.

In addition to the child support reforms,

HR 1471 includes $155 million for competitive grants designed to promote responsible fatherhood. This section of the bill, which includes a fully-funded evaluation,

will give us some much needed data on how we can improve certain parents prospects for employment, marriage and an improved relationship with their children.

I hope this subcommittee will pass legislation including these vitally important

child support and fatherhood provisions as soon as humanly possible. The Child

Support Distribution Act has the overwhelming support of both Republicans and

Democrats and of groups representing both mothers and fathers. We should act on

9

this consensus and pass legislation that will have an immediate and meaningful impact on millions of children. Every day we wait, is one more day that a parent’s

support will not reach their child.

Thank you.

Chairman H

Before we move on to our testimony this afternoon, I want to reERGER. Thank you, Mr. Cardin.

f mind the witnesses to limit their oral statements to 5 minutes.

However, without objection, all of the written testimony will be

made a part of the permanent record.

For the first panel today, we are honored to have several of our

House colleagues. I would like to welcome the Honorable Nancy

Johnson of Connecticut, a Member of this Subcommittee, the Honorable Christopher Cox from my home State of California, and the

Honorable Mike Castle of Delaware. Again, I welcome each of you

here.

With that, we will begin with your testimony, Mrs. Johnson.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. NANCY L. JOHNSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

As you and Mr. Cardin both know, I am intensely interested in

the work you are doing and commend you on moving forward on

the important issues that face our children and families in America.

Let me be brief because I know you both know a good deal about

the bill that I am going to talk about and, in larger measure, the

subjects I am going to talk about.

First of all, I am pleased that Mr. Cardin and I did pass legislation in the last session that had overwhelming support and was a

real advance in the concept of the child support law. We did pass

very tough enforcement a few years ago, and we are collecting a

lot more child support than we ever have, but it is not going directly to the woman. It is not going directly to the mother of the

child. It is not going directly into the family’s resources. So, as we

move forward with welfare reform, we need to have this money

flow to the mother of the child in order to create the bond between

the mother of the child and the father of the child that will allow

the development of the human relations, the emotional ties that

are essential to the well-being of that child.

So our bill does say that when they leave welfare, the money

goes directly to them, but, more importantly—and it was more controversial—it says that the money can flow to the mother while she

is still on welfare. This is extremely important.

When that young man is making child support payments, he

needs to feel he is contributing to his family, and the mother of the

child needs to feel that contribution. Unless it comes directly—and

with today’s technology, we can easily account for that in our system. Instead of having it flow to the State and from the State to

the mother, which it does now, it must flow directly because then

the mother gets it; that the father is there and is a part of this

child’s life and a part of the economic security of this child. It is

10

one of the most compelling facts in the whole hemisphere of facts

associated with all of these issues is the fact that when a child is

born out of wedlock, 80 percent of the women and men believe the

relationship that produced the child was a serious and important

one and, furthermore, was going to last into the future. In 2 years,

the fathers are gone. So we need to look seriously at our responsibility to make sure the fathers are not gone, and part of that is to

enforce the child support laws, but to make sure that the flow of

those dollars into the family give that male standing in that family

as the father of that child.

If you combine the child support changes that we are proposing

in our legislation with the fatherhood provisions—and these, at this

point, only apply to the fathers of children on welfare or who have

been on welfare within the last year—the goal is to give the men

the same support we are giving the women, so that not only can

they grow economically in parallel, but so that they can grow emotionally in parallel.

One of the reasons the men are gone in 2 years is because during

that time, the woman has had job service, some career counseling.

She has gone through a process which helps her see what her capabilities are. She often has started her first job, and she has begun

to see herself as a mother and as an earner and as a competent

adult.

Meanwhile, her male friend down here is still on the streets, unemployed, or with a very low level or very sporadic pattern of employment. So, if he has the same experiences, if he is helped into

the same legitimate structure of work and reward, then they experience the same things. They both grow in their understanding of

their own power as economic providers, and they have the chance

to both participate in the kind of parenting programs and money

management programs that we know will fill gaps in their educational experience, so that they can be competent adults.

I just want to point to one thing that Ben Cardin did mention

because it is absolutely critical. We took a lot of flack on this last

year from some groups, but if we do not do something to help these

young men with the problem of arrearages, then we will not get

them into the work force that pays Social Security and on retirement is eligible for benefits and Medicare.

Right now, because we cannot deal with the problem of arrearages, because they have all that debt, they stay out of the legal employment system. They do not contribute to Social Security. They

will not be eligible for Medicare, and, furthermore, there is a limit

to how much they can earn and help with their family. So that is

one of the reasons they are gone.

We have to help them earn off those arrearages, and we can give

them, for instance, credit for in-kind services and things like that.

We did not define what you ought to do because we need to see

what States think up that they want to do, but we have got to face

squarely the underground economy we force these young men into,

not just for a year or two, but for the rest of their lives.

So I thank you for your consideration of the child support issues

and of the fatherhood issues, and I look forward to working with

you and thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Johnson follows:]

11

Statement of the Hon. Nancy L. Johnson, a Representative in Congress

from the State of Connecticut

Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, thank you for holding this hearing

today and for your tireless efforts on behalf of our nation’s families. I would also

like to thank the Ranking Member, Mr. Cardin, for his hard work and insight in

this area.

The 1996 welfare reform law has been one of the greatest social policy successes

of the last half century. Due in great measure to this law and excellent reforms in

the earned income credit, Medicaid child care, and other programs that support

working families, work by single mothers, and especially never-married single mothers, has increased in the last 5 years to its highest level ever.

As a result, according to a broad Census Bureau measure of poverty, we have reduced child poverty by nearly 30 percent in the last 5 years. This is a historic

achievement made possible by legislation that originated in this body.

Welfare reform has put us on the right track. But many of these single mothers

and their children are struggling on extremely low incomes. Those who used to be

on welfare are now in the workforce, but all too often their day-to-day personal

struggle is nothing short of heroic. They work hard to juggle transportation, child

care, work, and family time. It is a big job and millions of women are tackling it

with determination and grit.

This is why I, along with my good friend Mr. Cardin, have reintroduced the Child

Support Distribution Act. I am proud to say this legislation passed the House of

Representatives last September by an overwhelming vote of 405–18. This legislation

is designed to ensure that these mothers who have left welfare get all the help they

deserve. Under this bill they will get to keep more of the child support money the

fathers of their children are paying.

It is time to modernize the child support system’s connection with welfare and require that a woman gets 100 percent of the father’s child support payment as she

leaves welfare. That is exactly what this bill does.

When fully implemented, this legislation will provide young mothers leaving welfare with an additional $700 million per year. That is $3.5 billion over 5 years. And

every penny of it comes from child support payments made by fathers.

In addition, this bill allows states to pass along child support through to the family while the family is still on welfare. This will encourage the development of the

bond between the noncustodial and custodial parent, help them develop an understanding of their economic ties, and better prepare families for the transfer off of

welfare. Remember, if they understand the economic ties that bind, they are going

to be better positioned to develop the emotional ties on which a secure life for the

child depends.

Of course, the best solution for these single mothers and their children would be

to form two-parent families through marriage. We now have overwhelming evidence

from research that marriage is good for health and happiness of both mothers and

fathers, but the greatest beneficiaries of marriage are the children.

Thus, as part of this very balanced legislation, we propose to fund small-scale

community and faith-based projects throughout the Nation to promote marriage

and/or better parenting by low-income fathers whose children are on welfare and to

help them improve their economic circumstances.

I know that many in this body doubt that government should be involved in promoting marriage, so I urge them to consider how our proposal would work. We want

to provide seed money to help faith-based and other community organizations tackle

this vital job. Seventy-five percent of the funds must support nongovernmental organizations. So we are not creating a new government program and bureaucracy. Government is simply a mechanism to help private organizations perform this important work.

Let me also mention the legitimate concern of some that women could be pressured into violent relationships. In this bill we have added many provisions to assure that domestic violence and child abuse are prevented and that referrals are

made to local services to help families in which violence is occurring.

But we must in good conscience build on the important fact discovered through

welfare reform. Because of its paternity determination requirements, we now know

that 80 percent of the adults having out-of-wedlock children are serious about their

relationship and believe it will be lasting.

Yet, after 2 years, most fathers are out of the picture. This bill will help many

poor young men and women, more than half of whom live together when the child

is born, and as I said, 80 percent of whom say they hope to form a lasting relationship, to fulfill that dream through education and support.

12

Young people with low incomes often live in dangerous communities, lack economic security, and have few role models to help them form stable, lasting marriages. These young couples face long odds. This bill will help them work toward

marriage, work toward becoming better parents, and work toward economic advancement.

We will now provide the same help in getting a job to the fathers of children on

welfare as we do to mothers on welfare. In other areas we will provide some of the

education that has so helped women to their male partners. It is just common sense.

This bill will move us a dramatic step forward in helping our poorest young people

help themselves by making sure that child support money stays in the family. This

will help young mothers to avoid or get off welfare, and bring young fathers and

their children closer together.

The fatherhood provisions of this bill promote more responsible behavior by fathers, including marriage, better parenting, and work. Through the fatherhood demonstration grants and the child support distribution reforms, we will bring our Nation a giant step forward on the path to building strong families and helping our

poorest young people realize their dreams.

Again, I thank my colleagues on the committee for their support and hard work

on this issue and I look forward to continuing our efforts to build stronger families.

work that you have put into this and your leadership.

Chairman HERGER. Thank you, Mrs. Johnson, again, for all the

f Now we will hear from Mr. Cox for testimony.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. CHRISTOPHER COX, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. COX. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Cardin, and

Chairwoman Johnson as well for all of your leadership on these

issues.

I am trying to speak loudly enough so I do not need a microphone, but I think it would be helpful for the record if I use it.

I wanted to thank the Chairman, Mr. Cardin, and Chairwoman

Johnson for all of your leadership on these issues this year and in

years prior.

I am here to speak about the Child Support Enforcement Act. As

we are considering ways to improve the well-being of kids who are

often short-changed because fathers are absent and because child

support payments are not made, we have to come face to face with

some statistics. A staggering 93 percent of child support is in arrears. It is the norm for child support not to be paid or not to be

paid on time, and oftentimes, as with other receivables, the older

the obligation gets, the longer it is not paid, the more likely it is

it will never be paid at all. Mountains of past-due child support

will simply never be paid at all.

What then happens to the custodial parent, often the mother,

sometimes the father? What happens to the kids when a family

court says you are entitled to a substantial amount or at least an

adequate amount to pay for clothes, for medical care, for food for

these children, for their education in some cases, when they get

nothing, when they get absolutely nothing?

Some years ago, Senator Dale Bumpers had an idea, and I found

it to be an especially attractive idea and adopted it myself and it

is the basis for this legislation. It is that in the same way that the

Tax Code gives a measure of relief to someone who is owed a debt,

but finds that it goes bad, we could give tax relief to custodial parVerDate 11-MAY-2000 18:14 Nov 08, 2001 Jkt 074742 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\B742.XXX pfrm04 PsN: B742
13

ents and to those kids of the child support is owed them, but is not

paid. They could, in essence, get a bad-debt deduction.

At the same time, the Tax Code, in a mirror-image provision,

provides for the recognition of income for the cancelation of indebtedness. So, in this case, the parent owes child support, but does not

pay it, who is in the position of essentially canceling his or her own

debt, would recognize cancelation of indebtedness income.

Because of the mirror-image tax treatment, there is no negative

revenue effect. Moreover, because statistically the custodial parents

are in lower tax brackets on average, there is a modest positive

revenue effect from this legislation.

There are questions that one can anticipate with a proposal such

as this. They have, in fact, been raised by the Internal Revenue

Service (IRS) and by staff of this Committee in past years. I have

been working on this for a number of years now, and, in particular,

the hearing that Chairwoman Johnson conducted last year was an

opportunity to remedy some of these technical issues.

Specifically, in the bill that is now before you, both the recognition of income and the bad debt deduction take place in exactly the

same 12-month accounting period, and so there is no problem of a

mismatch of revenue and expense from the standpoint of the Treasury.

Second, there are no obligations imposed upon the IRS in connection with this legislation. It is self-reporting, using Form 1099C, a

form that already exists for the cancelation of indebtedness. It is,

therefore, a simple administrative proposal, but it might well be a

powerful relief for parents who do not have the child support that

family court judges tell them they ought to have.

The problems that we are talking about here today are serious

ones indeed. I wish they did not affect so many people in our country, but they do, and I think that anything we can do to help, we

ought to do. This is certainly something that is within our power

to do, and I urge your consideration and appreciate very much the

interest that you have shown already and in the past.

Thanks.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cox follows:]

Statement of the Hon. Christopher Cox, a Representative in Congress from

the State of California

Introduction

Thank you, Chairman Herger and Mr. Cardin, for holding this hearing today, and

for graciously giving me the opportunity to testify on the merits of the Child Support Enforcement Act.

Today, we are here to consider what else may be done to improve the well-being

of kids who are shortchanged when child support isn’t paid. A staggering 93 percent

of child support is in arrears. We have to give delinquent parents a strong financial

incentive to pay, and we have to give relief to the custodial parents who aren’t getting the help they need to raise their kids.

The Custodial Parent Should Get A ‘Bad Debt’ Deduction for Unpaid Child

Support

Under current law, custodial parents receive no tax relief when the other parent

fails to meet his or her legal and moral obligations to pay child support in full and

on time.

Our current tax code permits individual tax filers to take a ‘‘bad debt’’ deduction

when they are unable to collect a valid monetary obligation. But it does not allow

a parent who has been unable to collect legally obligated child support payments

to take the same ‘‘bad debt’’ deduction.

14

The Child Support Enforcement Act will give tax relief to custodial parents by extending the tax code’s existing treatment of unpaid debts to expressly include child

support payments. Again, this is the same tax treatment already afforded to other

bad debts under Section 166 in the Code. It is completely reasonable and logical

that we extend the same tax treatment afforded for unpaid rent, for example, to our

most precious resource, our children.

The Delinquent Debtor Should Recognize ‘Forgiveness of Indebtedness’ Income for Unpaid Child Support

Under our current tax code, a parent who has unilaterally failed to fulfill his or

her child support obligation is not required to include the defaulted amounts in income to reflect the windfall gain from nonpayment of the debt.

The ‘‘forgiveness of indebtedness’’ provisions of our current tax law require a debtor who receives an economic gain from not paying a debt to count the unpaid

amount as taxable income. But it does not provide the same tax treatment if the

unpaid debt is child support. A delinquent debtor who enriches himself by failing

to make child support payments is not taxed on the money that he has wrongfully

appropriated to himself.

The Child Support Enforcement Act will require a delinquent parent who has

failed to pay child support to be taxed on that amount, just as a debtor would be

taxed under Section 108 of the Code. Since the parent who fails to pay child support

is simply ‘‘forgiving’’ his own debt, he should receive the same tax treatment already

applied to any other ‘‘forgiven’’ debt that the borrower doesn’t pay.

Even though the Child Support Enforcement Act extends current tax law concerning bad debts to include child support, it in no way provides forgiveness of liability. The parent who owes child support continues to bear the full legal obligation

to pay it. The Act simply provides a tax benefit for the custodial parent, and an additional financial incentive for swift payment of child support obligations by the delinquent parent.

Revisions to the Bill

A few revisions have been made to the Child Support Enforcement Act to address

technical issues raised by the Committee following last year’s hearing:

First, the Child Support Enforcement Act does not require an amended return to

the Internal Revenue Service if past-due child support is subsequently paid.

Second, there is an exceptionally simple reporting process that does not burden

or even involve the IRS. Both the bad debt deduction for the custodial parent, and

the recognition of income from forgiveness of indebtedness for the delinquent parent,

would occur in the same taxable year. The custodial parent who is planning to take

the bad debt deduction would file a form that already exists, the 1099–C ‘‘Cancellation of Debt’’ form, with the IRS. A copy would be sent to the delinquent debtor.

Third, there is no additional power granted to the IRS. In my view, that is not

necessary. In fact, IRS involvement through the Child Support Enforcement Act

would be far less than current IRS involvement with the 18-year-old Federal Refund

Tax Offset Program because the IRS is not required to distribute past-due child support to custodial parents. Taxpayers will simply report child support bad debt and

claim the deduction on their returns (or take it into income), as they currently do

for any other unpaid debt.

Budget Impact

Because both the income from cancellation of indebtedness and the deduction for

bad debt are mirror images, there is no negative revenue effect. Moreover, because

statistically parents who owe child support are in higher tax brackets than the custodial parents, the Act produces a modest revenue gain.

Conclusion

The Child Support Enforcement Act complements state-level enforcement mechanisms currently in place, by creating tax equity where none exists. It also encourages the continued reporting and development of databases to better track child

support obligations.

We should not allow delinquent parents to avoid their legal obligations—and we

should not punish the custodial parents who are forced to make ends meet without

the assistance of child support payments.

The Child Support Enforcement Act will help redress these injustices. I commend

the Chairman, Ranking Member, and the Members of this Committee for their interest and support, and I look forward to working with you to produce legislation

that can be signed into law this year.

f

15

Chairman HERGER. Thank you very much, Mr. Cox, for your testimony and appearing before our Committee. Now we are delighted

to hear from Mr. Castle of Delaware. Mr. Castle.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. MICHAEL N. CASTLE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE

Mr. CASTLE. Thank you, Chairman Herger and Ranking Member

Cardin, Mr. Watkins, and Mr. Camp.

I am also pleased to be here, and I want to thank you for giving

me as well as others who are going to be testifying today the opportunity to testify on the extremely important subject of the child

support enforcement in this country.

It is a fundamental principle that parents who bring a child into

this world are both responsible for providing that child’s physical

needs, regardless of any conflicts in their relationship. It is rewarding for me to join you here today to discuss how we can improve

the laws of this country to enforce that principle.

I want to take a few minutes to discuss the Child Support Fairness and Federal Tax Refund Interception Act of 2001. Recently, I

introduced this bill to remove a legal barrier that is preventing the

Federal Tax Refund Offset program for more effectively ensuring

that child support is paid to all those entitled to it.

As you know, under current law, the Federal tax refunds to parents who owe back child support can be intercepted and used to reduce that debt. After garnishing wages, this program is the most

effective means of recovering back child support that accounts for

approximately one-quarter of all back child support collections.

However, unlike garnishing wages and many other child support

enforcement tools, eligibility for this program is restricted by the

age of the child. Eligibility for the program is limited to cases

where the child is still a minor, the parent is receiving public assistance, or the child is a disabled adult. This fails to protect nondisabled college-aged children and their custodial parents even if

the child support deficit accrued while the child was a minor. The

unintended effect of the program is that it rewards noncustodial

parents who are successful in avoiding their child support obligations while their children are still minors, and, believe me, many

do that. The age limit removes the threat of one of the most effective child support enforcement tools, the Tax Refund Intercept.

That is what my legislation would correct.

I think we should just ask ourselves whether there is any good

reason why we should allow delinquent parents to collect Federal

tax refunds to use for their enjoyment while custodial parents

struggle to recover from years of raising their children alone on one

income.

I hope Congress will alleviate the tremendous burden on single

parents who have to work even harder to provide for their children.

Artificial barriers such as the age limit on the Federal Tax Refund

Offset program should be torn down. A non-custodial parent should

not be able to escape their child support responsibilities by playing

a waiting game until their child is 18. The Federal Tax Refund OffVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:24 Nov 09, 2001 Jkt 074742 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\B742.XXX pfrm11 PsN: B742
16

set program is responsible for retrieving approximately a quarter

of all back child support collections, and the time has come to make

it a greater success by helping all children and custodial parents

by removing the age limits.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I thank you,

Chairman Herger.

I have actually approached the Chairman of the Ways and

Means Committee on this. I believe this is excellent legislation. I

introduced it last year. We were unable to get it through, but I

think it is so good that if we put it on the suspension calendar for

the Tuesday that we come back and you are able to get this done,

I can see your colleagues raising you on their shoulders and carrying you out of the chambers. That may be a bit of an exaggeration, but, nonetheless, I think it is good legislation, and I hope it

would help a lot of people. Hopefully, we can move forward with

it.

Thank you for the opportunity to be here.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Castle follows:]

Statement of the Hon. Michael N. Castle, a Representative in Congress from

the State of Delaware

Chairman Herger, Ranking Member Cardin, Members of the Subcommittee, I

want to thank you for giving me this opportunity to testify on the important subject

of child support enforcement.

It is a fundamental principle that parents who bring a child into this world are

both responsible for providing for that child’s physical needs, regardless of any conflicts in their relationship. It is rewarding for me to join you here today to discuss

how we can improve the laws of this country to enforce that principle.

I want to take a few moments to discuss the ‘‘Child Support Fairness and Federal

Tax Refund Interception Act of 2001.’’ Recently, I introduced this bill to remove a

legal barrier that is preventing the Federal Tax Refund Offset program from more

effectively ensuring that child support is paid to all those entitled to it.

As you know, under current law, the Federal tax refunds of parents who owe back

child support can be intercepted and used to reduce that debt. After garnishing

wages, this program is the most effective means of recovering back child support.

It accounts for approximately one-quarter of all back child support collections.

However, unlike garnishing wages and many other child support enforcement

tools, eligibility for this program is restricted by the age of the child. Eligibility for

the program is limited to cases where the child is still a minor, the parent is receiving public assistance or the child is a disabled adult. This fails to protect non-disabled, college-age children and their custodial parents, even if the child support deficit accrued while the child was a minor. The unintended effect of the program is

that it rewards non-custodial parents who are successful in avoiding their child support obligations while their children are minors. The age limit removes the threat

of one of the most effective child support enforcement tools—the Tax Refund Intercept.

I think we should just ask ourselves whether there is any good reason why we

should allow delinquent parents to collect Federal tax refunds to use for their enjoyment, while custodial parents struggle to recover from years of raising their children

alone on one income.

I hope Congress will alleviate the tremendous burden on single parents who have

to work even harder to provide for their children. Artificial barriers such as the age

limit on the Federal Tax Refund Offset program, should be torn down. A non-custodial parent should not be able to escape their child support responsibilities by playing a waiting game until their child is eighteen. The Federal Tax Refund Offset program is responsible for retrieving approximately one-quarter of all back child support collections. The time has come to make it a greater success by helping all children who deserve support. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Thank you, Chairman Herger, for your commitment to this important issue. I look

forward to working with you to move this bill to the full house in the near future.

f

17

Chairman HERGER. Thank you very much, Mr. Castle. Mr. Watkins to inquire.

Mr. WATKINS. Let me say to the panel that I have the greatest

and deepest respect for all three of you in the different directions

you are coming from, but maybe I am raised in the old school of

the situation where no one is talking about young men accepting

some responsibility.

If we do not tell them they have got a responsibility to fulfill

their obligations, if people just feel like there is—80 percent of

them feel like they were in some kind of serious relationship, what

do we—if it is a court order they are supposed to be fulfilling in

their child support payments, what is the responsibility they have

from that court order? Is it anything at all that they——

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. A lot of these——

Mr. WATKINS. What is their penalty if they do not abide by it?

Is there any penalty for them not abiding by the court order saying

you make the payments to that young lady? I think there should

be a responsibility on that young man to make those payments. If

not, he maybe should go to jail.

Now, I think somewhere there has got to be a responsibility. I

do not know—I know the gentlelady from Connecticut, she knows

I had a little bit of difficulty with it last year, but where are we

missing that situation?

I know my friend from Delaware, you have been the leader of a

State and you have probably seen it from several different angles

than my colleague from California, but I think we need to put some

teeth into saying you abide by that court order, male or female.

Mr. COX. Mr. Chairman, if I might.

I think you make an excellent point, and in the Child Support

Enforcement Act, which I have just described, if the person who

owes child support fails to pay it, then he or she is required to take

the amount that he or she was supposed to pay into income, and

if that person was, let us say, in the 30-percent income tax bracket,

that means that there is a 30-percent penalty that is owed for not

paying child support for a full year. That is exactly the kind of

thing you are talking about, I believe.

Mr. WATKINS. That is at least a step in the direction of saying

you have a responsibility because I think too many times, we have

said to people you can go out and have a fling and all these kind

of things, and they think that is serious—not out one night, but it

is not. They waltz away without paying anything, and I think they

need to try to be responsible. I think we need to at least step there

first and say what do we put the teeth of responsibility in if

you——

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. If I may comment. I agree with

you absolutely. In the end, this is about personal responsibility. Do

not bring children into the world unless you are going to be responsible for them, but remember we have had out there for many,

many years before 1994 when we reformed welfare a system that

said it is all right to have kids out of wedlock, do not worry, the

government will support you. So we have a system out there now

since welfare reform that says to the young mother, ‘‘Hey, wait a

18

minute. Let’s look at what job you are capable of,’’ and so on and

so forth.

But we do not set the father down, even though we require a paternity determination. We do not set the father down and say, ‘‘OK,

you have just had the baby. This is what you are going to owe. This

is how it is going to accumulate if you do not do it. This is how

you manage money. Let us help you get into the work force.’’ We

do not give them any of the support services, and they are mostly

unemployed or have a very poor work history. We do not give them

the job placement support services. We do not give them the career

counseling, the budget management, the parenting courses to help

them bond into this situation that they have helped create that is

so important to this child. So I want to help them take their responsibility.

Now, this arrearages issue should not be an issue if we help people take their responsibility from the beginning. The arrearage

issue really comes from the fact that for years, we did not. So now

you have a lot of gentlemen who would like to be active parents

of their children who have this history of debt that they often were

not even aware they were building up. They thought the mother

was on welfare. She was on welfare. They did not understand that

they were liable for all that.

So I am not saying forgive arrearages. I want our States to begin

thinking about as people get into the work force and we help

them—some of these guys have $40,000 debt, $30,000 debt. They are never going to make more than $8 an hour. You cannot repay

that debt. Do you want them to be paying Social Security and get

into Medicare?

Mr. WATKINS. A lot of college students have a lot bigger debt

than that. Nancy, there is a lot of college students that have a lot

more debt than that, and they have the responsibility—— Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. At least they have a college degree.

Mr. WATKINS. But I am willing to work with you on it very closely to see if we have got those areas of responsibility worked out because I know that there are differences. We are dealing with a

variable here of human beings, but I think somewhere, we have got

to have that step of responsibility.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. I think your point is very well

taken.

Mr. WATKINS. And I think these others can come in place, also,

but I think we have got to make sure they understand that, just

like working and raising children.

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. And we did in our bill really only

provide a preference for demonstration projects that attacks this

problem because we know so little about how to solve it, for just

the reasons you point to. Thanks.

Chairman HERGER. The gentleman’s time has expired. Mr.

Cardin to inquire.

Mr. CARDIN. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Let me associate myself with the response by Mrs. Johnson. It

is clear we could do a better job in child support collection. I think

we all agree on that, and we do not want to condone any parent

not paying their obligations, but what I think we should acknowlVerDate 11-MAY-2000 18:14 Nov 08, 2001 Jkt 074742 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\B742.XXX pfrm04 PsN: B742
19

edge are some of the positive steps that Congresses have taken, the

last past Congresses have taken, to make it easier.

We have the suspension of our licenses that is now a requirement. We have the trade licenses. We have the wage lien laws.

Last time I checked my State of Maryland, people are going to jail

for not paying child support. We have criminal laws and civil

contempts on this around the Nation.

So the point about whether we should be more stringent in the

use of those penalties really rests with our States, and I agree with

Mrs. Johnson. Sometimes you need to look at the practical circumstances in which a family is in, and that is why I really applaud the legislation that is before this Committee because I think

it is well balanced.

We are trying to get the noncustodial parent engaged in the emotional part of the family, which we think will encourage a family

unit and the payment of child support obligations, and that is part

of our bill.

We also believe that on the arrearages that the money can go to

the family. It is much more likely that the payments will be made.

Right now, why wouldn’t you look for a way of escaping your obligations if the money is going to the government? If it is going to

your child, it is much more likely you are going to be more interested in making the payments real. So I think the bill is very well

balanced.

Mr. Castle, I just might point out that I am not sure we would

carry Mr. Herger out on his shoulders, but I think the other body

would. Our problem, I think, is with the Senate. It is not with the

House on this legislation. As you know, you might want to talk to

Chairman Thomas about it, but he is always leery about sending

a tax bill over to the Senate as non-controversial as it may be because, as you know, tax bills only can originate in the House, and

the Senate has a habit of taking a very nice non-controversial bill

and making it very controversial.

Mr. Cox, I just want to applaud you for the improvement in the

legislation, but I just would urge as we look at this bill that you

be prepared how to address the problem of how the IRS would reconcile a dispute between the custodial and noncustodial parent as

to how much is owed. As I understand your bill now, the custodial

parent would send a 1099 form, and if the noncustodial parent disagreed with that, I would be curious as to how the IRS would reconcile that dispute.

You do not need to answer now, but it is one of the issues that

I think we would want some attention paid.

Mr. COX. I will undertake to give you a more elaborate answer,

but on the face of it, because it is self-implementing, self-administrating, both parents can file a 1099C, redesigned perhaps only

slightly for the purpose, and they are responsible for their own tax

returns.

Mr. CARDIN. But if there is a difference between what the custodial parent files and the noncustodial parent, the IRS would be in

a very difficult position to determine who is correct in that.

Mr. COX. Yes. In fact, one of the reasons that we have these information returns and 1099’s and so on is to know when to trigger

an audit. It is some evidence that somebody is cheating.

20

Mr. CARDIN. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman HERGER. Thank you, Mr. Cardin. Mr. Camp, the gentleman from Michigan, to inquire.

Mr. CAMP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Congresswoman Johnson,

could you tell us a bit about the pro-marriage features of the fatherhood portion of your legislation, please?

Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Yes. They are very important. In

the hearing that we had and this Subcommittee held on promoting

marriage, it is very, very important. Too many of these young people are growing up in neighborhoods where there is no example at

all of a married couple. So they do not have any opportunity to

learn what are the advantages for them and for the child of marriage, and so we do give preference to those projects that have in

them some effort to educate people about marriage because, if we

do not do this, it is almost as egregious a policy error as it was to

pay people not to work.

Welfare was really a terrible system because it paid people not

to work, and in life, if you do not work, you do not know who you

are and you are not part of the real world, unless you are disabled.

We understand that some people cannot work.

In the same way, to not educate young people about marriage

when they have no opportunity to learn from their environment is

to ignore the enormous amount of research that has been done that

demonstrates that children do much better. They do better in

school. They do better emotionally. They have a brighter future if

they are part of a married unit. It is really astounding that we

have utterly ignored what is now a very significant body of research that children need both parents, and they do, do better in

marriage.

Mr. CAMP. Thank you very much.

I want to thank all of you for your testimony as well, and thank

the Chairman.

Chairman HERGER. Thank you very much, Mr. Camp.

I want to thank each of our witnesses for your outstanding testimony, and with that, I would at this point like to call on our second

panel to come forward, please.

I would also like to insert at this point in the record the statement of Frank Fuentes, acting deputy commissioner of the Office

of Child Support Enforcement, who is not able to be here today to

testify on behalf of the U.S. Department of Health and Human

Services, without objection.

[The following was subsequently received:]

Statement of Frank Fuentes, Acting Deputy Commissioner, Office of Child

Support Enforcement Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for

giving me the opportunity to submit testimony for the record on the Child Support

Enforcement program. I am Frank Fuentes, the Acting Commissioner of the Office

of Child Support Enforcement. The Child Support Enforcement program is a very

successful Federal/State partnership effort aimed at fostering family responsibility

and promoting self-sufficiency by encouraging that both parents support children financially and emotionally.

To accomplish this goal, we work in partnership with States in providing four

major services: locating noncustodial parents, establishing paternity, establishing

child support obligations, and enforcing child support orders. Welfare reform made

dramatic improvements in our ability to achieve these goals and I would like to take

21

this opportunity to share with you the promising results we are witnessing. I would

also like to share some of the activities the Administration is undertaking to

strengthen fatherhood since I know this is of particular interest to the Subcommittee.

Child Support Enforcement Program Record

Through enactment of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act 1996 (PRWORA), unprecedented tools have been provided to the

child support enforcement program. These tools are already having a dramatic impact in securing for many of our Nation’s children the emotional and financial support that they need. In FY 2000, a record $17.9 billion in child support was collected. This represents an increase of 50 percent since FY 1996. We now are collecting support on behalf of almost 68 percent of the caseload where an order has

been established.

PRWORA provided tough child support enforcement techniques and new automated collection methods. For example, the law expanded wage garnishment, authorized States to suspend or revoke driver and professional licenses for parents

who are delinquent, and provided for passport denial for parents who were at least

$5,000 delinquent in support.

In addition, the law established a Federal Case Registry and National Directory

of New Hires to track delinquent parents across State lines. It also required that

employers report all new hires to State agencies for transmittal to the national directory and to match records with financial institutions so that States may place

a lien on the accounts of delinquent parents.

Using the expanded Federal Parent Locator Service we were able to provide

States information on three million interstate cases, and using the Passport Denial

Program, we have collected over $7 million in lump sum child support payments in

the last year. To date, more than 4,200 financial institutions have agreed to participate in data matching for child support and nearly 700,000 individuals delinquent

in their child support have been matched with their accounts. The value of those

accounts is nearly $2.5 billion. Further, the Federal Tax Refund and Administrative

Offset programs collected about $1.4 billion in calendar year 2000.

The record is similar with respect to paternity establishment. The number of paternities established or acknowledged reached a record of 1.6 million in FY 2000.

This represents an increase of 46 percent since FY 1996. Of these, over 688,000 paternities were established through in-hospital acknowledgement programs. An additional 867,000 paternities were established through the Child Support Enforcement

program. In addition to being the first step in collecting child support, paternity establishment engages fathers in the lives of their children, creating the emotional

bonds and security that are crucial to their children’s health and well-being.

PRWORA streamlined the legal process for paternity establishment, making the

process easier and faster. It also expanded the voluntary in-hospital process for paternity establishment started in 1993 and required a State affidavit for voluntary

paternity acknowledgment. In addition, the law mandated that States publicize the

availability and encourage the use of the voluntary paternity establishment process.

We are excited about the dramatic results these changes are generating and are

convinced that the future of child support enforcement will continue on this successful path. Critical to these efforts, though, is a new and determined focus on the fathers.

Strengthening Fatherhood

I would like to turn to the administration’s efforts to strengthen fatherhood—what

we view as a critical complement to our enforcement efforts if we are to succeed in

accomplishing our basic mission of increasing both financial and emotional support

for our Nation’s children.

The Office of Child Support Enforcement has worked to strengthen the role of fathers in families. For example, we have funded eight child support enforcement responsible fatherhood demonstration projects that will help bolster fathers’ financial

and emotional involvement with their children. Each project is different, although

they all provide a range of services to aid in collecting child support, such as job

training, access and visitation, and social services.

The Office of Child Support Enforcement has provided over $1.5 million to the National Center for Strategic Nonprofit Planning and Community Leadership (NPCL)

to work with grassroots fathers’ organizations to help unemployed and underemployed fathers become responsible parents. In addition, we have approved ten

State waivers supporting the Partners for Fragile Families, a set of projects to test

ways for child support enforcement programs and community and faith-based organizations to work together to improve the opportunities of young, unmarried fathers

22

to support their children both financially and emotionally. Further, PRWORA created a $10 million access and visitation program for States, serving more than

22,000 individuals in 1997 and an estimated 50,000 in 1998.

Most recently, President Bush and Secretary Thompson’s clear commitment to

promoting involved, committed and responsible fatherhood as a national priority

was emphasized in the FY 2002 budget request. One of the many goals of the Administration’s FY 2002 proposal is to provide $64 million for the first year to support low-income families by helping low-income noncustodial parents (mainly fathers) support their children by paying child support and connecting or reconnecting

with their children.

This initiative shares many of the same goals as the fatherhood legislation supported by this Subcommittee. We commend Representatives Johnson and Cardin

and the Subcommittee for your leadership in focusing attention on responsible fatherhood and we look forward to working with you on this critical area of mutual

commitment. As the President recently said at the Fourth National Summit on Fatherhood, ‘‘For our children, and for our Nation, nothing is more important than the

national fatherhood initiative.’’

Conclusion

In closing, let me say that it is only through our partnership with the Congress

and the States that we have been so successful in strengthening the Child Support

Enforcement program. The many new tools provided by the Personal Responsibility

and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act are helping to improve the lives of our Nation’s children. We can improve on existing efforts by focusing more attention on

strengthening our commitment to fatherhood, and we look forward to working with

you on this important legislation.

be hearing from Mr. Nathaniel Young, Jr., director of the Virginia

Thank you. I would be pleased to answer your questions for the record.

Chairman HERGER. On the second panel this afternoon, we will

f Division of Child Support Enforcement, and president of the National Council of Child Support Directors; Dr. Jeffery Johnson,

president and chief executive officer of the National Center of Strategic Nonprofit Planning and Community Leadership (NPCL), accompanied by Mr. Raymond Byrd; Dr. Ron Haskins, senior fellow

in governmental Studies at The Brookings Institution and senior

consultant at the Annie E. Casey Foundation; Dr. Elaine Sorensen,

principal research associate at The Urban Institute; and, finally,

Joan Entmacher, vice president and director of Family Economic

Security at the National Women’s Law Center.

With that, Mr. Young to testify, please.

STATEMENT OF NATHANIEL L. YOUNG, JR., DIRECTOR, VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES’ DIVISION OF

CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT, RICHMOND, VIRGINIA;

PRESIDENT, NATIONAL COUNCIL OF CHILD SUPPORT DIRECTORS; BOARD MEMBER, NATIONAL CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT ASSOCIATION; AND BOARD MEMBER, EASTERN

REGIONAL INTERSTATE CHILD SUPPORT ASSOCIATION

Mr. YOUNG. Yes, sir. My name is Nick Young, and I am the director of Child Support Enforcement for the Commonwealth of Virginia, and I am also the president of the National Council of Child

Support Directors, the 54 child support directors of the Nation. I

appreciate being here today. Thank you very much.

I looked at a calendar and saw that our birthday, the Nation’s

birthday, is next Wednesday, 225 years. Then I saw it took us 199

years to pass the Social Security Act in 1975 to where we realized

that this was as a problem that we needed to address.

23

Then, in the ensuing 25 years that we have been doing child support, as is in the statement that you just entered from Mr. Fuentes,

we have collected $100 billion through good hard work of the child

support program and through the laws and the tools that you have

given us, and we are very appreciative of that.

I would like to mention that the $18 billion that was collected

last year shows the significant improvement that has been made.

If you tried to break the $100 billion by 25 years and then looked

at 1 year that you got $18 billion, it is getting better.

While you are precisely correct that the average may be 37 percent, some States do better than that. Some do worse. All in all,

though, we are very proud of the $18 billion, and we do appreciate

the tools you have given us. I think we have demonstrated that we

have used them responsibly, not necessarily to deliver child support

services, truly at the end of a billy club, but try to bring the personal responsibility into the picture here by working with a number of the people that are here at the table as well as the other

groups.

I have two or three things to recommend. My testimony has some

examples from each of your States, from many of the States, anyway, and I will let that stand for itself.

One of the things that we would encourage you to do is to literally stay the course. Remember that this is not a speed sport,

that it is behavior modification. It is difficult. As Representative

Johnson just spoke and the others as well very eloquently, we are

trying to fix a long-term problem, and we are trying to do it in a

fairly short period of time, and it is behavior modification, not always out-of-wedlock births, which in my particular State make up

70 percent of the caseload. While 30 percent of the out-of-wedlock

births occur every year, they cumulatively make up 70 percent of

the caseload. I submit to you that that is the problem we have to

fix before we try to fix the outcome which is getting the child support paid.

We support the simplification of distribution. It is far too complex. Most of us cannot understand it. We cannot explain it. We

can eventually program it into logic, but we could not explain it if

we had to.

I would only ask you to look at how the child support program

is funded concurrently with your desires to fix distribution. You

may be fixing distribution, but you could break the way that a

State delivers the child support services, depending on whether or

not they had retained earnings or whether or not they totally general-fund a child support program, and about half the States used

retained earnings. We think that they are inextricably intertwined;

that you have got to look at them simultaneously.

We would also encourage you to look at removing the cap on the

incentive pool. Clearly, we believe that pay for performance is the

way to go. We incentivize most of our child support workers on how

well they do. Currently, with the incentive cap, somebody has to

lose because it is a fixed amount of money. So, if Virginia does very

well, perhaps Maryland or some other State will be disadvantaged,

and we do not think that is a good way to do it. We would ask you

to examine that and to consider removing the cap.

24

One other issue that is problematic is the penalties. The penalties were enacted for a very good reason, to get people’s attention,

primarily not the Title IV–D of the Social Security Act (IV–D) director, the child support director, but beyond that in the State legislatures.

We are convinced as an association that the penalties have done

their job, and they have gotten people’s attention. I would ask you

to look at some reinvestment options in amending the law some

States face up to, including $152 million in penalties. That will certainly get your attention because that is twice as much as most

programs even spend. We would only ask that there are some ways

to allow reinvestment and to encourage reinvestment instead of

just having the penalty stand alone by itself.

Last, the IV–D directors, the child support directors clearly understand the need for more fatherhood initiatives. Access and visitation is a wonderful program. It has brought people together that

were not talking, both government as well as within the family

structure. We realize there are a number of these people that are

dead broke, not necessarily deadbeat.

We are willing to work with any of the programs on fatherhood,

and we will appreciate any of the initiatives that are coming out.

And some of the ladies and gentlemen who are with me can speak

far more eloquently on that.

Thank you very much, sir.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Young follows:]

Statement of Nathaniel L. Young, Jr., Director, Virginia Department of Social Services’ Division of Child Support Enforcement, Richmond Virginia;

President, National Council of Child Support Directors; Board Member,

National Child Support Enforcement Association; and Board Member,

Eastern Regional Interstate Child Support Association

Good afternoon Mister Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. My name

is Nick Young, and I am the Director of the Virginia Department of Social Services’

Division of Child Support Enforcement. I am also a Board Member of the National

Child Support Enforcement Association (NCSEA) and the Eastern Regional Interstate Child Support Association (ERICSA), as well as President of the National

Council of Child Support Directors (NCCSD). I am here today in my dual capacity

as Virginia’s Child Support Director and as President of NCCSD.

The subject before you today is ‘‘Child Support and Fatherhood Proposals.’’ I am

here today to share with you the numerous accomplishments that states have made

against the backdrop of the progressive laws and systems Congress has worked so

hard to put in place.

First, permit me to share a couple of telling statistics about Virginia’s Child Support Enforcement Program: Our caseload today is 394,000, representing approximately 558,000 children—25 percent of Virginia’ child population. Though Virginia

is recognized as having a very efficient program, it is unfortunately the case that

we carry a $1.8 billion cumulative arrearage, an amount that is growing by $200

million a year. During the past five years, our caseload has grown by 10 percent.

Our collections have increased by an average of 13 percent per year for a total of

75 percent increase during the past five years. We are one of the states that can

conduct our business both administratively and through the courts. As a result, approximately 70 percent of our cases are managed administratively, which saves a

great deal of time, paperwork and money. Our work is also accurate and our data

reliable; we have a very low rate of appeals of our administrative decisions. Virginia

was one of the first two states in the nation to receive in early 1996 full federal

certification of its automated case management system under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA). Just last month, we

again received the welcome news of federal PRWORA certification of our automated

system. Currently, six states in the Nation share this achievement: Iowa, Nevada,

New Mexico, Maryland, Washington, and Virginia.

25

Automation, in conjunction with the powerful tools at our disposal under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA), is what

will catapult states toward the vision that Congress holds for the Nation’s Child

Support Enforcement Program. Just last week, Virginia’s new interactive web application was inaugurated. The rollout of this technological innovation makes Texas

and Virginia the first states in the Nation to have designed and implemented a webbased customer services application that will give customers yet another way in

which to access their updated payment and case information. Other states are not

far behind in similarly using technology to bring more government services to customers.

There is lots of good news in Virginia,

• During the past five years, Virginia’s child support Enforcement Program has

increased its support collections by 75 percent. • The Division of Child Support Enforcement collected $347 million in State Fiscal Year 99 and $391 million in State Fiscal Year 00, an increase of 12.7 percent, and will collect $440 million this fiscal year. • In addition to our new interactive web application, Virginia designed and implemented an interactive voice response system that improves communication with

and services to all child support customers. Through the latter, Virginia fields

over eight million customer calls each year with 70 customer services staff

statewide. • Since July 1998, we have offered customers the use of direct deposit to expedite

payment and receipt of their child support. To date, 38,134 customers have

taken advantage of this tool. Customers are signing up for this service at a rate

of 1,000 per month. • Virginia’s pioneering New Hire Reporting Program began before the national program under PRWORA and has resulted in over $60 million in child support

that otherwise would not have been collected. Using matches from New Hires,

Virginia is automatically generating income withholding notices, which saves

countless hours in staff time. • Our ongoing KidsFirst Campaign, which sprung from a one-time limited Gubernatorial amnesty program offered to 57,000 of the most egregious support evaders in 1997, has collected over $150 million for children owed past due child

support. As important as collecting financial support, KidsFirst has heightened

and sensitized public awareness to the plight of children owed child support.

The Campaign encourages both parents to assume financial support of their

children and increases the likelihood that children will grow up with a sense

of financial security, and a respect for personal responsibility—both hallmarks

of the Nation’s Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation

Act (PRWORA). An added bonus has been enhanced rapport with the law enforcement community and the judiciary.

• Increased emphasis on the inclusion and enforcement of medical support as an

intrinsic ingredient of child financial support.

• Recently, Virginia was cited by the National Center for Children in Poverty as

one of only four states in the nation showing significant progress in the area

of fatherhood program promotion.

• More than 70 community-based fatherhood initiatives are currently underway

in Virginia. These community-based groups focus on a variety of areas including

new and expecting fathers, young fathers, incarcerated fathers, fathers of children with special health care needs, visitation and medication, mentorship and

school involvement. Over 250 new community leaders are trained each year on

how to provide effective services to men in being better emotional and financial

providers for their children.

• Judicious use of the tool of suspending or denying driver permits of egregiouslydelinquent NCPs, with the primary intent being to motivate them to pay what

they owe to avoid loss of their permits. Since 1995, when this program was initiated, only 2,900 NCPs have undergone action to suspend their permits, while

approximately $100 million in delinquent financial and medical support as a result of this potent initiative has been collected attributable to the ‘‘threat.’’

• Virginia has fully implemented the revocation of both occupational and recreational licenses, as well as the denial of passports to delinquent parents.

• Virginia’s Paternity Establishment Program (PEP) is a model of collaboration

and cooperation. Established in 1990, PEP grew under welfare reform into an

effective program that gives unmarried parents the opportunity to voluntarily

acknowledge paternity in the hospital, before the child goes home. Currently,

68 hospitals are participating statewide, generating 13,000 paternities per year.

• Virginia returned $5.41 in collections for every dollar spent in State Fiscal

Year 00.

26

• Virginia was the first state in the Nation in 1998 to begin booting vehicles as

a technique for gaining the attention of recalcitrant delinquent noncustodial

parents. This initiative, which began in one locality in 1998, was expanded

statewide in December 1999. To date, over $420,000 has been collected from 79

bootings under this initiative. Furthermore, Virginia’s successful booting initiative is cited as a model by federal authorities and has been included in federal

law.

Virginia’s accomplishments are but a sample of the innumerable successes that

the fifty states and four territories have achieved. Among these achievements are: • Arizona, Georgia, and many other states are using access and visitation programs to reconnect fathers with their children and to address the root causes

of nonsupport. They are developing partnerships with hospitals to increase paternity establishments and with workforce development programs and community-based organizations to address a wide range of barriers faced by many fathers in getting a job. • California has completely restructured its child support program to achieve

greater accountability and facilitate a sound approach for an automated statewide system. The state has increased program spending by 17 percent during

the past two years to underscore its commitment to the child support program.

Despite automation penalties, California’s collections will exceed $2 billion this

year, a 12 percent increase over the past year. • Connecticut’s Legislature passed historic child support legislation during 2001

that mandates regulation of private child support collection agencies. The practices of some private child support collection agencies tend to deprive custodial

parents and their children of monies that should come to them—often enriching

the collection agencies on the basis of collections in which they had no role. This

bill includes private child support collection agencies in the state’s existing Fair

Debt Collection Act that regulates consumer collection agencies and gives the

Banking Department authority to license and regulate them. The bill prohibits

private child support collection agencies from deducting a fee from any child

support payments collected through the efforts of a governmental agency. In addition, it limits the imposition of a fee for the collection of any child support

overdue at the time of the contract to twenty-five per cent or less of overdue

support actually collected.

The state of Connecticut was included in a federal grant to participate in a

regional process for executing liens and creating a regional ‘‘Child Support Lien

Network’’ of delinquent noncustodial parents for the purpose of intercepting insurance proceeds. This project has demonstrated significant potential as a new

child support collection tool. Connecticut has already collected over $200,000

through this program in less than one year. • Florida expects to collect over three-quarters of a billion dollars this year—over

a 90% increase in collections over the last 6 years. These increases are expected

to increase significantly through initiatives such as the phase-in of a new automated system, which allows each business process to be re-engineered and leverage state-of-the-art technology; piloting an administrative support order establishment process; and dedicating resources to reduce undistributed collections.

• Michigan has an innovative NCP work referral program to its ‘‘Michigan

Works’’ agency. The Child Support Program pays none of the costs. NCP’s referred to the program either go directly to work or they get education or skills

training. Clearly, employing the idea that anyone can be referred regardless of

funding source is an important change in the way services are funded.

• Oregon’s child support program is co-located with the Department of Human

Services, enabling the program to maintain its close linkage with the TANF and

other programs aimed at helping families and children to attain and maintain

self-sufficiency. For delivery of IV–D program services, the IV–D office contracts

with the Oregon Department of Justice and with county district attorneys the

legal arena to collect child support. This partnership structure has worked well,

in allowing the Oregon IV–D program to maintain its close linkage with social

service programs while still being able to take effective action in collecting support for families.

• In New York, where annual collections have doubled since 1994 to over $1.19

billion in 2000, the State initiated automatic cost of living increases in child

support orders, to keep pace with inflation and allow families to stay off welfare.

• The North Carolina Child Support Program has created five special teams beginning to assist local child support offices in improving casework results. These

teams are proving successful and more money is being collected than ever beVerDate 11-MAY-2000 18:14 Nov 08, 2001 Jkt 074742 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\B742.XXX pfrm04 PsN: B742
27

fore in North Carolina’s CSE program. North Carolina’s collections for children

have increased by 226% since State Fiscal Year 91 and are continuing to grow. • Texas is wholly invested in a comprehensive customer services strategy that has

resulted in a 24 percent increase in the number of customers who indicate satisfaction with the State’s child support services. Each night in Texas, 1,600 income withholding orders are automatically issued to employers. In State Fiscal

Year 00, Texas collected over a billion dollars for the first time and expects collections to surpass $1.2 billion this year.

The aforementioned highlights are but a few of the myriad successes that states

are achieving. Our time together today and the printed testimony do not allow the

publicization of the host of activities ongoing in all of our states and territories.

All of the IV–D directors and the federal government are taking a hard look at

arrears management in conjunction with fatherhood programs. Connecticut, for example, is enthusiastically addressing this important issue.

You also asked me that I come before you to tell you what Congress could do to

help the Nation’s Child Support Enforcement Program. Challenges to the Child Support Enforcement Program abound, yet the states are heartened and encouraged by

the support Congress has shown the Child Support enforcement Program.

In answer to your invitation to opine what Congress should do to assist states,

I would offer that you ‘‘stay the course.’’ The enactment of PRWORA has served as

the catalyst for the most comprehensive revisions to the nation’s Child Support Enforcement Program in its 26-year history and the Nation’s Child Support Directors

are enthusiastic about building on that landmark legislation and fully employing

the powerful tools it provides. Let us continue our progress unimpeded by additional

sweeping changes in the program. Such changes will serve only to distract us from

our core responsibility of collecting child support and possibly dilute our effectiveness. Comprehensive program changes at a time when many states are still working

to fully automate their child support programs to take advantage of new federal

tools can compromise their progress.

Recently, the Nation’s child support directors formulated a list of priorities. We

urge Congress to continue its tremendous level of federal support by focusing on

these several important areas. They include: • Fiscal Issues:

• Simplifying distribution

• Restructuring program funding

• Removing the cap on incentives

• Federal financial participation for non-IV–D payment processing and bad

checks • Extending Federal Financial Participation rates at the 80 percent rate for approved child support enforcement systems (CSES) after October 1, 2001 • Penalties

• Improving Interstate case management

• Medical support

• Private access and confidentiality regulation

• Complete implementation of PRWORA mandates, evaluation, and follow-up

changes

• A strategic plan for technology

• Fatherhood initiatives

• Tribal

Prominent among this list are four areas so pivotal to the Child Support Enforcement Program that they warranted official resolutions drafted by the National

Council of Child Support Directors. I will enumerate them here, as follows:

1. The resolution on Incentive Caps supports:

that Congress should amend federal law to eliminate the cap on the child support federal incentive funding because the current incentive structure requires

some states to lose in order for others to gain. The cap requires a computation

of each state’s incentive in comparison to all states after the end of a fiscal year,

creating an unstable and unpredictable prospective financial planning environment. It is not a true performance incentive as there is no guarantee that improved performance will result in increased incentive payments.

2. The resolution on the Reinvestment of Federal Automation Penalties supports:

that Congress should amend the federal legislation that imposes fiscal penalties on states that have failed to implement (1) a statewide child support automated system by October 1, 1997, and (2) PRWORA requirements for certification by October 1, 2000. The amendments should:

(a) subtract a state’s information technology expenditures in the year prior to

a year in which the penalty is applied from the dollar amount on which the

technology penalty is calculated.

28

(b) allow for reinvestment by reducing the penalty amount by any additional

state general funds invested in the program.

(c) require the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services

to hold in abeyance any penalty assessed in a fiscal year if the Secretary determines a state to be in compliance with the approved corrective action plan.

3. The resolution on Funding supports:

(a) that OCSE and Congress should provide for full and sustained FFP for

all aspects of the Child Support Program at current or enhanced levels. Supports that Congress should ensure the continuation of 90 percent FFP for genetic testing.

(b) that Congress should amend federal law to extend the use of 80 percent

FFP to October 1, 2005, for enhancements to automated systems required by

PRWORA.

(c) that Congress should provide enhanced FFP to reduce the impact on the

states’ child support budget when states are required to implement new mandates or make substantial revisions to existing programs.

(d) that Congress provide enhanced 90 percent FFP for medical support activities for a limited 5-year period.

(e) that OCSE and Congress should work with state IV–D Directors to identify methods for ensuring that stable and adequate levels of investment in the

program by federal, state and local governments advance the child support program’s evolving mission.

4. The resolution on Medical Support supports:

(a) that OCSE should immediately act on the nonlegislative recommendations

of the Medical Child Support Working Group.

(b) that OCSE and Congress should consult with state Child Support, state

Medicaid and state CHIP programs, and national child support associations to

ensure consistent policies related to IV–D medical responsibilities.

(c) that OCSE report to Congress and recommend that a medical support

measure not be incorporated into the performance measure system and tied to

funding at this time and that the implementation of any medical support performance measure be phased in to allow states to implement the Working

Group’s recommendations.

(d) the recommendation of a plan for states and the federal government to

work together to identify medical support outcomes and to define the work of

the IV–D program in achieving those goals.

The last subject, fatherhood initiatives, segues into my final remarks. A few demographics about fatherless children are in order:

• Twenty-four million children live without their biological father

• Children who do not have a relationship with their biological father are shown

to be:

• Five times more likely to live in poverty,

• Twice as likely to be abused,

• More likely to bring weapons and drugs into the classroom,

• Twice as likely to commit crimes,

• Twice as likely to drop out of school,

• More likely to commit suicide,

• Over twice as likely to abuse alcohol or drugs, and

• More likely to become pregnant as teenagers.

• The number of children living with only their mothers and no father figure grew

from just over 5 million in 1960 to over 16.6 million.

• About 40 percent of children who live in fatherless households have not seen

their fathers in at least a year.

To address these telling statistics, the President’s budget included a Health and

Human Services ‘‘Blueprint for New Beginnings.’’ This two-pronged approach includes competitive grants to help unemployed or low-income fathers to avoid or

leave welfare as well as promote successful parenting and strengthen marriage.

• We support this approach because:

• It promotes responsible fatherhood and strengthens the role of fathers

• It is consistent with welfare reform initiatives and promotes competitive

grants to faith-based and community organizations that help unemployed or

low-income fathers and their families avoid or leave cash welfare

• Fatherhood programs make child support order and paternity establishment

and enforcement easier because fathers are doing the right thing on their own

initiative

We recommend supporting the President’s initiatives with the caveat that grants

to faith-based and community organizations to serve these populations should come

29

through the states, not be granted directly by the federal government. We take this

position because:

• States know their communities and needs best

• States know their providers best

• States already have mechanisms in place for competitive and negotiated

grants

• States have mechanisms for successfully administering grants

• Unnecessary taxpayer expense to set up an additional federal operation when

states are in the best position to implement the grant program

Thank you.

Chairman H

Now we will hear from Dr. Johnson, and, Dr. Johnson, I do noERGER. Thank you, Mr. Young.

f tice that you are accompanied by Mr. Raymond Byrd. If he would

like to join you at the stand, he is welcome to, and perhaps even

make a short statement if he would like to.

Thank you. Welcome to our Committee, Mr. Byrd.

STATEMENT OF JEFFERY M. JOHNSON, PH.D., PRESIDENT AND

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NATIONAL CENTER FOR STRATEGIC NONPROFIT PLANNING AND COMMUNITY LEADERSHIP; ACCOMPANIED BY RAYMOND BYRD, BALTIMORE,

MARYLAND

Dr. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Chairman Herger, Mr.

Cardin, and the Committee for inviting me and Mr. Byrd for this

opportunity.

I would also add that I have also invited a nationally recognized

leader in the fatherhood movement and also the program administrator for the program that Mr. Byrd is a part of, Mr. Joe Jones.

I also asked another young father who is improving his life, Mr.

Joe Lewis, to join us today in this testimony. Additionally I have

asked Ms. Teresa Kaiser who is the director for Child Support for

the State of Maryland, to join us today. She has some interesting

ideas on arrears management that the Committee might be interested in.

Before I say some things, let me just say, Mr. Chairman, that

today is both a good day for me, for this opportunity to talk about

fatherhood, but it is also a day of reflection for me because it is

also the thirty-sixth anniversary of my own father’s death, and that

I come to this Committee in reflection of the good things that my

father demonstrated to me. I think that those things contributed

in many respects to the work that I do, but also how important it

is to have fathers in the life of children. I think that is really what

this Committee and this work is all about.

With that, let me just say that the work that we do at NPCL is

focused on building the capacity of local agencies to strengthen

communities and foster family and neighborhood empowerment.

One critical element of family empowerment, particularly in

inner cities, is the return of fathers to families. Our current focus

is to build the capacity of community-based organizations to provide services to low-income fathers so they can adopt their critical

roles as nurturers and economic providers which at a time when

society seems to be suffering from numerous breakdowns is good

for families and communities, but especially children.

30

Any policies we develop should not pose additional barriers to

low-income dads. So, when this Committee considers child support,

Welfare to Work, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)

commitments and others, do not forget our fragile families. These

are young, low-skilled, never-married couples with children. We are

talking about dead-broke dads versus deadbeat dads. The difference between deadbeat dads and dead-broke dads is that the

former can pay child support, but will not, and the latter are willing to pay child support, but cannot. Deadbeat dads should be punished. Dead-broke dads need support and help.

Any responsible fatherhood proposal should provide for employment, peer support, parenting education, parenting skills development, conflict management, as well as a combination of short-term

job acquisition, interim job training, and long-term career development strategies. Child support enforcement proposals should consider different provisions for handling dead-broke dad cases.

For example, orders established for low-income fathers should be

based on their ability to pay. This approach has been embraced by

child support leaders such as the National Child Support Enforcement Association and has been a topic of NPCL’s peer learning college where we bring together child support people to talk about

these issues.

Other important strategies include arrears management. Again,

I will say that Teresa Kaiser who is here for the State of Maryland

has implemented a very innovative program that I think this Committee would be very interested in hearing about.

My more extended written testimony, discusses in detail our

Partners For Fragile Families Project which brought to us Mr.

Byrd. This is a 10-city initiative that targets young fathers, 16 to

25, and builds upon 40 years of social policy research and experimentation in this area. Each demonstration site seeks to implement community-level partnerships between child support enforcement agencies and local community-based fatherhood programs in

an effort to increase the long-term involvement of low-income fathers in the lives of their children.

Eliminating policy and program barriers as well as placement of

fathers in jobs that have a wage potential are also key aims of the

demonstration, but the foundation of the program, which is consistent with much of the provisions in H.R. 1471, is looking at

where a client is and working with that client to bring them up to

the point where they can marry, but if they don’t marry, make the

best decision in the interest of their child.

The basic model includes One on One case management, job

placement, peer support. The community should know that peer

support has been the most successful element of programs working

with fathers over the last 20 years, at least as far as demonstration

projects are concerned.

Peer support groups are anchored in this program in what we

call the Fatherhood Development Curriculum which is now being

used by over 3,000 practitioners nationwide. The curriculum includes a range of topics from life skills to preventing domestic violence. The father development curriculum also includes a focus on

family planning with topics such as marriage and team parenting.

31

In terms of systemic change, we think that efforts should be focused on public-private partnerships, employability, and earnings

for fathers. Research seems to suggest that men who are employed

and earning are more likely to pay child support and stay in a relationship and often marry the mother of their children.

H.R. 1471, we believe comes closest to providing the scope of policy reforms, we need to strengthen father involvement, as well as

a reasonable start on funding. Given the scope of services needed

to support a father’s role until a dad can support his family, we

need a significant public investment.

While conceptually sound, neither the President’s proposal nor

the Carson proposal is comprehensive enough to really do the work

necessary for fathers in fragile families. Child support funding

changes that will allow for pass-through payments and new fatherhood demonstrations that are included in H.R. 1471 is a start in

the right direction, we believe.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the Committee again

for this opportunity and encourage you now to hear from Mr. Byrd,

and Mr. Lewis, and also, if time permits, to also hear the innovative strategy that Ms. Kaiser is working on for the record. Thank

you.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Johnson follows:]

Statement of Jeffery M. Johnson, Ph.D., President and Chief Executive Officer, National Center for Strategic Nonprofit Planning and Community

Leadership

Good Afternoon. I want to thank Chairman Herger and Members of the Human

Resources Subcommittee of the House Ways and Means Committee for this opportunity to testify on your efforts to promote fatherhood. I am Dr. Jeffery Johnson,

President and CEO of the National Center for Strategic Nonprofit Planning and

Community Leadership (NPCL) and on behalf of the board and staff of NPCL, the

10 Partners for Fragile Families Demonstration Sites, the 6 Charles Stuart Mott,

Fathers-At-Work Grantee Sites and over 3,000 fatherhood professionals that we

have trained over the pass few years, partners from the faith-based community and

an array of non-governmental organizations, I commend you and thank you for

squarely addressing this long-neglected aspect of family social policy. If Congress is

successful at passing legislation to support fatherhood programs, it will be a crucial

step towards helping fathers assume emotional, legal and financial responsibility for

their children. Legislation that seeks to strengthen the relationships between and

among fathers and families covers a complex web of interrelated factors that can,

on a practical level, make or break the brittle and weak family tie. The same bill

also has implications for the success of greater child support collections as well as

welfare to work initiatives.

My testimony is based on the work I have done over the past 20 years around

fathers and families as well as my personal experience. For 12 years, I had the wonderful opportunity of being reared in a family with two loving parents. Unfortunately, my father died at the age of 39 leaving behind a widow and 10 children.

Despite the positive example set by my mother, life was a struggle. She struggled

to make ends meet and each of my brothers and sisters faced their own unique challenges that made it more difficult for a single parent. So, I know first hand the importance of fathers in families and I try to bring that knowledge to my work.

The mission of NPCL is to enhance the capacity of community-based organizations to address identified local needs, primarily through family and neighborhood

empowerment. Simply put, NPCL works to help communities and families help

themselves. And, as we know, strong families are critical to the health, economic,

emotional and developmental well-being of children.

NPCL now runs or provides technical assistance on several projects aimed at

strengthening the ties between fathers and families, including our ten-city demonstration project Partners for Fragile Families, the Fathers-At-Work demonstration

project supported by the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, the HUD/Public and Indian Housing Responsible Fatherhood Initiative and the Strengthening Fragile

Families Initiative, a research, policy and practice consortium supported by the Ford

32

1Fragile Families & Child Well-Being Study, Irwin Garfinkel, Ph.D. and Sarah S. McLanahan, Ph.D., Princeton University.

Foundation to encourage the development and implementation of policies aimed at

fortifying the ties among poor, low-skilled, unmarried parents and their children.

We call them ‘‘fragile families.’’ Partners for Fragile Families (PFF) is the first comprehensive national initiative

designed to help poor, single fathers pull themselves out of poverty and build

stronger links to their children and their children’s mothers. PFF reflects lessons

learned from previous failed demonstrations and is the child of best practices culled

from over 40 years of social policy research and experimentation in this area. It is

a collaborative effort funded by grants from NPCL and operated in 10 test cities by

public and private groups, grass roots community-based organizations, federal and

state child support enforcement agencies and private employers.

The idea is a partnership that leverages resources in a broad working coalition

toward the shared goal of strong families where children are cared for by both mothers and fathers. Our guiding principle is that fathers have value to their children,

even if they do not have money.

And make no mistake about it, the population that we refer to as ‘‘dead-broke

dads’’ have very little money. Unlike ‘‘deadbeat dads,’’ the men we serve likely qualify for food stamps themselves and statistically look much like mothers on welfare,

(formally Temporary Assistance to Needy Families [TANF]).

The difference between ‘‘deadbeat dads’’ and ‘‘dead-broke dads’’ is that the former

can pay child support, but will not; the latter are willing to pay child support but

cannot. We know this because research demonstrates that fragile couples are typically in

a relationship when they have a child.

According to the Princeton’s 1 Fragile Families and Child Well-being Study1, a

longitudinal four-year survey currently in progress to document the course of ‘‘fragile’’ relationships, 82 percent of unmarried mothers and fathers are romantically involved at the time their child is born. Forty-four percent of these couples are living

together and over 70 percent of mothers, who are interviewed in the hospital within

48 hours of their child’s birth, say that their chances of marrying the baby’s father are ‘‘50–50’’ or greater. Among couples who are not romantically involved at the

time of birth about half of the mothers hold that they are friends with the father.

Further, two-thirds of mothers and three-fourths of fathers agreed with the statement ‘‘it is better for children if their parents are married.’’ Clearly, there is a will here to form a family, what has been lacking is a way.

And let me address the issue of marriage, here, by stating that the research shows

the families support, it and so do we. The question for us is not whether we support

marriage, but how we get there. And it seems to us that current proposals pushing

marriage as a panacea ignore current data on the issue.

In the African-American community, rates of marriage are positively correlated to

levels of education, according to studies conducted with census data and reported

in William Julius Wilson’s seminal treatise on the effects of unemployment on inner

city families, When Work Disappears: The World of the New Urban Poor. Wilson has also argued that the sharp increase in black male joblessness since

1970 accounts in large measure for the rise in the rate of single-parent families. In

fact, employment status of the male is a significant indicator of the probability that

single parents of a child born out-of-wedlock will marry. There is also a very strong

positive relationship between annual earnings of young black men and their marital

status, especially for young men between the ages of 18 and 31, roughly the cohort

with which we work. As reported by Wilson, black men who are stably employed

are twice as likely to marry the mother of their children.

Therefore, the mandate is evident.

If we provide support through public policies and programs aimed at increasing

the family’s employment and earning prospects as well as corollary services such as

transportation, medical assistance, childcare and parenting education, low-income

fragile families are very likely to stay together. In short, we believe that if we make

men ‘‘marriageable’’ they are more likely to marry and their children will benefit.

It is as simple as that. But, we are talking about a wide spectrum of support services, which in turn suggests that broad partnerships are necessary to make these

comprehensive efforts successful and sustain families. The converse of that however,

is that as job prospects fade, the foundation for a stable relationship weakens and

puts the fate of the family—and the well-being of children—in jeopardy.

For these reasons, NPCL and its work directed at fathers is focused on dealing

with the fathers where they are, then bringing them into programs where holistic

support is available. One very positive result of our PFF demonstration has been

33

our ability to find fathers living below the radar screen, outside organized society

and out of the reach of the child support enforcement system. Once we find these

men and convince them to join a program however, we have seen promising signs.

Not only do we provide job training, we also try to give men the tools they need

to make all their relationships work: with in-laws, the mothers of their children,

with the children themselves. We believe that education is of supreme importance,

so we try to educate men about everything from anger management and conflict resolution to the child support system and family planning. They are part of a peer

support group where men in similar situations share their experiences and more experienced men can lead by example. Peer groups are powerful forces, encouraging

men to find work, provide for their children, negotiate with mom, be there for their

kids. We’ve learned to trust the process.

We have also learned that the child support enforcement system must change. To

that end, we have developed Peer Learning Colleges, through which we bring together child support experts, researchers and leaders in the field to focus on ways

in which the child support system might better work with ‘‘dead-broke dads’’ and

address the needs of low-income families. Child support enforcement agencies are

beginning to realize that poor fathers require a different approach than ‘‘deadbeat

dads’’ because they often want to support their children, but need help. If child support enforcement has at the heart of its mission the desire to promote child wellbeing, it makes more sense in the case of low-income fathers to help them find a

job, negotiate a payment schedule for support or reduce arrearages, than it does to

lock them up for non-payment of support: after all, if you have no job skills and,

therefore, can’t find a job to enable support payments, you won’t find those skills

in jail.

Community-based organizations can gain the trust of hard-to-reach fathers, help

them establish legal paternity, learn their legal rights and teach what we call T– E–A–M parenting, meaning that parents work together for the benefit of their children regardless of their marital status. Child support enforcement agencies can

work with fathers at the outset to modify child support orders, help or allow fathers

time to train for work and some, private employers are willing to hire well-skilled

and dependable workers.

Whether or not they are married, the child needs food, clothes, care, love and two

supportive, nurturing parents. After he becomes self-supporting and an integral part

of his child(ren)’s lives, hopefully, marriage is a result if that is something the couple seeks for themselves.

It is imperative that any new or revised policy initiatives work towards supporting these efforts to assist fragile families.

Of the current proposals, H.R. 1471 provides for the kind of service delivery system that is inclusive of fathers and would serve to move fragile couples and their

children toward traditional family formation. The President’s proposals, while welcome, do not contain an adequate level of funding.

Our goal is to help fathers become nurturers, emotionally involved and devoted

to their children, in other words, as integral to the developmental well-being of children as mothers. But, it is also to spur independence and self-sufficiency.

We, now, face the second chapter in the welfare reform story. If we are serious

about ending ‘‘welfare as we know it’’ we must support self-sufficiency as we envision it. The savings states are realizing from the reductions in welfare rolls should

go into real job-training programs and comprehensive family and social services that

have as their ultimate objective, the ability to live and support a family by working.

But, these efforts are both deep and broad, they take commitment and scope. That

is why all PFF grantees must address a range of issues. It is why they are required

to institute or provide access to intensive career and personal development skills

training in preparation for placement in family-sustaining, wage-growth jobs. We

are talking about boot-camp-job-readiness programs. Grantees are also urged to perform long-term follow-up for clients to maximize the chances for job retention.

Because rates of morbidity, mortality, unemployment, and incarceration of young

men are so high in their communities, there is little evidence of successful marriage

for young people to emulate. None of this means that these young people are any

less responsible for their children. They are and should be expected to be accountable for the ‘‘oops’’ once it happens. And, happily, research shows that many of these

young men are indeed interested in being good fathers, they just don’t know how.

Our practitioners have a saying: ‘‘If you’ve never seen [fatherhood] and never experienced it, you can’t do it.’’ But they do try.

One 30-month study of 16–26-year-old, poor single fathers revealed that 75 percent visited their child in the hospital; 70 percent saw their child at least once a

week; 50 percent took their child to the doctor and large percentages reported bathing, feeding, dressing and playing with their children; and 85 percent provided inforVerDate 11-MAY-2000 18:14 Nov 08, 2001 Jkt 074742 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\B742.XXX pfrm04 PsN: B742
34

mal child support in the form of cash or purchased goods such as diapers, clothing

or toys. In addition, the average mother on welfare receives about $33 a month in

covert support from poor fathers.

The heart is indeed willing, the ability is lacking. Multiple, flexible strategies will

be necessary to address the challenges these men and their families face. Part of

that response, we believe, is programs like Partners for Fragile Families.

you like a couple minutes?

[The attachment is being retained in the committee files.]

Chairman HERGER. Thank you, Dr. Johnson. Mr. Byrd, would

f Mr. BYRD. Yes. Could you speak up? I cannot really hear you

that much.

My name is—well, you already know my name, but I am in this

trial program, and I am not a deadbeat dad, but I was a deadbroke dad, but recently I got a job. It really, actually gave me the

positivity knowing would I be able to go get a job. I went to like

two, three group meetings. I have been to three fatherhood conferences with Mr. Joe Jones and I spoke on that panel three times,

and I am not really saying that I am like underskilled or underachieved, but it is just that most people do not give us a chance

because they would judge us by what they see us as instead of not

getting to know the person, not knowing the person that is behind

the clothes.

What I am here for today is to know what type—— I am kind of nervous, as you can see.

Chairman HERGER. You are doing just fine. You are doing just

fine.

Mr. BYRD. And mostly, when I go to the group, like when I have

problems, I call and I talk to either Mr. Rice or Mr. Joe Jones.

They give me input on different situations, and right now, what I

am going through, they was telling me about how I got to learn

how to play the ball game. Like if I am going for a certain job, I

have to look like the people working in order for them to look at

me to put me on their team. I just cannot go into a job and say,

‘‘Hey, this is me. I want to get this,’’ without having the proper attire or the proper frame of mind. I cannot go in there if I am comfortable. I have to go in there looking like I am ready to play their

game. That is all.

Chairman HERGER. Thank you very much, Mr. Byrd. I appreciate

that. Dr. Haskins.

STATEMENT OF RON HASKINS, PH.D., SENIOR FELLOW,

BROOKINGS INSTITUTION, AND SENIOR CONSULTANT,

ANNIE E. CASEY FOUNDATION, BALTIMORE, MARYLAND

Dr. HASKINS. Chairman Herger, thank you for having me today.

I am pleased to be here on the other side of the microphone and

learn that all of the members actually have a front to their bodies.

For several years, I got to study the backs of members for hours

and hours. Also, I believe this is the first hearing I have been to

in probably a decade that I did not write the opening statement.

I was especially pleased that Matt agreed to write my statement

for me. So I did not have to write anything for this hearing.

Chairman HERGER. I hope the front looks almost as well as the

back.

35

Mr. HASKINS. Pardon?

Chairman HERGER. I hope the front looks almost as well as the

back.

Dr. HASKINS. Thank you. Thank you. Oh, of course, it is.

Mr. Cardin, I am afraid we will not have much of a chance to

disagree today. There may be a few little things in child support

that we could disagree about, but I hope you invite me back again

when you talk about welfare.

Mr. CARDIN. Since you wrote the bill, I would hope you do not

have too much to say critical of it.

Dr. HASKINS. Let me first say that I think the first thing the

Committee should do in considering reauthorization is to reflect on

the success that this bill has had. There are failures, of course, but

in almost every title, not just the TANF title, not just because of

more work, but in the child support title, in the Supplemental Security Income titles, the bill has achieved its intended effects. and

I would say on the whole that we probably have fewer people in

the United States today dependent on welfare benefits as their primary source of income than we have had probably since the depression or certainly since the 1950’s. That is a major achievement and

this Committee is the first Committee that wrote the original draft

of the bill. So I think that is a remarkable achievement.

However, I do think there are three things in child support enforcement that the Committee should attend to. Two of them, I believe would have immediate or intermediate impacts, the Committee would not have to wait very long to have good impacts, and

the third one may avoid a crisis. So I would like to talk about each

of those three in turn.

The first is who gets the money, and Mrs. Johnson and others

have already spoken eloquently about this. When we started the

child support program way back in the 1970’s, the main idea was

cost recovery. We were trying to reimburse taxpayers for paying for

welfare. That is still a worthy idea, but since then, our welfare system has changed dramatically, and now we emphasize to a great

extent people becoming independent of welfare. As that goal has

shifted of our welfare program, more and more members have come

to see that the child support system should also shift. So the arrearages that we used to retain to repay taxpayers and the money

that we retain (all the money when the family is on welfare) a lot

of people think should be given back to the families.

We made a very important step in that direction at the initiative

of this Subcommittee in 1996. We were blocked from taking the entire step by the U.S. Senate, which often happens to our magnificent legislation, and last year, we tried to take this step and, again,

were prevented by the Senate from doing it. But I would guess that

if this bill passes again that the Senate will act on it and that we

will, in fact, be able to return that money to the mothers—get the

money from the fathers to the mothers.

I want you to know that when fully implemented, this provision

would provide about $900 million per year to mothers who have

left welfare. So that is a lot of money. It is money that the father

paid. This is extremely worthy legislation, and I hope the Subcommittee can pass it.

36

The second issue is fatherhood. Many other witnesses have

talked about that, so I can just skim through that very briefly. But

I do want to point out, I think there is no question that, especially

Republicans, but on a bipartisan basis, I believe, in the next 18

months or so, we will emphasize marriage. There will be a huge

emphasis on marriage in welfare reform reauthorization, and I

would point out to the Subcommittee that, to some extent, to reemphasize marriage without emphasizing fatherhood and particularly

the problems that are experienced by low-income fathers, is somewhat hypocritical because we could not in all good conscience promote marriage when we have so many fathers who are unemployed. Their income has been declining for approximately the last

decade. They have lots of other problems. Many are incarcerated.

We simply need to find a better way to deal with these young men

and to help them to a greater extent than we have in the past. Unless we do that, the marriage agenda, I think, has a very serious

flaw.

Finally, I would like to call the Committee’s attention to what I

think is a long-term problem that will be very important for the

States in the years ahead unless something is done. If you look at

pages 6 and 7 of my testimony, you will see that there have been

huge increases in collections in the non-welfare program, but if you

look in the welfare program, collections are actually decreasing,

and the reason for that is obvious. We have many fewer cases on

welfare than in the past.

The Committee should take this into account. The average State

gets 30 percent of the money to finance their child support program

from their welfare collections. So, as these collections go down,

many States are going to have difficulty, especially the half that

Nick Young referred to that finance their program directly out of

those collections. They are going to have greater and greater trouble, and they are going to have to go back to their State legislatures and ask for more money.

So I do not know what the solution to this problem is. I have not

heard of a good solution, but I think this Subcommittee with its

long history of looking ahead and emphasizing financing issues and

nitty-gritty issues about this program should look into this very

carefully, should work cooperatively with the administration, with

the IV–D directors and other bureaucratic organizations to see if,

within the next 2 or 3 years, we can really develop a solution for

this problem.

So, Mr. Chairman, I would like to especially call to your attention in closing the fact that if this Committee were able to pass the

provision to distribute more of the collections to the mothers that

we would have an immediate impact on these families. The year

after it passes, these families will start to have more money, and

within 5 or 6 years, they will be receiving $900 million of money

paid by the fathers. So that is an extremely important action for

this Committee to take.

Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Haskins follows:]

37

Statement of Ron Haskins, Ph.D., Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution, and

Senior Consultant, Annie E. Casey Foundation, Baltimore, Maryland

Chairman Herger, Ranking Member Cardin, and Members of the Subcommittee:

My name is Ron Haskins. I am a Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution in

Washington, DC and Senior Consultant at the Annie E. Casey Foundation in Baltimore. I thank you for inviting me to testify about the child support enforcement program and the important child support amendments of 1996.

As Members of this Subcommittee know very well, the welfare reform law of 1996

must be reauthorized by October 1 of next year. Reauthorization provides this Subcommittee and the rest of Congress with the opportunity to review the effects of the

momentous 1996 legislation. Other than the new Temporary Assistance for Needy

Families (TANF) program in Title I of the legislation, which completely replaced the

old Aid to Families with Dependent Children program, no program received a more

thorough overhaul in 1996 than Child Support Enforcement. Thus, it is especially

appropriate for the Subcommittee to examine what has been learned about the effects of the sweeping child support amendments.

The major conclusion the Subcommittee should draw about the 1996 child support

reforms is that, although much remains to be learned, the evidence indicates that

the reforms have been successful in improving the performance of the child support

enforcement program. Consider two of the central goals of the child support program; namely, paternity establishment and child support collections. As shown in

Figure 1, both paternity establishment and child support collections have improved

dramatically since 1995.

Though the achievements of the 1996 reforms are notable, I would recommend

that the Subcommittee carefully investigate solutions to three child support enforcement issues that were not thoroughly addressed in the 1996 legislation, one of

which is a long-term problem that may lead to a financing crisis in many state child

support programs.

The first issue is one the Subcommittee has addressed in the past. Perhaps the

central goal of Congress when it created the child support program back in 1975

was recovering the costs incurred by taxpayers in providing welfare benefits. Many

single mothers who received no financial support from their children’s father had

difficulty earning enough money to meet their children’s basic needs. As a result,

they sought out help from taxpayers in the form of cash welfare and other public

benefits. Senator Russell Long of Louisiana, the major author of the child support

enforcement program, wanted to find such fathers, establish paternity if necessary,

obtain a child support order, and collect money from them. If the children were on

welfare or had been on welfare, Senator Long believed it was appropriate for the

government to keep at least part of the money collected from these absent fathers

to reimburse taxpayers for the costs of welfare. Taxpayers had stepped in for these

absent fathers; now it was the fathers’ turn to repay taxpayers. Senator Long’s vision became a major feature of the child support enforcement program that became

law in 1995.

38

Although most Members of Congress still support this cost recovery goal of child

support enforcement, most members believe that a new goal has become even more

important than cost recovery. When the child support program was enacted in 1975,

the federal government placed little emphasis on trying to help mothers get off welfare and join the workforce so they would not become dependent on welfare. In the

years after 1975, and especially since enactment of the sweeping welfare reforms

of 1996, both the federal and state governments have placed much greater emphasis

on families achieving independence from welfare through employment. Thus, the

1996 reforms focused on helping, and where necessary forcing, mothers to leave welfare for work. As many as two million mothers who in the past would have been

on welfare are now trying to support their families without cash welfare.

Most of these mothers work at low-wage jobs and are able to support their families because the federal government has created a set of work support programs that

provide income subsidies to these mothers and their children. The work support programs include the Earned Income Tax Credit, food stamps, the child tax credit,

Medicaid, and child care. In a typical situation, a mother with two children who

used to be on welfare now has a low-wage job and earns about $10,000 per year.

However, between the Earned Income Tax Credit and food stamps, this mother has

cash or near-cash income of $16,000. In addition, her children are covered by health

insurance through the Medicaid program and her child care expenses are paid for

by federal and state child care programs.

Even so, raising two children on $16,000 per year is no picnic. Thus, in 1996, Congress began to alter the cost-recovery feature of child support enforcement in order

to provide more of the father’s child support payments to mothers and children.

Under pre-1996 rules, once a mother left welfare she was entitled to receive only

child support payments on current support. States had the right to keep, and split

with the federal government, any payment in excess of the current support amount

(the amount above current support is referred to as payment on ‘‘arrearages’’). But

in 1996, Congress, following the leadership established by this Subcommittee,

changed the law so that states had to pay to the mother and children about half

of the arrearage amount. Thus, for example, if current support were $250 and the

father paid $350, on average $50 of the $100 arrearage amount had to be paid to

the mother and children.

Last year this Subcommittee originated legislation to give the other half of the

arrearage amount to mothers who had left welfare, as well to share additional arrearages with mothers who were still on welfare. Once fully implemented, this provision would have resulted in mothers leaving welfare receiving in excess of $4 billion over five years. The entire $4 billion, of course, would have been money paid

by the father. Members of the Human Resources Subcommittee wrote this provision

primarily because they wanted to ensure that mothers trying to leave welfare received as much help as possible from government and from private sources. As a

conservative, this new emphasis on using government to help mothers end or avoid

reliance on public benefits always seemed to me to be the essence of compassionate

conservatism. In any case, the provision on arrearages, combined with the Subcommittee’s provision creating a new fatherhood program, passed on the House

Floor by an overwhelming vote of 405 to 18.

Unfortunately, as often happens with the pristine legislation originated by this

body, the child support provision to give more money to mothers leaving welfare met

a tragic fate in the Senate. Despite repeated efforts by Chairman Johnson and others on this Subcommittee, and despite support from Chairman Roth of the Finance

Committee, time ran out on the 106th Congress before the Senate acted.

I would strongly recommend that this provision to share nearly all arrearage payments with mothers leaving welfare be enacted by the Subcommittee again as soon

as possible and that special efforts be made to help the Senate see the wisdom of

this provision. In order to ease Senate passage, I suggest that the Subcommittee

slightly change the version of the bill passed by the House last year. Last year’s

bill mandated that states give nearly all arrearage payments to mothers leaving

welfare. This mandate imposes a serious cost problem on states that are already

having difficulties financing their child support program. If the mandate is converted to an option, according to the Congressional Budget Office more than half

the states would adopt the option, including most big states. The National Governors’ Association, the American Public Human Services Association, and the National Conference of State Legislatures all strongly urged Congress to support the

option last and all will publicly support the legislation if the option rather than the

mandate is included.

The federal cost of this provision would be around $3 billion over five years. The

entire cost represents the loss of revenue to the federal government because child

39

support payments by fathers are being given to mothers and children rather than

government.

The second child support amendment the Subcommittee might wish to consider

is also one that was enacted last year by the House; namely, an innovative fatherhood program. It may be recalled that the Subcommittee approved about $160 million over 5 years to fund fatherhood programs that would promote marriage, better

parenting (including the payment of child support), and employment for poor and

low-income fathers, especially fathers whose children were or had been on welfare.

Several characteristics of the Subcommittee’s bill are of major importance. Recent

research by noted Princeton scholar Sara McLanahan shows that about half the couples that have babies outside marriage are cohabiting at the time of the birth. An

additional 30 percent tell interviewers that they are involved in an exclusive relationship with the other parent. Thus, a total of about 80 percent of the babies born

outside marriage have parents who either cohabit or are involved in a romantic relationship. Moreover, these couples tell interviewers that they hope their relationship

will become permanent. Based on this research and testimony from scholars and

men directly involved in fatherhood programs, one major characteristic of the Subcommittee bill was an emphasis on involving couples in the program at around the

time of the child’s birth. This is an especially important provision because research

by Rangarajan and her colleagues at Mathematica Policy Research shows that within a year or two, most of these couples will separate and the father will seldom see

the child. As McLanahan put it, the time of birth may be a ‘‘magic moment’’ in

which programs to help parents build their relationship have a window of opportunity.

The Subcommittee bill also placed great emphasis on projects conducted by community-based, especially faith-based, organizations. A broad bipartisan coalition of

members supported this provision, including the applicability of the 1996 welfare reform law’s Charitable Choice language to the fatherhood program. Now that the

Bush Administration is making a major effort to build faith-based programs at the

community level, the timeliness of emphasizing faith-based fatherhood programs is

even greater this year. In addition to the potential effectiveness of faith-based programs, the emphasis on providing funds to community-based organizations helps to

ensure that projects are consistent with local culture and are conducted primarily

by community leaders rather than imposed from outside the community by government officials.

Another important characteristic of last year’s Subcommittee bill was the provision on evaluation. It must be admitted that, although programs for fathers hold

out great hope for increasing marriage, improving parenting, and increasing employment, it has not been demonstrated that such programs can actually produce these

effects. Thus, careful evaluation of the programs is essential in order to determine

whether they work. In all likelihood, several types of programs will be shown to

work. Once these have been identified by evaluation, the characteristics of these

successful programs can be duplicated by other programs.

A final word is in order about poor fathers and child support enforcement. In testimony before this Subcommittee, several leaders of fatherhood programs have

pointed out how much difficulty poor fathers have with child support arrearages.

Program operators have found that as they work with young fathers to encourage

contact with their children and the payment of child support on a regular basis,

many of them have built up arrearages of several thousand dollars. Some young fathers under the age of 20, who have been employed only sporadically, owe thousands in past-due support. These arrearages serve as a disincentive for fathers to

seek employment and to establish, often for the first time, a pattern of routine child

support payments. Something must be done about these big arrearages.

Let me be clear that I am not recommending any statutory amendments that

would forgive child support arrearages. Such a provision would be too controversial

and might even seem to represent a step backward in Congress’s long campaign to

build a strong child support program. Rather, I believe this Subcommittee should

encourage Secretary Thompson and his staff to provide national leadership in convincing state and local child support programs to work cooperatively with mothers

and fathers to temporarily suspend arrearages as long as fathers make regular payments on current support.

The third issue I recommend that the Subcommittee examine in detail during the

107th Congress is child support financing. The impending problem with child support

financing is suggested by the data in Figures 2 and 3. Figure 2 shows the dramatic

difference in the enrollment history of welfare and non-welfare caseloads of child

support enforcement. More specifically, non-welfare cases have been growing steadily since the beginning of the program in the 1970s while welfare cases grew initially but have been declining in recent years. The increase in non-welfare cases repVerDate 11-MAY-2000 18:14 Nov 08, 2001 Jkt 074742 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\B742.XXX pfrm04 PsN: B742
40

resents rising costs for state child support programs because all the child support

collected in these cases is paid directly to the custodial parent and children. Unlike

the welfare cases, in which states often are entitled to keep part of the collections,

states are generally not allowed to keep any of the child support collections in nonwelfare cases.

By contrast with the growth of non-welfare cases, the drop in welfare cases is an

outgrowth of the dramatic success of the 1996 welfare reforms and the strong economy. Although this caseload decline is good for state TANF budgets because there

are now less than half as many TANF recipients as there were in 1995 in the average state, the caseload declines threaten to be a disaster for state child support enforcement financing. The average state receives about 30 percent of the funds necessary to run its child support program from retained collections in welfare cases

and former welfare cases. In the case of current welfare cases, states keep virtually

100 percent of child support collections in exchange for taxpayer-provided welfare

benefits. But because the welfare cases have fallen so dramatically, this source of

income for state child support programs has also been falling.

41

Fortunately, as can be seen by the second panel in Figure 3, collections in welfare

cases have not dropped as fast as the welfare caseload itself. This fortunate result

is caused both by the fact that child support agencies are more effective now than

before 1995 and because old child support cases have continued to yield payments.

Once cases begin to produce payments, the collections tend to continue, in some

cases even after the mother leaves the welfare rolls. However, these cases of continuing payments provide no more than a temporary respite from the inevitable serious decline in state income from child support welfare cases. In fact, in the long

run income from these cases will mirror the rapid decline of the caseload, at which

point child support financing in many states will reach a crisis.

Unless state child support programs are to shrink, the current child support financing arrangements must be reformed. Inevitably, either state governments, the

federal government, or both are going to have to spend more money on child support

enforcement. Because it is unlikely that welfare caseloads around the country will

begin to increase again, more and more states are going to reach the crisis stage

in child support enforcement financing.

The solution to this financing problem is not apparent. In the end, it may prove

the best course for Congress and the states to both contribute more to child support

financing to make up for the money lost from declining welfare collections. What

is certain is that the solution will not suddenly appear out of thin air. Rather, this

Subcommittee should conduct hearings, work with state child support enforcement

officials and their professional organizations, and cooperate with the Bush Administration to explore possible solutions to the pending crisis in funding. A host of potential actions for refinancing are certain to arise out of this work. In addition, the Subcommittee can begin to get an idea of the costs of various approaches to refinancing

the child support enforcement program.

Although the evidence seems to indicate that the child support amendments of

1996 have improved program performance, there are still important reforms that

could increase the program’s effectiveness. These include sharing more collections

with mothers struggling to leave welfare, creating fatherhood programs so that poor

fathers can be more effective parents and perhaps husbands, and reforming the financing of the child support program to make it more compatible with the current

reformed cash welfare system. This Subcommittee, which has been the source of

vital child support reforms on so many occasions in the past, should continue this

tradition of program innovation by aggressively addressing all three of these issues.

References

McLanahan, Sara, and others. 1999. Unwed Parents or Fragile Families?: Implications for Welfare and Child Support Policy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.

Rangarajan, Anu and Philip Gleason. 1998. ‘‘Young Unwed Fathers of AFDC Children: Do They Provide Support?

f’’ Demography 35(2): 175–186.

Chairman HERGER. Thank you very much, Dr. Haskins. Again,

the Committee, and I, want to thank you for your many years of

guidance and support on this Committee.

Dr. HASKINS. Thank you.

Chairman HERGER. With that, we will turn to Dr. Sorensen.

STATEMENT OF ELAINE SORENSEN, PH.D., PRINCIPAL RESEARCH ASSOCIATE, INCOME AND BENEFITS POLICY CENTER, URBAN INSTITUTE

Dr. SORENSEN. Chairman Herger and other Members of the Committee, thank you for this opportunity to testify. I have been working on this issue for many years, and I would like to make three

points today.

First, child support enforcement has made a difference in poor

children’s lives, and that is the success that we should commend

Congress for encouraging.

Two, despite this success, there are many noncustodial fathers

who are poor themselves and need help.

42

Three, child support enforcement, to be successful in the future

and reach more poor children, will need to face the problems of

poor, noncustodial fathers.

My research and that of many others show that expanding the

child support enforcement program has improved child support collections, especially for never-married mothers who, 20 years ago,

were very unlikely to receive child support. So we have had success. The specific policies that have been very successful are the inhospital paternity establishment program, and immediate wage

withholding. More recent programs like the new hire program,

State disbursement units have been very successful in specific

States.

My research shows, that child support for poor children has increased since the enactment of welfare reform in 1996. We find

that 29 percent of poor families were receiving child support in

1996, and that is up today. Also, the amount of family income coming from child support compared to 1996. So child support is playing a more important role in poor families’ lives.

Despite these gains, though, we still have 5.5 million poor children who are poor and do not receive child support. Part of the reason that child support has not reached these poor kids is because

their fathers have a limited ability to pay child support. There are

about 2.5 million noncustodial fathers who are poor themselves,

and they have many of the same employment barriers that poor

moms do.

We find that 43 percent of them are high school dropouts, 40 percent of poor non-custodial fathers have health problems, most of

them do not have health insurance, about a third of them have not

worked for a long time. When they do work, their earnings are low.

They are having a hard time meeting their own needs as well as

their noncustodial children.

One of the employment barriers that disproportionately affect fathers that does not affect mothers as much is incarceration. We estimate that about 30 percent of poor, noncustodial fathers are incarcerated.

Despite these employment barriers, very few noncustodial fathers receive assistance in the employment area. We find that only

about 6 percent of poor fathers, all of whom could benefit from employment services, are getting employment services.

In order for child support to be more effective in the future and

reach more poor kids, research shows that more money needs to go

toward the father to get him employed. Employment-oriented programs right now are mostly funded out of the Welfare to Work program, but this program ends soon. The question is how will employment programs for low-income fathers be funded in the future.

As a society, we have invested in poor mothers so that their children can live with them in their homes, and we have been successful. We have invested in the child support enforcement program so

that children can count on the financial support of both their mom

and their dad.

To build upon this success, it is time to invest in poor, noncustodial fathers so that they, too, can contribute to the financial support of their children.

Thanks.

43

* The views expressed in this testimony are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect

those of the Urban Institute, its board or its sponsors.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Sorensen follows:]

Statement of Elaine Sorensen,* Ph.D., Principal Research Associate,

Income and Benefits Policy Center, Urban Institute

Chairman Herger and Members of the Human Resource Subcommittee, thank you

for the opportunity to testify on this important topic. I have been researching this

issue at the Urban Institute for nearly ten years. I have found that child support

enforcement has made a difference in the lives of poor children, but that there are

a large number of poor noncustodial fathers who have problems themselves.

The approximately 2.5 million noncustodial fathers who are poor (the poverty

threshold for one person under the age of 65 was $8,959 in 2000) and do not pay

child support have difficulty meeting the needs of their children. They need help

overcoming the multiple employment barriers that most of them face. In my testimony today I will discuss the gains that child support has made in obtaining more

child support for poor children. But I will also document the employment barriers

that poor noncustodial fathers face and argue that child support enforcement will

have limited success in reaching poor children in the future unless the problems

faced by poor noncustodial fathers are addressed.

My research, as well as that of others, shows that expanding the child support

enforcement program has increased the likelihood of receiving child support, especially among never-married mothers and single mothers on public assistance. Wage

withholding and the voluntary in-hospital paternity establishment program are two

specific policies that have had a dramatic impact on child support receipt. More recently, since the enactment of welfare reform in 1996, poor children eligible for child

support are more likely to receive child support and the amount that their families

receive has increased. Between 1996 and 1998, the percent of poor children eligible

for child support whose families received it increased from 29 percent to 32 percent.

In addition, child support represented 23 percent of these families’ income, up from

21 percent two years earlier. Hence, child support is an increasingly important

source of income for poor children.

Table 1. Poor Children Who are Eligible for Child Support: Percent Whose

Families Received it, the Average Amount Received, and the Percent of

Family Income it Represents

Year

Percent of Poor

Children Eligible

for Child Support

Whose Families

Received It

Average Amount

of Child Support

Received

Child Support as

a Percent of Family Income

1996 29% $1,979 21%

1998 32% $2,222 23%

Source: National Survey of America’s Families.

Despite these gains, however, most poor children still do not receive child support

even though 60 percent of them are eligible for it. Only 2.5 million poor children

lived in families that received child support in 1998; another 5.4 million poor children had to do without child support that year.

Further efforts to increase the number of poor children receiving child support

should consider the limited potential of their noncustodial parents to pay support.

There are approximately 2.5 million noncustodial fathers who are poor and do not

pay child support. These fathers face many of the same barriers to work as poor

mothers who do not receive child support. In particular, 43 percent of these fathers

have not completed high school, the same percentage figure among poor custodial

mothers who do not receive child support. Nearly 40 percent of these fathers report

a health problem and 62 percent of them do not have health insurance. About onethird of them have not held a job for more than three years. Among those who work,

their average annual earnings are only about $5,000. These employment barriers

and low earnings make it difficult for fathers to meet their own basic needs as well

as provide for their non-custodial children.

44

One employment barrier that disproportionately affects poor noncustodial fathers

is incarceration and having a criminal record. Nearly 30 percent of poor noncustodial fathers who do not pay child support are institutionalized. Most of these fathers

are in prison. Once these fathers leave institutional life, their work prospects will

not improve that much. Their criminal record and interrupted labor force participation make these men unattractive to prospective employers.

Although poor noncustodial parents face many of the same employment barriers

as poor custodial mothers, they are significantly less likely than poor custodial

mothers to participate in job-related activities. In 1997, only 6 percent of these fathers received any job search assistance and only 4 percent of them received job

training courses or attended GED or college classes.

In order for child support enforcement to be more effective for poor children, my

research suggests that more money needs to be spent on employment-oriented services for poor noncustodial parents. Unfortunately, at this point we do not know what

programs work among this population. Congress has already funded one national

demonstration to examine the impact of serving poor noncustodial fathers—Parents’

Fair Share. Many lessons were learned from this demonstration. In my view, the

most important lesson learned was how hard it is to serve this population. Only two

of the seven sites in this demonstration were able to significantly increase the child

support payments and employment rates of its participants relative to a control

group. Two attributes seemed critical to their success—strong leadership from child

support enforcement and a focus on skill-building services, such as on-the-job training.

Employment-oriented programs for poor noncustodial parents are currently being

funded primarily through the Welfare-to-Work (WtW) Grants Program, but this program will end in 2002. About 10 percent of the participants in this program have

been noncustodial parents. Although many of the programs serving noncustodial

parents experienced initial problems, and some still do, there will be much to learn

from these efforts. A recent study by the Urban Institute showed that a wide range

of service delivery models are currently being used to serve noncustodial fathers

with WtW monies. Findings about the success of these programs will help us better

understand what might work for this population. As noted above, WtW monies must

be spent by September 2002 and no new money for this program has been allocated.

The question remains as to how Congress will fund employment-oriented programs

for low-income noncustodial parents in the future.

45

Despite our limited knowledge about what works for poor noncustodial fathers,

my research shows that they need services to meet their financial obligations to

their children and without these services, further efforts to obtain child support for

poor children will meet with limited success. As a society we have invested in poor

mothers so that their children can remain in their homes and live with them. This

investment appears to be finally working. My research suggests that it is time to

make a similar commitment to poor fathers so that poor children can rely on both

of their parents for the emotional and financial support that they need.

Entmacher to testify.

Chairman HERGER. Thank you, Dr. Sorensen. Now Ms.

f STATEMENT OF JOAN ENTMACHER, VICE PRESIDENT AND DIRECTOR, FAMILY ECONOMIC SECURITY, NATIONAL WOMEN’S LAW CENTER

Ms. ENTMACHER. Thank you.

Chairman Herger and Members of the Human Resources Subcommittee, I appreciate this opportunity to testify on behalf of the

National Women’s Law Center.

There are three main points I want to make in my testimony.

First, the child support reforms enacted by Congress in 1996 have

substantially improved the performance of the child support program. We have been critical of the performance of the program for

a number of years. We have worked to improve it virtually since

it was enacted, and so it is very exciting to be able to say that the

preliminary data show that collections have doubled over the last

5 years. This is a real thrill for an advocate.

The second point is that while these increases in child support

are benefiting many low-income families, some poor children are

not receiving support because the money the child support system

collects on their behalf does not go to them, but instead goes for

welfare reimbursement. For once, I can simply refer to Dr.

Haskins’ testimony and say he is absolutely right that nearly $1

billion a year should be going to children and their custodial parents. So we completely agree on the importance of that reform

which is in 1471.

Third, some custodial fathers, like many custodial mothers, are

poor themselves and have limited capacity to support their children. We need to improve services for both parents and the earning

capacity of both parents in the next stage of welfare reform if we

want to bring children out of poverty and not just off of welfare.

However, we do have much less information about the effectiveness

of different service strategies for noncustodial parents as compared

to the research that has been done on custodial parents, and the

funding for demonstration programs in H.R. 1471, which is targeted to non-custodial parents, would help fill this gap.

To return to point one, the 1996 reforms were designed to create

a more automated, integrated, and nationwide child support enforcement system. Implementing these reforms has not been easy,

as you, Chairman Herger, have reason to know in California, and

the process is not yet complete, but, even so, the improvements

have been dramatic.

Between 1995 and 2000, the collection rates for cases with orders

in the IV–D program doubled. In 1995, even when an order was

46

put in place, collections were made in only about a third of cases.

In 2000, collections were made in more than two-thirds of cases,

and as you have heard, collections have risen 64 percent from $11

to $18 billion.

Child support is extremely important for the low-income families

who receive it. It accounts on average for 16 percent of family income of families who get child support, but for poor families not on

welfare who are eligible to receive all the current support that is

collected, child support provides over a third of the family’s income.

So that brings me to my next point which is the importance of

changing the assignment and distribution rules to give more child

support to families.

The National Women’s Law Center has been working with the

Center on Fathers, Families, and Public Policy, and a group of

other advocates, practitioners, and researchers who work with lowincome mothers and similar people who work with low-income fathers to see if we can come together on recommendations to improve policies for mothers, fathers, and children.

This policy change of giving child support to families was one

that people clearly agreed on, not just because of the value of the

income, which was certainly important, but also because of the

costs that are paid in terms of hostility to the child support system

and hostility toward the other parent that are generated by our

current system.

Mothers are frustrated because they do not see any contribution

by the fathers. Fathers are frustrated because child support is

being collected from them, but it is not getting through to the child,

and instead of bringing people together, current policies drive them

apart.

We also know something that we did not have information about

last year when this policy was being considered. Wisconsin implemented a policy of passing through and disregarding all child support to children, and the results of that experiment are now in. We

see that mothers got more support. Fathers were more likely to pay

support, and there was not an increase in overall government cost

because, even though the State was giving up these collections, it

was offset by savings in other government programs.

I would urge the Committee to act quickly on this reform. The

simplification of the distribution system would make a difference to

States like California that are still in the process of designing their

computer systems. So sooner rather than later would make a big

difference.

I see my time is up.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Entmacher follows:]

Statement of Joan Entmacher, Vice President and Director, Family

Economic Security, National Women’s Law Center

Chairman Herger and Members of the Human Resources Subcommittee, thank

you for this opportunity to testify about the impact of the 1996 Congressional child

support reforms on the child support system and proposals to better serve custodial

and noncustodial parents and their children.

I am testifying today on behalf of the National Women’s Law Center. The Center

is a nonprofit organization that has worked since 1972 to advance and protect women’s legal rights. Since the creation of the child support enforcement program under

Title IV–D of the Social Security Act in 1975 (the ‘‘IV–D program’’), the Center has

worked at the state and federal level to improve the federal/state child support sysVerDate 11-MAY-2000 18:14 Nov 08, 2001 Jkt 074742 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\B742.XXX pfrm04 PsN: B742
47

1The Family Ties report is available on the web at http://www.nwlc.org/pdf/commgrnd.pdf, or

on request from the National Women’s Law Center or the Center for Fathers, Families and Public Policy. 2Several states—California, Michigan, Ohio, Nebraska, South Carolina, and the Virgin Islands—do not yet have computer systems meeting the requirements Congress established in

1988. http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cse/stsys/reviewsd.htm (last visited 6/26/01). 3The 1995 data are from U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Child

Support Enforcement, Child Support Enforcement: Twentieth Annual Report to Congress for Period Ending September 30, 1995. The 2000 data are from U.S. Department of Health and

Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Press Release January 17, 2001,

‘‘HHS Announces New Record Child Support Collections,’’ http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/news/press/

2001/cse2001.htm (last visited 6/22/2001) and unpublished OCSE data compiled by Vicki

Turetsky, Center for Law and Social Policy. 4 Elaine Sorensen and Ariel Halpern, Child Support Enforcement Is Working Better Than We

Think, Urban Institute No. A–31 (March 1999) (based on self-reports of custodial parents in the

March Current Population Surveys, not IV–D administrative data). 5 Irwin Garfinkel, Assuring Child Support in the New World of Welfare 10, Conference on the

New World of Welfare, Washington, DC (2000).

tem, and has provided information to women across the country about their rights

to child support enforcement services. The Center also is engaged jointly with the

Center on Fathers, Families and Public Policy in the Common Ground Project. This

Project brings together public policy advocates, practitioners and researchers who

work with low-income mothers and fathers to develop and advance child support,

welfare, and family law policies that foster effective co-parenting relationships between low-income parents and increase economic and emotional support for children. The first report of the Common Ground project, Family Ties: Improving Paternity Establishment Practices and Procedures for Low-Income Mothers, Fathers and

Children was issued last year.1

To summarize: The child support reforms enacted by Congress in 1996 have substantially improved the performance of the child support program. Preliminary data

show that the collection rate has doubled in the last five years. But even with further improvements in collection rates, the amount of child support actually received

by poor children will be limited by two factors: the child support program’s continued mission of recovering welfare costs, rather than helping families achieve self

sufficiency, and the limited capacity of noncustodial parents who are poor themselves to pay child support. H.R. 1471 would help address both of these issues. The

assignment and distribution reforms in H.R. 1471, when fully implemented, would

give an additional $1 billion per year in child support to low-income custodial parents and children, instead of to the government for welfare reimbursement, allowing

these payments by noncustodial parents to make a direct contribution to their children’s well-being. In addition, H.R. 1471 would provide funding for demonstration

projects to improve services for low-income noncustodial parents, an area where additional research is needed. However, to bring families out of poverty, not just off

of welfare, we will need to do much more to support the efforts of custodial and noncustodial parents, mothers and fathers, in the next phase of welfare reform.

The 1996 Reforms Have Substantially Improved the Child Support Program

In 1996, Congress approved sweeping reforms of the child support enforcement

system, designed to make it a more automated, integrated, and nationwide system.

Implementing these reforms has not been easy, and the process is not yet complete

in a number of states.2 However, preliminary data show that the new national databases, automated case processing, and enforcement tools required by Congress are

making a major difference for the program—and for many children.

Between 1995 and 2000, the collection rate for cases with orders in the IV–D program doubled. In 1995, even after a support order was put in place, collections were

made in only about a third (34 percent) of cases. In 2000, collections were made in

more than two-thirds (68 percent) of IV–D cases with orders. In addition, the percentage of cases with orders increased, from 57 percent in 1995 to 61 percent in

2000. Overall, collections rose by 64 percent, from $11 to $18 billion.3

The improvements that Congress has promoted in child support enforcement—not

just in the last five years, but since the program was created—have been particularly dramatic for low-income, never-married mothers and their children. The percentage of never-married mothers receiving child support increased by more than

400 percent between 1976 and 1997, from 4 percent to 18 percent.4 Improved child

support enforcement between 1978 and 1998 has increased the incomes of single

mothers by 16 percent and the incomes of single mothers with a high school degree

or less by 21 percent.5

48

6 Elaine Sorensen and Chava Zibman, Child Support Offers Some Protection Against Poverty,

Urban Institute No. B–10 (March 2000). 7Office of Child Support Enforcement, Child Support Enforcement FY 99 Preliminary Data

Report (2000). Based on the 1997 National Survey of America’s Families, which provides detailed data on 13 states, Sorensen found a similar disparity in performance. In the best-performing state, 30 percent of children with a parent living elsewhere who have a child support

order received the full amount due; in the worst-performing state, 14 percent of children received the full amount due. Sorensen, Child Support Offers Some Protection Against Poverty,

supra. 8 Irwin Garfinkel, Theresa Heintze, and Cheien-Chung Huang, Child Support Enforcement: Incentives and Well-Being 14, Paper Presented at the Conference on Incentive Effects of Tax and

Transfer Policies, Washington, DC (2000); Michael Fishman, John Tapogna, Kristen Dybdal, and

Stephanie Laud, Preliminary Assessment of the Association Between State Child Support Enforcement Performance and Financing Structure, Lewin Group (2000), http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/

programs/cse/rpt/cselworkinglpaperlnew.pdf; Vicki Turetsky, You Get What You Pay For:

How Federal and State Investment Decisions Affect Child Support Performance, Center for Law

and Social Policy (1998), http://www.clasp.org/pubs/childenforce/ncsea2.htm. 9 Joan Entmacher, Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Human Resources of the House

Committee on Ways and Means, Hearing on Child Support Enforcement, May 18, 2000,

http://waysandmeans.house.gov/humres/106cong/5–18–00/5–18entm.htm. 10 In 1997, custodial mothers represented 85 percent of custodial parents, and the poverty rate

for custodial mothers (32.1 percent) was three times the poverty rate for custodial fathers (10.7

percent). U.S. Census Bureau, Child Support for Custodial Mothers and Fathers: 1997, P60–212

(October 2000).

Receipt of child support can contribute substantially to family income. Elaine

Sorensen’s analysis of data from the 1997 National Survey of America’s Families

shows that child support accounts, on average, for 16 percent of the family income

of all families who receive it. Child support represents an even larger proportion of

income—26 percent—for poor families who receive it. And for poor children not on

welfare, whose parents may keep all current support collected, child support provides, on average, 35 percent of family income—when families receive it. However,

only 29 percent of poor children who have a parent living elsewhere live in families

that receive child support.6

There is still plenty of room for improvement in the child support enforcement

system. Although the overall trends are very encouraging, progress is uneven among

the states. In 1999, the latest year for which such state-by-state IV–D data are

available, the five best-performing states collected support in over 80 percent of

their cases with orders, as compared to 62 percent nationally. However, in the five

worst-performing states, collections were made in less than 40 percent of cases with

orders.7 Although a number of factors may contribute to differences in performance

among states, the level of investment in the program plays a key role; states that

make substantial investments in child support enforcement achieve better results

than states that do not.8

It is important to continue to work to strengthen the IV–D program, and H.R.

1471 includes a number of important enforcement reforms. Title II of H.R. 1471

would require IV–D agencies to review and modify child support orders for TANF

recipients every three years, and to do a complete case review for families leaving

TANF to ensure that every effort is made to help them secure child support. Title

IV would expand the use of passport sanctions to obtain child support, allow the

tax refund intercept program to be used to collect past-due child support for children

who are no longer minors, and permit the garnishment of veterans’ benefits for child

support in certain circumstances.

We also are pleased that H.R. 1471 does not include proposals advanced in the

last Congress that would give private, for-profit collection companies access to confidential government databases and enforcement tools. Such proposals could undermine the child support enforcement program and reduce the support actually received by children, as I and other witnesses testified to this Subcommittee last

year.9

However, even with improved enforcement by the IV–D program, the amount of

child support many poor children can expect to receive will remain limited for two

reasons. First, the child support payments may go not to children and parents

struggling to achieve self-sufficiency, but to the state and federal governments as

reimbursement for public assistance. Second, some of the noncustodial parents of

poor children—mostly fathers 10—are poor themselves, and have limited capacity to

pay child support (see discussion below).

49

11 NWLC calculations based on preliminary CBO estimate of the federal budget effects of the

Child Support Distribution Act of 2000, H.R. 4678, as passed by the House September 7, 2000,

which is virtually identical to H.R. 1471. 12 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, ASPE, Characteristics of Families Using

Title IV–D Services in 1995 (May 1999). See also Vicki Turetsky, What If All the Money Came

Home?, Center for Law and Social Policy (2000), http://www.clasp.org/pubs/childenforce/

pilr2300.htm. 13 American Public Human Services Association, Crossroads: New Directions in Social Policy

59 (2001). 14Family Ties, supra, at 9–11. 15See Earl Johnson, Ann Levine, and Fred Doolittle, Fathers’ Fair Share: Helping Poor Men

Manage Child Support and Fatherhood 93 (1999).

The Assignment and Distribution Reforms in H.R. 1471 Would Increase

Child Support for Poor Children

H.R. 1471 would do much to address these fundamental issues. The distribution

reforms in Title I, when fully implemented, would direct more than $1 billion a year

in additional child support to low-income families,11 increasing the economic security of children and custodial parents and encouraging noncustodial parents to pay

child support.

When the federal-state child support program was established in 1975, its primary goal was to reimburse public welfare costs. Families receiving public assistance were, and still are, required to assign their rights to child support to the state.

But, from the beginning, the program also served families not receiving public assistance, and, over time, the proportion of families served by the IV–D program who

were not receiving public assistance grew. Today, families receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) represent only about 20% of child support cases.

However, most of the families served by the program are low and moderate income;

over 75% have incomes below 250% of poverty.12

The child support program thus has two often competing goals: recovering government welfare costs and securing child support for children, or, in the words of the

American Public Human Services Association, ‘‘retaining collections from and giving

collections to families.’’ 13 Attempts to reconcile these conflicting objectives have

spawned a complex system of rules governing the distribution of collected child support that is costly to administer, virtually impossible to explain, and deeply frustrating to low-income mothers and fathers who want child support to go to children.

As the participants in our Common Ground project explained, the continued emphasis on using the child support system to reimburse the government can deprive

children of the child support they need, generate hostility toward the child support

program, and create tensions between parents. Mothers are frustrated that they are

not receiving help from the father; fathers are frustrated because they are making

payments, but their efforts are not making a difference for their children. And the

effects of these policies can be felt by families even after they leave TANF and are

entitled to receive current support payments. In some circumstances, most notably

when child support is collected through intercepting federal tax refunds, child support collections will go to repay government arrears before the family’s, even when

the family is struggling to avoid a return to welfare. And the burden of repaying

large debts to the government—for Medicaid reimbursement or past public assistance—may interfere with the ability of a low-income father to make current support

payments.14

Changing the distribution rules must be a key element of any effort to promote

responsible fatherhood. Fatherhood programs will have a hard time persuading lowincome fathers that they should pay child support through the formal child support

system because ‘‘it’s good for your kids,’’ if little if any of the money they pay goes

to their children, as the experience of the Parents Fair Share program suggests.15

In addition, the results of Wisconsin’s child support experiment show that changing

the rules so that child support goes to children increases both the amounts that

mothers receive and that fathers pay.

In Wisconsin’s W–2 program, for most custodial parents receiving cash assistance,

all child support paid was passed through and disregarded in calculating their

grant. A randomly assigned control group received only a partial pass-through and

disregard of child support. Comparing those in the full pass-through group with a

control group receiving only part of what is paid, researchers found that:

• mothers received more child support;

• fathers were more likely to pay child support;

• the largest effects were for cases new to the welfare system, suggesting that the

impacts would be even greater in the future as the proportion of new cases

grows; and

50

16Daniel Meyer and Maria Cancian, W–2 Child Support Demonstration Evaluation Phase 1:

Final Report: Executive Summary, Institute for Research on Poverty, University of Wisconsin

(2001), http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/irp/csde/phase1-vol1-es.htm. 17See Crossroads, supra, at 60–61. 18Family Ties, supra, at 12 and 28. 19 Richard Wertheimer, Working Poor Families with Children: Leaving Welfare Doesn’t Necessarily Mean Leaving Poverty, Child Trend Research Brief, May 2001. 20 Wendell Primus et al., The Initial Impacts of Welfare Reform on the Incomes of SingleMother Families viii–x, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (1999). 21See, e.g., Julie Strawn and Karin Martinson, Steady Work and Better Jobs: How to Help

Low-Income Parents Sustain Employment and Advance in the Workforce, Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation (2000); Pamela Loprest, How Families That Left Welfare Are Doing:

A National Picture, New Federalism: National Survey of America’s Families, The Urban Institute, Washington, D.C. (Aug. 1999), http://newfederalism.urban.org/html/serieslb/anflb1.html.

• there was little or no overall government cost, because the money no longer retained by the state was offset by other savings in government programs.16

Title I of H.R.1471 would help move the child support program away from cost

recovery and toward family support in three important ways. First, it would simplify the assignment and distribution rules, and give families that left TANF first

claim to the child support paid on their behalf. Second, it would give states more

flexibility to adopt the child support pass-through and disregard policies that promote their welfare reform goals. It would not require states to pass through child

support to families receiving TANF. However, to the extent that a state chose to

pass through child support to families receiving TANF and disregard the support

in calculating the amount of assistance, up to a certain limit, the federal government would forgo the federal share. Third, it would direct states not to use the child

support system to collect Medicaid birthing costs—the type of impossibly large state

debt, unrelated to ability to pay, that can make it difficult for low-income noncustodial parents to make current support payments, and discourage them from even trying.

These changes would have multiple benefits for parents, children, and the child

support system. The extra money—over $1 billion a year when the changes are fully

implemented—could make a real difference for low-income custodial parents and

children. And beyond the money, both parents and children would have the satisfaction of seeing the child support payments made by noncustodial parents contribute

directly to their children’s well-being. The simplification in the assignment and distribution rules also would reduce administrative costs for states, and errors and

delays in getting child support to families once they have left welfare.17

There are additional advantages to be gained by enacting the distribution reforms

in H.R. 1471 this year, rather than waiting for TANF reauthorization. Simplified

distribution rules will save states that are still developing their statewide child support computer systems, most notably California, time and money in system development. States will be able to plan for and adjust to these reforms before they have

to deal with all the other changes TANF reauthorization will bring. And states that

want to implement distribution reform quickly will be able to do so.

H.R. 1471 Would Fund Demonstration Projects Serving Low-Income

Noncustodial Parents

Improving child support enforcement and giving child support to children will

help many low-income parents and children. But when both parents are poor, income transfers between parents, and even marriage, will not provide parents with

the resources they need to give their children a better life.

The focus of this hearing is on ‘‘fatherhood proposals.’’ But before turning to such

proposals, I would emphasize the need to improve services for both parents to increase their ability to provide support to their children, as participants in the Common Ground project recommend.18 Although many custodial mothers have left welfare and found jobs since PRWORA was adopted, many are still poor or near poor.19

Indeed, the disposable incomes of the poorest fifth of single mothers declined between 1995 and 1999.20 The jobs most women who leave welfare find are typically

low wage, lack benefits, often have nonstandard hours, and offer little stability or

room for advancement.21 To bring children out of poverty, not just off of welfare,

we need to do more to increase the earning capacity of custodial and noncustodial

parents, mothers and fathers, in the next phase of welfare reform.

But while services for both parents need improvement, there is clearly a difference in the amount of research available on the effectiveness of strategies for

serving low-income custodial parents, mostly mothers, as compared to the effectiveness of strategies for serving low-income noncustodial parents, mostly fathers.

51

22There is little research about the circumstances of the 15 percent of noncustodial parents

who are mothers. 23For a summary of earlier research on noncustodial fathers, see Irwin Garfinkel, et al., A

Patchwork Portrait of Nonresident Fathers, in Fathers Under Fire: The Revolution in Child Support Enforcement at 31–60 (Irwin Garfinkel et al., eds., 1998). For more recent research see, e.g.,

Elaine Sorensen and Chava Zibman, Poor Dads Who Don’t Pay Child Support: Deadbeats or Disadvantaged?, Urban Institute No. B–30 (April 2001); Fragile Families Research Brief No. 3,

Unwed Fathers, the Underground Economy, and Child Support Policy, Bendheim-Thoman Center for Research on Child Wellbeing and Social Indicators Survey Center, Columbia University

(January 2001). 24Sara McLanahan, presentation at the Brookings Institution, Stakeholder Seminar, Welfare

Reform and Beyond, June 18, 2001. Compare Aurora Jackson, Marta Tienda and Chien-Chung

Hun, ‘‘Capabilities and Employability of Unwed Mothers,’’ 23 Children and Youth Services Review 327–351 (2001), with Lauren Rich, ‘‘Regular and Irregular Earnings of Unwed Fathers,’’ 23 Children and Youth Services Review 352–376 (2001). 25Maureen Waller, ‘‘High Hopes: Unwed Parents’ Expectations About Marriage,’’ 23 Children

and Youth Services Review 441–469 (2001). 26Most of the unwed parents in the Fragile Families study were involved in a relationship

with each other at the time of the birth of their child. However, among men who were no longer

involved in a relationship with the mother, the reported incidence of substance abuse, mental

health problems, and domestic violence was substantially higher. Melvin Wilson and Jeanne

Brooks-Gunn, ‘‘Health Status and Behaviors of Unwed Fathers,’’ 23 Children and Youth Services

Review 377–401 (2001). See also Kathryn Edin, Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Human

Resources of the House Committee on Ways and Means, Hearing on Welfare and Marriage

Issues, May 22, 2001, http://waysandmeans.house.gov/humres/107cong/5–22–01/5–22edin.htm.

There is a large body of research, spanning decades, on welfare-to-work strategies

targeting custodial mothers. We now know much more than we did a few years ago

about the circumstances of noncustodial fathers.22 We know that some noncustodial

fathers have very low or irregular earnings, limiting their capacity to provide adequate, regular child support.23 Indeed, research into the circumstances of ‘‘fragile

families,’’ is finding, in the words of researcher Sara McLanahan, that new unmarried parents are alike in having ‘‘high hopes’’ for their children—but ‘‘low capacities’’

to provide for them.24 However, there is only one completed evaluation of the effectiveness of a program targeting low-income noncustodial parents, the Parents’ Fair

Share Demonstration. Although some other projects are underway, and will be evaluated, there is a need for additional demonstration projects to identify the best ways

to help this large, diverse, but difficult to reach population.

H.R. 1471 would provide funding for a competitive matching grants program for

projects designed to promote marriage, successful parenting, and to help fathers and

their families avoid or leave cash welfare and improve their economic status. Services must be directed to low-income parents: fathers (and, under the nondiscrimination clause, mothers) of children who are or recently have been TANF recipients or

whose own income is less than 150 percent of poverty, or, for up to 25 percent of

participants, who are at risk of parenthood outside of marriage. Grantees must

make available to each participant information about the causes of domestic violence and child abuse and local programs to prevent and treat abuse. In the competitive grant process, preference is to be given to programs that, among other

things, offer specific methods to encourage or sustain marriage; have plans for actions to encourage or facilitate the payment of child support; have cooperative agreements with other private and governmental agencies, including the state TANF,

child support, and child welfare agencies, the local workforce investment board, and

community-based domestic violence programs; and have clear strategies for recruiting participants, especially new parents. The bill provides funding for an evaluation

of projects by HHS, in consultation with the Department of Labor, to assess their

effects on marriage, parenting, employment, earnings, payment of child support, and

incidence of domestic violence, using random assignment whenever possible.

We welcome the emphasis in H.R. 1471 on encouraging demonstration projects

that serve low-income parents, have strategies for increasing payment of child support, work in partnership with other government and community agencies, and address domestic violence. We understand that many Members of Congress, in addition to increasing emotional and economic support for children from both parents,

want to promote marriage. Indeed, marriage is a goal and a value shared by many

low-income parents.25 There is a risk, however, that requiring grantee projects to

promote marriage too aggressively or too early may make it more difficult to reach

the parents who need services the most, or encourage relationships that pose risks

to the other parent or child.26 Programs that focus on helping young parents to improve their job prospects, nurturing, and relationship skills, and address domestic

52

27Testimony of Jeffrey M. Johnson Before the House Committee on Ways and Means, Subcommittee on Human Resources, Hearing on Fatherhood Legislation, October 5, 1999, http://

waysandmeans.house.gov/humres/106cong/10–5–99/10–5john.htm.

violence—as some have put it, making them more marriageable 27—may do more to

promote good marriages than encouraging marriage before parents are ready. We

hope that this Subcommittee will make it clear that such programs are eligible for

funding under H.R. 1471.

H.R. 1471 will do much to help low-income mothers and fathers who are struggling to provide for their children. A similar bill, H.R. 4678, passed the House last

year with an overwhelming, bipartisan vote of 405–18. We hope this subcommittee

will act quickly and favorably on this proposal.

Chairman H

Now to inquire, the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Watkins.

ERGER. Thank you very much for your testimony.

f Mr. WATKINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, to you and Mr. Cardin

for your commitment, and also to the entire panel. I have been very

impressed with the sincerity and commitment. I know Dr. Haskins

is truly a champion.

Welfare reform has been a truly remarkable piece of work. I

think it has been one of the things that has really changed society.

I totally agree with Dr. Johnson about employment.

Three of four of you have talked about employment, and that is

what I have been all about in my years of public service is the fact

that I think without question, the destruction of many families has

come about because they have had to go and search for other jobs.

I probably am a little harder about this than most people, and I

ask forgiveness of my Committee here and I apologize to you, but

I was born in dirt-poor poverty and my family had to leave Oklahoma and go to California three times before I was 9 years of age.

It destroyed my family, and my father became an alcoholic and

died as an alcoholic. My mother raised three of us children on a

dirt-poor farm, and I had to work three part-time jobs to get an

education. So I know the importance of that work.

I also had to work my way through college to get a college education. So it can be done.

So I probably take a harder nose on this than I should be, and

I apologize for that. That is why I like to say we each have to accept some responsibilities as we go along. I am not saying that is

the whole answer, but working and providing some work. You are

right. Child support is not near the amount that it should be, and

many times it is misused, a lot of times. Most cannot make it on

child support, but the person that is responsible for bringing that

child into this life should be responsible and should be also working

to make some payments, whatever that job is, for the community

or wherever it may be.

I think we found that out in welfare reform, and I know my father did not pay child support. Lots of times, we did not know

where the next meal was coming from.

So I apologize for being a little stronger about this, but I think

let’s do not miss that dimension; that we have to try to make sure

we provide the jobs for, yes, holding the families together, but also

to provide the jobs for that person to accept the responsibility to

know that they are working these hours because they have brought

53

someone in the world and they are going to have to help pay for,

the responsibility for that child’s life.

So I do not disagree with the testimony I have heard here at all.

I think it is great, and let me say again the welfare changes have

been marvelous, just tremendous. Maybe we need to tweak the

child support situation more around work and some responsibilities

along that line.

So thank you very much for what you are doing each and every

day and for your testimony.

And, Mr. Byrd, may you have God’s speed. It takes a lot of strong

will. My mother used to say, ‘‘Wesley, if you have a will, there is

a way.’’ Chairman HERGER. Thank you, Mr. Watkins. Mr. Cardin to inquire.

Mr. CARDIN. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and let me

thank all the witnesses for their testimony. I particularly want to

thank Mr. Byrd for being here, not just because you come from, as

Mayor O’Malley says, the best city in America, Baltimore, but that

you give a face to the issues.

A lot of times, we talk about statistics, number of people that are

impacted in the policies here, and we never get to see the people

that are individually impacted. We thank you for being here because you add a dimension to this hearing that is very important

for us to see and here.

Dr. Johnson, I take it from your testimony—and I would like you

to respond a little more to this—that to the extent that the noncustodial parent, the father, is employable or has a skill means it

is more likely that the mother would consider the father a candidate for marriage. Is that a positive correlation?

Dr. JOHNSON. That is a definite positive correlation, and it has

been made by sociologists. It is being made by economists right

now. When fathers are made marriage-able, they are attractive

marriage mates.

It is interesting. We did have an opportunity to bring some

young fathers from Mr. Jones’ program before the Committee when

Mr. Shaw was Chair, and one of the young men indicated, asked

Mr. Shaw, ‘‘Would you want your daughter to marry me?,’’ looking

at his situation. In a situation where he was trying to do the best

he could, he had had some challenges in his life, and that he really

needed to get those things together to make himself attractive. I

think the thing that is often overshadowed sometimes is the young

father’s willingness to be the best man he can be, to be the best

father he could be, and to also in the future be a good husband.

I can recall when my older brother—I am from the Detroit area

originally. I have been in this area about 22 years. When he got

his first job at Ford Motor Company, when those jobs were available, I can remember him getting the phone call from Reverend

S.L. Roberson from the Ford Motor Company down the street from

me, and he said that once he got the call that he was going to get

him a car, get him an apartment, and he might even get married

because he made a positive correlation between his financial stability and being able to make those type of choices. I think that

given the chance—I think that Mr. Byrd said, do not look at the

cover of the book, look at what is inside of the book, and here is

54

a man trying to do the best for himself, trying to do the best for

his family, but we need programs like the Center for Fathers, Families and Workforce Development in place to create an on ramp for

people like Mr. Byrd so that they can reach their dreams and be

the best parents to children as possible.

Mr. CARDIN. Thank you for that response.

Dr. Haskins, it is a pleasure to have you return to our Committee, and I, once again, want to congratulate you on your public

service. You have reason to be proud, as we are proud, of the accomplishments that we have made in reforming our welfare system

and our child support system, and you were by far one of the key

individuals. So I applaud you for that and congratulate you on your

public service.

I think my list, though, is longer than two in modification of the

1996 law. I am one of those who supported those.

Dr. HASKINS. Yes, but you have more than 5 minutes, Mr.

Cardin.

[Laughter.]

Mr. CARDIN. That is true, also.

Let me also point out, I know that your quip about marriage and

Republicans—let me just tell you that I have been married for 36

years, and my spouse and I are both Democrats. So there are

Democrats who do believe that marriage is a very important institution.

But let me just caution you that we support—the Democrats support, and I think there is a bipartisan agreement, the importance

of marriage and the importance of two-parent families, but we also

as Republicans have a concern about spousal abuse and child

abuse. We are concerned about safety of families. We want to make

sure that our policies are the right policies for families.

You made a very interesting point, and I think it is worth emphasizing. For a while, our policy was cost recovery. Now it is really family support and bringing the family together. It is really nice

to see that from all sides, there is agreement that passing through

child support makes sense.

If you could just clarify for me why did we—we put families first

for families that left welfare on just about everything except for the

tax intercept program. Why didn’t we give them access to tax intercepts in 1996?

Dr. HASKINS. In the 1996 legislation?

Mr. CARDIN. Yes.

Dr. HASKINS. Oh, very simple answer. The Senate would not accept giving the entire amount to the families. So staff in the middle

of the night was casting about trying to figure out a way that you

could plausibly, logically divide up the money, and we received information that about half the money came from the tax intercept.

So we used the tax intercept. States get to keep all collections from

the tax intercept, and the rest goes to the family. That is 100 percent of the reason. It was just a convenience, and as many things

that staff thinks up in the middle of the night, it cluttered up

the——

Mr. CARDIN. It just goes to show you should not work in the middle of the night.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

55

Chairman HERGER. Thank you very much, Mr. Cardin.

I want to thank each of our witnesses.

Mr. WATKINS. If I might make one comment. We are talking

about self-esteem here, trying—and what do we do, Mr. Chairman,

to help young men and young women develop a self-esteem that

they can achieve and they can do those things, and that is inside.

You can hardly measure that commitment or that determination to

do that, and how we can help our young people develop more selfesteem is going to be very crucial for us to succeed.

Chairman HERGER. A very important point. Thank you.

Mr. Byrd, again, it is good to have each of our witnesses. It is

particularly—I want you to know that we particularly appreciate

you being here. You had mentioned how you were a little nervous.

I think everyone is a little nervous who perhaps is here, and,

again, I commend you.

I would like to have you respond, if you would, to what perhaps

you have learned through the fatherhood program that you are involved in, do you feel you have changed in any ways because of

that, and what are your hopes for the future.

Mr. BYRD. Well, actually, through the fatherhood programs, I actually learned a couple of things about myself, and the day someone directed me, it was like some things I do—I still have a little

immaturity in me, and I kind of like thought that I—I honestly

tried to like not look at it, but then I thought about it. Some things

I do, do, it is kind of immature. Then, hopefully, in the future— well, actually, I will actually look at—when I get out of school,

maybe I might join a branch of the government and then I am looking to buy a computer. I was up in the Families Helping Families

Center, looking at the computers they had up there, and maybe in

the future—I was thinking about—they kept like haggling me

about getting married, and marriage was not something I wanted

right now. It is something that I look for in the future, but as you

look at it, a lot of people you see married, and you are like, ‘‘I will

see this person for the rest of my life,’’ and it is like you really got

to think on it because you do not want to rush into nothing and

that you cannot get out of, and then marriage is a big responsibility. It is just like when you have a kid. You always got that person. You always know you have to look after that person. That person is going to be there for you.

Chairman HERGER. Thank you.

Mr. BYRD. A lot of things I did learn was that if you are down

and you are trying to help yourself, if people see you helping—if

you struggling and you need help and you are not trying to help

yourself, no one is going to help you, but if you ask for help and

someone will help you if they see you are trying to help yourself.

Nobody is going to help you if you are not trying to help yourself,

and you cannot do—nobody cannot make you do something you do

not want to do. If you are going to do it and you ask for help, they

are going to give you the proper guidance and the proper assistance

for you to do whatever task that you are trying to complete.

Chairman HERGER. Good. Thank you very much, Mr. Byrd.

Again, I want to thank each of our witnesses for your fine testimony this afternoon. I trust that each of you would respond to additional questions on these issues for the record. It has been a very

56

informative hearing on an issue that is important to members of

this Committee and to the President.

With that, this Committee stands adjourned. Thank you.

[Whereupon, at 3:32 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

[Questions submitted from Chairman Herger to the panel, and

their responses follow:]

National Council of Child Support Directors

Richmond, Virginia 23219

July 11, 2001

Hon. Wally Herger, Chairman

Subcommittee on Human Resources

U.S. Committee on House Ways and Means

1102 Longworth House Office Building

Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Herger:

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the Subcommittee’s follow-up questions to testimony I presented on June 28. The following responses are presented

in the order of the questions in your June 29 letter.

Q. A general trend several witnesses cited is the progression away from

a child support system focused on cost recovery to one that promotes family self-sufficiency. What are some innovative programs Virginia has developed that promote the goal of self-sufficiency for families? How about other

States? What implications does that have for your office in terms of administrative workload? Expense? How have those issues been addressed?

A. Since the passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) in 1996, additional emphasis has been placed on the importance of children having the financial and the emotional support of both parents.

Programs that provide services such as education and training, job placement, parenting classes, and mentoring are now viewed as critical to helping low-income children escape poverty.

Because welfare today is time-limited and child support is becoming a key family

resource, our focus has shifted somewhat from a cost recovery program to one of

preparing both parents to take responsibility for the support of their children. In

Virginia’s child support enforcement program, we are involved in several innovative

programs that vary by community in promoting self-sufficiency. For example, we

have fourteen of our seasoned child support staff co-located in the local social service

agencies. This offers the customer ‘‘one stop shopping’’ in that they can communicate

with their eligibility worker about benefits, and can communicate with the child

support worker to provide critical information that will assist our staff in locating

the noncustodial parent, establishing paternity and a child support obligation, and

collecting their support order. This co-location also provides an opportunity for information sharing and program understanding between the child support worker and

the social service worker. In other areas where co-location is not feasible, we have

child support staff who appear periodically at service points to facilitate child support services for both custodial and noncustodial parents.

Virginia is fortunate in that we are an administrative state, which allows us to

more efficiently process child support cases rather than going through the courts.

We issue 75 percent of all orders administratively and preclude further judicial action, unless requested by either party. This provides for services that are quicker,

requires no lawyers or judges, and gets the child support moneys to the custodial

parent much faster than if we had to process all actions through the courts.

We know that many noncustodial parents take seriously their responsibility to

pay child support regularly. For the majority of parents who do not readily meet

their financial obligations, enforcement tools such as income withholding, driver’s license revocation, or passport denial will encourage parents to meet their financial

obligations to their children. However, for a small minority of noncustodial parents,

even tougher enforcement tools have been utilized. In Virginia, we have implemented enforcement tools such as vehicle booting. As described in my testimony of

June 28, 2001, this enforcement technique was first utilized in Virginia in 1998.

Since it’s inception, more than $420,000 has been collected from 79 bootings.

Another enforcement remedy, which is used, by Virginia and other states is our

KidsFirst Campaign which was first implemented in 1997 and offered limited amnesty to 57,000 of our most egregious support evaders. To date, Virginia has collected more than $150 million in past due child support as a result of this initiative.

57

This initiative enhanced our rapport with the law enforcement community and with

the judiciary.

Many of our courts utilize alternatives to incarceration such as work release or

in home incarceration. These programs allow the noncustodial parent to avoid jail

time by continuing to work and meet their child support obligation as well as making them available to provide emotional support to their children. This alternative

is a savings to the taxpayer and contributes to the self-sufficiency of the family.

Unique enforcement remedies, such as the two mentioned above, serve us well in

that they educate the public about child support services that are available, the resulting press encourages other noncustodial parents to pay their support to avoid

these enforcement remedies and the resulting child support payments assist the

families in becoming self sufficient.

Several states, including Virginia, are involved in grants that identify barriers to

custodial parents applying for child support services and also barriers to noncustodial parents contributing financial support to their children. Since these studies

have just recently begun, I am not prepared to discuss findings or make recommendations.

We currently have more than 70 community based fatherhood initiatives underway in Virginia. One very recent example is the result of a collaborative effort between Total Action Against Poverty (TAP) and several agencies including child support enforcement, that provides outreach to noncustodial parents under the age of

30, who are unemployed or underemployed. TAP was successful in obtaining a

$750,000 grant from the Charles S. Mott Foundation to target this populace in the

Roanoke, Virginia area. This grant will provide a child support worker at the district office to identify fathers who might be eligible for the program and refer them

for services to enhance their job skills, help them secure jobs and encourage them

to become more involved in their children’s lives. One caveat to participate in this

program is to ensure the fathers acknowledge paternity and pay their child support

on a regular basis.

Many states, including Virginia, have entered into partnerships with local Head

Start associations. We provide literature regarding child support services and periodically speak to Head Start participants about our services and the importance of

both parents being involved in the financial and emotional upbringing of their children.

Some of our offices, particularly in rural localities, have entered into agreements

with faith-based organizations, community partners, employers and local social services agencies under the Workforce Investment Act. This partnership provides another opportunity to distribute information on child support services and assist both

custodial and noncustodial parents in accessing these services.

Our core responsibility is to collect and disburse child support, and we will continue to focus our efforts in that role, remaining mindful that our partnerships with

agencies such as those listed above are crucial to furthering the self-sufficiency of

families. Unfortunately, our caseloads continue to increase, and we must remain

flexible in managing our resources while staying focused on our primary mission,

which is child support enforcement.

Q. The Department of Health and Human Services preliminary 1999 child

support data tells us that collections were made in over six million Title

IV–D cases, up from 4.5 million in 1998. What actions can Congress take to

help States further improve the percentage of child support collections?

A. The Personal Responsibility Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act 1996

(PRWORA) provided states with powerful new tools to assist in the collection of

child support. The National Directory of New Hires and the Federal Case Registry

provide information not previously available to states in their collection efforts.

These new databases have allowed states to increase the level of automation in their

statewide computer systems. The combination of the new tools and the improved automation are primarily responsible for the increase in the percentage of collections.

Even for states, like Virginia, which have met all the requirements for PRWORA,

there is more that can be done to increase the level of automation and improve on

the use of the new tools.

There are two things Congress can do to help states further improve the percentage of child support collections. One is to extend the deadline for using the 80 percent enhanced funding for child support computer systems. Congress designated a

pool of 80 percent federal funding to assist states in meeting these requirements.

The deadline for using the 80 percent funding is October 1, 2001. Many states will

not be able to use the full amount of the 80 percent money allocated to them by

the deadline.

Extending the deadline to October 1, 2005, will allow states to take full advantage

of enhanced funding to improve and enhance the PRWORA mandates.

58

The second is to refrain from making major changes to the child support program

until the full benefits of the existing laws are realized. In other words ‘‘stay the course.’’ Although passed in 1996, the PRWORA changes were numerous and complex. States continue to expand and increase their use of the new tools and laws.

Major changes to the program would divert valuable resources and prevent states

from continuing their effort to make full and complete use of the tools provided by

PRWORA.

Q. How do States handle the issue of access and visitation, especially by

divorced fathers?

A. The Grants to States for Access and Visitation Grant Programs (A&V) are

demonstration grants funded by the federal government in an effort to increase parental involvement of noncustodial parents in the lives of their children. Specific activities such as parent education, counseling, visitation, development of parenting

plans and mediation, are eligible for funding. States are given oversight, monitoring,

and evaluation responsibilities for utilization of grant funds. Some states are further

along with their A&V programs, while others are just beginning to implement programs to increase parental involvement. Allocations are made to each state from a $10 million appropriation. Each state

must submit an application annually and provide a ten percent match to receive the

funds.

Each state is given the leverage to explore initiatives and determine how families

can benefit best from A&V funds. States administer A&V programs based on the

prevailing needs of their respective populations.

Across the country, A&V programs are administered in different ways. In California, A&V funds are used to help finance a statewide-supervised visitation program. Missouri uses A&V funds to administer a statewide mediation program for

its citizens. One year, the State of Michigan used A&V funds to develop an excellent

two-part parent education video presentation that demonstrated to fathers how to

effectively get involved with their children.

In Virginia, A&V funds are used to help finance community-based programs, some

of which are quite unique. In Northern Virginia, a program that provides mediation,

counseling, and education services to teenage parents, primarily Hispanic, benefits

from A&V funding. A parent education and visitation program for incarcerated noncustodial parents in Williamsburg, Virginia and surrounding counties received A&V

funding. In Newport News, A&V funding is used to help noncustodial parents, who

may have fallen victim to substance abuse or incarceration, regain custody of their

children. In Winchester, Virginia and surrounding counties, a parent education program where divorced parents are the predominant population served, A&V funds

are used to foster healthier relationships between divorced parents and their children. Children also attend this program. At least four supervised visitation centers

across the Commonwealth receive A&V funding.

We do not have information available on specific state efforts to target divorced

fathers. Typically, divorced fathers are included in parent education, mediation, visitation, and counseling services offered under A&V programs.

Q. On the issue of penalties on States that fail to meet the administrative

standards for their child support systems, I note you have a proposal on

Page 6 of your testimony. (Currently California, Michigan and South Carolina are in penalty.) Could you give us more information about the proposal you described? Relieving penalties in this way would have the effect

of raising federal spending as the current penalty is subtracted from federal funds sent to the States to operate their child support systems. Do you

have any idea how much this proposed change would cost? Are there other

suggestions in this vein?

A. As I described in my written testimony to the Subcommittee, the National

Council of Child Support Directors (NCCSD) supports a policy that allows a state,

which is under automation penalties, to reinvest those penalties into program improvements and system compliance. You requested more information on that proposal. Therefore, I am including the full text of the NCCSD resolution describing

this reinvestment approach. I am also including resolutions passed by the National

Governor’s Association (NGA), the American Public Human Services Association

(APHSA) and the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), all of which

support the same proposal for penalty reinvestment.

You also asked about the potential costs to the federal government of the reinvestment proposal. It is difficult to know any exact costs of reinvestment because penalties are in place only as long as a state remains out of compliance with system

requirements. Once a state incurring penalties comes into compliance, the penalties

end. Second, any Federal costs will depend on how much a state elects to reinvest

into its program and system development. Under the proposal described above, the

59

penalty base is adjusted by the amount that a state spent for information technology

in the previous year. Thus, any potential costs would depend on the amount that

states incurring penalties are expending on information technology costs. What is

known is the estimated penalty amount that states which are currently incurring

penalties will pay in this budget year: South Carolina: $5.3 million; Michigan: $38.7

million; and California: $111 million. The estimated amounts for the next fiscal year

are: South Carolina: $6.4 million; Michigan: $46.8 million; and California: $152 million. Importantly, under this proposal any penalty amount reinvested is going directly into the Child Support Program to support system and program improvements.

Finally, you inquired about other reinvestment suggestions. One proposal currently calls for the establishment of a ‘‘base year’’ for both penalty amounts and reinvestment amounts. Under this concept the ‘‘base year’’ would be the fiscal year

before the penalty was applied. The amount the state spent in that ‘‘base year’’

would be used to calculate the penalty for every year the state is under the penalty.

In addition, the amount of the state’s general fund spent in the previous fiscal year

that is in excess of the amount of the state’s general fund spent in the ‘‘base year’’

would be available for reinvestment. If reinvested in the IV–D program, the state’s

penalty would be reduced by the amount reinvested. This approach clearly corrects

the unintended consequence of penalizing someone for trying to fix a problem. For

example, California’s penalty increased by 48.4 percent ($36.2 million) this year

alone just because it has increased program spending. In Michigan, the penalty increased by 29.97 percent ($11.6 million) due to increased program spending. In

South Carolina, spending did not significantly increase due to the state being in mediation with its contractor. South Carolina expects spending to increase in the next

fiscal year in the 20–30 percent range. The cost of the reinvestment component

would be based on whatever the states choose to reinvest up to the total amount

of the penalty.

Q. Is Virginia promoting fatherhood programs through your State’s child

support office? Are these programs receiving support through TANF funds?

What do other states do in terms of fatherhood program funding?

A. In Virginia, the Division of Child Support Enforcement (DCSE) partners with

the Virginia Fatherhood Campaign (VFC) through a Memorandum of Understanding between the two entities. DCSE grants funds to VFC for the purpose of

promoting responsible fatherhood throughout the Commonwealth. VFC accomplishes

this through seed grants to community Fatherhood programs, workshops for service

providers, media advertising, printed materials and brochures for dissemination to

the general public. DCSE employs a Fatherhood Coordinator whose responsibilities

include educating the public about the child support program and fostering positive

working relationships between community Fatherhood programs and DCSE. DCSE

district offices are encouraged to collaborate with community Fatherhood programs.

In Virginia, TANF accounts for 100 percent of the funding granted to VFC

through the Memorandum of Understanding between DCSE and VFC. In other

states, TANF funds can and are used as well as combinations of TANF and State

General Funds.

Q. In his testimony, Ron Haskins raises the issue that, as the welfare

caseload declines, there are fewer potential child support collections for

parents on welfare. This, as you know, has traditionally been a partial

funding source for operating child support programs—when States retain

and share with the federal government collections for parents on welfare.

Aside from simply expecting the State or federal governments to provide

more funds to fill this gap, do you have any other creative ideas for addressing this problem, which is likely to be with us for a long term?

A. There are no easy answers to the issue of funding the child support program

in the face of decreasing collections for parents on welfare. A small piece of good

news is that for the first time in several years, these collections in Virginia did not

decrease. The National Council of Child Support Directors (NCCSD) recently conducted a survey of child support directors to solicit funding ideas. Some thoughts

included increasing Federal Financial Participation (FFP) to 75 percent and eliminating the state share of retained collections, developing creative ways to use TANF

block grant dollars to fund the child support program, and perhaps up-fronting the

federal share of program costs instead of reimbursing costs after the fact. Any new

concept will require additional analysis and study to assess the impact. NCCSD encourages Congress to work with states, OCSE and professional organizations to develop a viable funding structure to ensure adequate and stable funding for this critical program. NCCSD recently developed a resolution on funding for the child support program. The recommendations are repeated here.

60

The federal Office of Child Support Enforcement, Administration for Children and

Families, Department of Health and Human Services (OCSE) and Congress should

provide for full and sustained Federal Financial Participation (FFP) for all aspects

of the Child Support Program at current or enhanced levels.

Congress should ensure the continuation of 90 percentage FFP for genetic testing.

Congress should amend federal law to extend the use of 80 percent FFP to October 1, 2005, for enhancements to automated systems required by the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, including implementation of the medical support notice which is required by federal regulations issued

in March 2001.

When states are required to implement new mandates, or make substantial revisions to existing program requirements, Congress should provide enhanced FFP to

reduce the impact on the states’ child support budgets.

To ensure timely and consistent implementation of any of the Medical Child Support Working Group’s recommendations that require State child support agencies to

assume new responsibilities, Congress should provide enhanced 90 percent FFP for

medical support activities for a limited 5-year period.

OCSE and Congress should work with state IV–D Directors to identify methods

for ensuring that stable and adequate levels of investment in the program by federal, state, and local governments advances the child support program’s evolving

mission and improves outcomes. This investment should reflect overall trends and

future directions in the nation’s human services delivery system rather than a

point-in-time analysis, and adhere to a set of principles that properly relate funding

approaches to program needs, goals and performance.

Again, thank you for the opportunity to provide additional information on your

questions.

If I may provide additional information, please call me directly at (804)692–1501.

Sincerely,

Nathaniel L. Young, Jr.

f President

National Center for Strategic Nonprofit

Planning and Community Leadership

Washington, DC 20036

July 12, 2001

Hon. Wally Herger, Chairman

Congress of the United States

House of Representatives

Committee on Ways and Means

Subcommittee on Human Resources

Washington, D.C. 20515

1. How do the fatherhood programs your organization operates interact

with the child support system? How do they treat the issue of marriage?

Our fatherhood development programs interact with state and local child support

enforcement agencies on a win-win basis. The child support enforcement agency and

community-based fatherhood development program partnerships that have been developed under various fatherhood initiatives are based on the premise that the wellbeing of children is central to all—mothers, fathers, child support agencies, community-based organizations, other public and private service agencies, and others concerned in the community. At the core of the partnerships is the relationship between

child support enforcement and community-based organizations. The challenge for

these partnerships is to improve the trust and the relationships between child support enforcement and community-based organizations necessary for the child support program to exercise state flexibility provided under PRWORA. This must be

done in a way that is consistent with the state’s fiscal character.

In order to accomplish this under the Partners for Fragile Families (PFF) Demonstration Project, NPCL created a Peer Learning College that includes child support enforcement representatives from a number of state child support enforcement

programs. The Peer Learning College provides a forum for child support professionals to learn about the issues faced by low-income fathers and by communitybased fatherhood development programs designed to serve them and find ways to

interact with them and other public/private service agencies attempting to serve

low-income fathers and their fragile families. An important part of the curriculum

61

has been the participation of young fathers and community-based fatherhood practitioners in all six sessions over the past three years.

NPCL has also held extensive orientation and training for community-based organizations around the workings of the child support system. Child support partners

from the PFF sites have served as instructors for many of these sessions. NPCL has

developed the expertise to coordinate the various agency partnerships in serving

low-income, low-skilled parents and their children.

NPCL has also invested in bringing considerable expertise, including on-board

staff, around the issue of child support to serve as a resource for our communitybased partners, and to enhance the capacity of our state child support partners to

work more effectively with community-based agencies.

All of these efforts have reinforced the interaction between the partners and built

a common level of understanding and trust. This understanding and trust has

served as a platform for the partners to negotiate systems and manage the risks

associated with the fathers’ habilitation and participation in society.

How do they, our programs, treat the issue of marriage?

We instruct our programs that marriage is a special human relationship. We are

fortunate in having a number of men and women from the clergy associated with

our sites. As part of the training using the Fatherhood Development Curriculum,

the sites invite experts to come in and discuss the issues surrounding marriage.

When men proceed in fatherhood development programs and express an interest in

marriage, we advise program staff to refer them to professionals in the field. These

are often faith-based partners responsible for the institutions where a large number

of marriages occur. They take the lead in this area. In our programs marriage is

perceived as a success.

A. What impact has this interaction had on fathers, children, mothers, financial status of fathers, and the emotional connection between fathers

and children?

In many cases it has transformed their lives. Our fatherhood development programs have seen fathers at all levels of marginalization, alienated from families and

friends, and civil society. After enrollment in the programs, fathers actually confront

the many challenges to changing their lives and reconnecting with their families

and their children. Many have been able to surmount the challenges, become financial contributors to their children, establishing paternity and paying their child support, and most importantly, emotionally attached and positively involved in the lives

of their children. Consequently, they enjoy recreational activities with their children, participate in family outings and are engaged in their child’s nurturing, educational and developmental processes. Their emotional involvement has also meant

a singular reluctance to engage in activities that would place them in jeopardy of

returning to their previous status and placing their children at risk.

2. How do programs work with noncustodial fathers to help them better

connect emotionally with their children and their children’s mothers?

Our programs are designed to meet the multiple service needs of fathers. Their

operations are based on Fatherhood Development: A Curriculum for Young Fathers.

The curriculum was field-tested in Public/Private Ventures’ Young Unwed Fathers

Pilot Project (see attachment). Through a series of approximately 25 streetwise discussions that provide support, information and motivation in the areas of life skills,

personal development, parenthood, relationships, sexuality and responsible fatherhood, young fathers receive assistance so necessary to their full participation in the

lives of their children. The programs are also designed to remove the social, legal,

economic, cultural, and institutional barriers to their involvement in children’s lives.

What positive changes have you seen?

Across the PFF demonstration sites, we have seen several instances where young

men are assuming full responsibility for the direction of their lives. In one site we

have seen a young Hispanic father, recently out of jail, get assistance from our program, get training and a job in asbestos removal. He is currently making well above

minimum wage. He is paying his child support, and the mother of his child, who

had disdained him when he was incarcerated, has allowed him to see the child regularly and has even begun dating him again. Since his involvement in the program,

he stopped engaging in all at risk behavior—smoking, drinking, gang banging and

selling drugs.

In another site, we had a young man who had been ‘‘in the life’’ for many years,

engaging in selling drugs and small-time thievery, and having multiple children

with the same young lady. Since his involvement in the program he has ceased all

at risk activities, secured a job, and has married the mother of his children.

In still another site, a young man, recently out of high school, through participation in the program has been intimately involved throughout the pregnancy of his

girl friend. He has been with her on visits to the pre-natal clinics and on visits to

62

the doctor, and is now talking about marrying the mother of his child. The list is

long across the PFF sites. We have many success stories where young fathers,

through the efforts of our programs, have transformed themselves into contributing

members of the communities and wonderful fathers and role models for their children.

3. How do you bring the fathers who are ‘‘living below the radar screen,

outside organized society and out of the child support enforcement system’’ into your programs?

When we refer to fathers ‘‘living below the radar screen, outside organized society

and out of the reach of child support enforcement,’’ we are addressing that portion

of the population that we call dead-broke dads. These young men do not have attachment to the labor force. Moreover, many of them participate in the underground

economy. Further, many of the young fathers we serve do not have a permanent

address. They move from a relative to a friend and then back to the relative with

great frequency.

For purposes of child support enforcement, establishing legal notice is difficult

and often impossible. As a result of PRWORA however, the child support enforcement system can move forward even when they have not established traditional effective legal notice. This can lead to default orders with imputed incomes that are

inconsistent with the father’s ability to pay. Arrears accumulate and with interest

up to 18% added in some states, child support debt can exceed a year’s wages. If

these dads do find jobs and are identified under the new hires reporting system, by

the time child support enforcement can serve an income withholding order, they

have lost the job.

Our programs recruit through various sources. They include Head Start programs, Alternative Schools serving young mothers, Healthy Start projects and other

programs that serve low-income mothers and children. However, the best source of

recruitment of these men is the mothers of their children and often the fathers own

mothers. And the best method of recruitment is getting out into the community

where the fathers are.

There, through word of mouth, street outreach, a need to find a job, the tireless

work of outreach workers, or the desperate desire to address a child support arrearage, or because the mother of their child or their own mother has encouraged them,

these clients present themselves to programs. The word on the street will be that

this program can help you. It will not judge you. The program is a place where, if

you put in the time and effort, staff will assist you in ‘‘straightening out your life.’’ This is the best recruitment.

4. In your testimony, you mentioned that ‘‘the average mother on welfare receives about $33 per month in covert support from poor fathers.’’ Please

define ‘‘covert support’’ and tell us how you arrived at the $33 figure.

Covert child support is money, purchases, or services provided to the custodial

parent by the noncustodial parent and are not reported to the child support system.

The $33 figure comes from ‘‘Poor Dads Who Don’t pay Child Support: Deadbeats

or Disadvantaged?’’ a study by Elaine Sorenson and Chava Zibman of the Urban Institute, and based on Assessing the New Federalism’s 1997 National Survey of

America’s Families.

5. You seem to focus a lot on never-married fathers and their interactions with the child support system. Can you tell us about efforts involving divorced fathers and their willingness and ability to pay child support?

You are correct Mr. Chairman; the vast majority of our work deals with that portion of the population that is low income, low skilled, and never married. Young cohabiting couples produce one-third of all of America’s children. That is not onethird of all poor children, one-third of all minority children, or one-third of any sub

grouping that you might name. It is a fact that one third of all American children

are the progeny of couples that have never been married. In addition, about a quarter of all poor children are produced by couples who are either cohabiting or couples

in which the father visits the child at least once per week. These visiting relationships tend to be an important part of the parenting/living arrangements of young

African American families, while childbearing within cohabitation is more typical of

white and Hispanic couples.

The Partners for Fragile Families Demonstration was built on the lessons learned

from 25 years of publicly and privately supported demonstrations in the field of responsible fatherhood, including the Teen Father’s Collaboration, the Young Unwed

Fathers Pilot Project, and the Parents Fair Share Demonstration Project. PFF was

designed to augment our research by gathering first party information on the nature

and substance of the relationships that exist in what we call fragile families. We

started first with research to determine if these fathers fit the bad guy image, and

if these children were the result of casual relationships, as we so often heard.

63

This population was chosen because we had consistently heard from the mothers

of these children that these guys weren’t bad guys, just broke. We also had heard

that interaction with the child support system was a nightmare for this population.

We wanted to know if specific interventions moved these couples in the direction

of more traditional family formation. Could a better working relationship with the

child support system serve not to place additional strain on the relationship?

Moreover, we focused on this population because it is the fastest growing family

type in which poor children reside, and in many ways constitutes a new pathway

into child poverty; replacing the old, namely divorce and separation of a previously

non-poor, married couple household. As we move into the future, we can expect children born to fragile families to represent an increasing share of all poor children

and children born to previously non-poor married couples, which later divorced leaving the mother and child alone and poor, to constitute a diminishing share of all

poor children. This latter portion will simply age out of the population of poor children.

Finally, we emphasized this population because it is the population where our

current welfare and child support systems are having the least success in reducing

child poverty and improving child well-being, even though these systems encounter

(and will continue to encounter) more and more of the children from this population

every day.

I would say, Mr. Chairman that there are significant differences between the way

divorced fathers and fathers in fragile families interact with families, welfare and

child support systems. First, divorced fathers tend to be older and have older children. As a result, they are more experienced in the labor market and their relationships with the mothers of their children are more deteriorated. Because they have

more labor market experience than fathers in fragile families, it is difficult for our

current work force development systems to boost their wages above what they could

already earn on their own. Demonstration projects which have focused on divorced

fathers have been unable to improve the employment and earnings of these fathers

and therefore unable to raise the level of the child support payments they are making. This frustrates efforts made by child support authorities to accommodate the

labor market barriers these fathers face, in attempting to fulfill their responsibilities

to families and taxpayers. Moreover, because these fathers are older, have older

children, and older cases in the child support system, many are in arrears, and this

further complicates the efforts of child support enforcement to work in a progressive

way with these fathers. Finally, because their relationships with the mothers of

their children have long since deteriorated, the prospects of getting the mother’s cooperation in involving the father in the life of the child is diminished. Therefore,

public investments with low-income divorced fathers will yield less in terms of the

improved financial and emotional well-being of children.

All this argues for focusing our efforts on young, fragile families, whose educational skills, employment experiences, and family relationships are still in the

process of development and still subject to positive redirection. Moreover, previous

demonstrations have shown greater success in improving the employment and earnings of these fathers, and that they are less likely to have already accumulated

large amounts of arrears, so that child support enforcement administrators face

fewer obstacles in trying to accommodate the employment barriers these fathers

face. PFF hopes to build upon this experience by examining a variety of locally

based strategies to further improve their employment and earnings and by making

an improved relationship between the young parents an explicit goal of our work.

6. The first attachment to your testimony (‘‘NPCL Peer Learning College,’’ Page 3) discusses ‘‘significant barriers to timely modifications (of arrears for low-income noncustodial parents) during periods of reduced ability to pay.’’ What do you mean by these ‘‘barriers?’’ How might those be addressed?

Principal among the significant barriers is the fact that most child support programs are severely under-funded. The capacity of the child support system is insufficient to handle the caseload. Therefore it is perfectly logical that CSE programs

would work on the higher priority items reflected in the new child support incentive

measures.

Another significant barrier is that in the majority of our states guidelines provisions are out dated. This means that even in states that have a self-support reserve,

the reserve may have been set in 1984 dollars and not updated to take into account

the inflationary impact of the last two decades.

The general public—including our target population—does not know the processes

and procedures by which one would obtain a modification. Downward modification,

particularly from a default order may require an attorney. While a number of law

64

schools have long proud histories of working with low-income moms, very few work

with low-income dads.

Finally, many state legislators do not know their level of flexibility in setting child

support guidelines. Instead, many believe that the federal partner mandated the

exact scheme that is in their state law, which is not the case.

Sincerely,

Jeffery M. Johnson, Ph.D.

f President & CEO

Brookings Institution

Washington, DC 20036

July 25, 2001

The Honorable Wally Herger

2268 Rayburn House Office Building

Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Herger:

Thanks so much for inviting me to testify before your Subcommittee about child

support and fatherhood. It was a great privilege to appear before your Subcommittee.

This letter is a response to the questions posed in your letter of June 29.

1. With regard to the fatherhood programs outlined in legislation such as H.R.

1471, what do you think will be the most positive effects of these programs on

the communities where they are implemented? Do we have evidence about

positive changes seen to date?

First, with regard to the anticipated positive effects of fatherhood programs, I

think it is necessary to be humble about what can be achieved in the short run.

There are numerous fatherhood programs throughout the nation, but very few have

been the subject of scientific evaluations. Many of these programs are aimed at

helping divorced fathers deal with issues of custody and visitation and learning how

to be better fathers when they cannot reside with their own children.

However, based on the direction the Subcommittee has taken in recent years, as

well as legislation enacted by the House last year, I believe that the major interest

of Congress is in programs designed primarily to help poor and low-income fathers.

The legislation enacted by the House last year attempted to promote programs that

would help poor fathers improve their employment prospects, become better parents,

and work toward marriage. There are far fewer programs of this sort, and again

very few good evaluations.

Even so, in large part because of actions taken by the Human Resources Subcommittee way back in 1988, the Manpower Demonstration Research Corp. (MDRC)

has conducted a rigorous experiment on the effects of a particular type of fatherhood

program for poor fathers called ‘‘Parents’ Fair Share.’’ The Parents’ Fair Share programs, which enrolled about 5,600 fathers in seven cities, involved peer discussion

groups, employment and training services, and child support services; the goals of

the programs were to increase child support payments, improve the fathers’ employment and earnings, and increase the fathers’ involvement with their children. The

MDRC research, which is the best information available on the impacts of programs

for low-income fathers, operated in the seven cities between 1994 and 1996. MDRC

has now published several excellent reports on the results. Unfortunately, the results are decidedly mixed. There is little evidence of increased employment or increased contact with children, but some evidence of an increase in the number of

fathers who paid child support.

These were the first major programs that attempted to help poor fathers be better

providers and better parents. The history of innovative social programs is one of

major failures and minor successes. Thus, the key to success is to keep trying, as

the nation did with welfare-to-work programs. Although the first generation of programs for poor fathers produced only modest positive outcomes, they did show that

poor fathers were willing participants and that the overwhelming majority of poor

fathers indicated that they wanted to do a much better job of having contact with

children and providing support for them. The fact that more poor fathers paid child

support is consistent with this conclusion.

Thus, it would be wrong to assert that fatherhood programs, based on the knowledge currently at hand, can be expected to have major impacts on parenting, employment, or marriage in the short run. However, the results from the first round

65

of programs is not entirely discouraging. In fact, I believe that future programs may

be able to produce better results, especially if they begin around the time that unmarried parents have their first child. A few programs of this type are now being

designed. I believe, as do many researchers familiar with previous and current programs, that programs focused on helping these young couples, about half of whom

cohabit and well over 80 percent of whom tell interviewers they are in serious, committed relationships, could produce much better outcomes than the first round of

programs evaluated by MDRC.

2. States can use their TANF or even Social Services Block Grant funds to operate fatherhood programs? Just from Federal and State TANF funds, that’s a

potential pool of about $26 billion per year for running such programs, along

with all the other cash welfare programs States run. Do we know how many

States are using TANF funds for fatherhood programs? What do we know

about the results?

In your letter you also asked about whether states are now using their TANF dollars to support programs for poor fathers. Here are two answers. First, based on

talks with state officials and staff members with national organizations that represent state government, many states are using some TANF dollars to mount programs for poor fathers. However, as far as I have been able to find out, there is

no formal survey of these programs, let alone any kind of rigorous evaluation. But

as your letter implies, there is no question that states could use their TANF money

to design and implement programs for poor fathers.

Second, the Welfare-to-Work program, which is also under the jurisdiction of the

Committee on Ways and Means, supports many fatherhood programs. A recent report by Shannon Harper and Christine Devere of the Congressional Research Service found a total of 77 such programs. To my knowledge these programs have not

been evaluated and we now have little information on whether they have been successful. It is my understanding that the Department of Labor has worked hard to

encourage fatherhood programs to apply for the Welfare-to-Work funds and that

they are collecting basic administrative data on these programs. It may occur to you

that the Congressional Research Service could summarize what is known about

these programs from administrative data. However, I doubt that the available information would provide reliable data on whether these programs have had impacts

on fathers’ employment, earnings, payment of child support, or marriage. Information of this type requires random-assignment experiments, like the Parents’ Fair

Share study conducted by MDRC, and as far as I have been able to discover no such

studies of the Department of Labor programs are underway.

Having worked in this field for several years, I believe there is growing recognition that fathers are critical to adequate child development, that two-parent married

families provide the best rearing environment for children, and that the nation has

entirely too many single-parent families. But recent research shows that poor fathers have serious problems in American society: they have high unemployment and

low earnings rates; they have high crime, arrest, and incarceration rates; and they

have difficulty establishing lasting relationships with their children or their children’s mother. It would be a public service of huge proportions if Congress could

provide the resources and overall framework for programs that would help poor fathers avoid crime, improve employment, improve parenting frequency and skill, and

work toward marriage. In my opinion, the legislation reported out of the Ways and

Means Committee and passed by the House (but not the Senate) last year would,

if enacted this year, be a major step in the right direction.

Thanks again for the opportunity to provide information on child support and fatherhood to the Human Resources Subcommittee. In addition to this letter, MDRC

has graciously agreed to send a complete set of their studies of the Parents’ Fair

Share evaluation to your Subcommittee staff director Matt Weidinger. I am happy

to respond to additional questions you or your staff might have.

Respectfully yours,

RON HASKINS

f Senior Fellow

66

1 Congress set a 60-month lifetime limit on federally funded TANF benefits and 20 states have

adopted shorter time limits. State Policy Documentation Project (SPDP), State Time Limits on

TANF Cash Assistance, (February 2000), http://www.spdp.org/tanf/timelimits/tlovervw.pdf. 2SPDP, Financial Eligibility for TANF Cash Assistance (June 2000), http://www.spdp.org/tanf/

financial/finansumm.htm; Treatment of Earnings as of January 2000, http://www.spdp.org/tanf/

financial/treatmentearnings2000.PDF. 3Pamela Morris et al., How Welfare and Work Policies Affect Children: A Synthesis of Research, ES–4-ES–6, Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation (March 2001). 4Daniel Meyer and Maria Cancian, W–2 Child Support Demonstration Evaluation Phase 1:

Final Report, Executive Summary, Institute for Research on Poverty, University of Wisconsin

(2001), http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/irp/csde/phase1-vol1-es.htm. 5 Id., Volume II, Chapter 2, at 6–7.

National Women’s Law Center

Washington, DC 20036

July 12, 2001

The Honorable Wally Herger, Chairman

Subcommittee on Human Resources

House Committee on Ways and Means

I appreciate this opportunity to respond to the additional questions posed by the

Subcommittee following the hearing on June 28, 2001.

1. Some members may believe that giving more child support money to families

on welfare will make it easier for them to stay on welfare, rather than encouraging

them to move off of welfare. How would you respond to these members?

With the passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA), welfare became a time-limited program.1 Giving more child

support to families while they are on welfare helps them to get this important

source of income in place before they leave welfare, furthering PRWORA’s goal of

making welfare a transitional assistance program. Wisconsin’s experimental policy

of passing through all child support to families receiving Temporary Assistance for

Needy Families (TANF), and disregarding all of it in determining the TANF grant,

has been demonstrated not to increase welfare stays. On the contrary, Wisconsin’s

full pass-through and disregard, as compared to a more limited pass-through policy,

has stimulated an increase in child support payments that has enabled families to

leave welfare more quickly, and provided additional income that can help them

avoid a return to welfare.

To transform their welfare programs into programs of transitional assistance,

most states have adopted policies to encourage families receiving TANF to develop

the sources of income they will need when they leave TANF. Given the flexibility

to develop their own policies concerning disregards for earned income, all but five

states have adopted earnings disregards more generous than those that existed

under the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program.2 Although

these policies also, in theory, could make it easier to stay on welfare, they have coincided with an increase in work participation and a dramatic decline in the welfare

rolls. In addition, programs that increased family income as well as parental employment were found to produce improvements in child well-being that were not

matched by programs that increased parental employment alone; and, the positive

effects of earnings supplement programs on children were most pronounced for the

children of long-term welfare recipients.3

States have had less flexibility to experiment with giving more child support to

families because of the requirement that they repay the federal share of all child

support collections for children receiving TANF. Wisconsin, however, was able to

pursue a full pass-through and disregard policy as part of its ‘‘W–2’’ program under

a federal waiver it received before the passage of PRWORA. In this experiment, for

most custodial parents receiving cash assistance, all child support paid was passed

through to the family and disregarded in calculating their grant. A randomly assigned control group received only a partial pass-through and disregard of child support.

Wisconsin’s full pass-through and disregard policy was found to increase significantly the percentage of noncustodial parents who paid support and the amount of

support paid.4 The effects were particularly strong among parents of children without a history of AFDC receipt, because they did not have expectations based on the

old system, in which payments went to reimburse welfare costs.5 Connecticut tested

a more limited pass-through and disregard policy. In its ‘‘Jobs First’’ program, all

child support was passed through and the disregard was increased from $50 to

67

6Dan Bloom et al., Jobs First: Implementation and Early Impacts of Connecticut’s Welfare Reform Initiative 119, 117, Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation (2000). 7 Id., Volume I, Chapter 4, at 49–50. 8 Id., Executive Summary. 9See generally, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE), 1999 Report to Congress: Analysis of the Impact on Welfare Recidivism of PRWORA Child Support Arrears Distribution Policy Changes, http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/

programs/cse/rpt/1999rpt/1999report.htm. 10Daniel Meyer and Marcia Cancian, ‘‘Child Support and Economic Well-Being Following an

Exit from AFDC,’’ in OCSE, XIX Child Support Report (May 1997). 11 Carl Formoso, ‘‘Early Findings of the Effect of Child Support and Self-Sufficiency Programs

in Washington State on Reducing Direct Support Public Costs,’’ in OCSE, XXI Child Support

Report (January 1999). 12Deanna Schnexnayder et al., The Role of Child Support in Texas Welfare Dynamics 6, Center for the Study of Human Resources, Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs (1998). 13 1999 Report to Congress, supra, Executive Summary.

$100. Average child support payments for ‘‘Jobs First’’ participants were found to

be higher than for the control group subject to AFDC rules.6

Under Wisconsin’s full pass-through and disregard policy, mothers received more

child support than under the old rules, in part because of the increase in child support paid and in part because they were allowed to receive more child support income. However, refuting the concerns that some members may have that such a policy would increase welfare stays, the researchers found that:

receiving child support is associated with an increased likelihood of moving to an upper tier [in which families receive supportive services but not

cash] or off the program by the end of the first year. Thus, to the extent

that the reform increases support, it may also decrease W–2 participation.7

In addition, researchers found that the Wisconsin policy produced no difference

in overall government costs, because cost savings in other programs offset the child

support payments that were given to families instead of retained.8

Receipt of child support also reduces the length of time a family receives welfare

by helping families avoid a return to welfare and increasing their well-being.9 Analysis of national data found that women receiving any amount of support are less

likely to return to welfare; that support received by a young woman in the first

years of a child’s life is positively related to her later self-sufficiency; and that

women who received support in each of the first five years after exiting welfare were

among those who achieved modest levels of economic well-being.10 A study in Washington State found that good child support payments were associated with lower recidivism rates, which substantially increased time off of welfare.11 An analysis in

Texas found that for every $100 in child support received per quarter by a caretaker

who left AFDC, the probability of welfare recidivism in that quarter was reduced

by one percentage point, and the receipt of child support had over a three times

larger effect on recidivism than an equivalent dollar amount of the caretaker’s own

earnings.12 After reviewing all of the available research, the 1999 Report to Congress on child support and welfare recidivism concluded:

Based on research findings, even small amounts of child support payments reduce welfare recidivism. . . . As the residual [TANF] caseload decreases over time, it increasingly comprises hard-to-place individuals who

face substantial barriers to employment. . . . [T]he relative value of even incremental increases in child support will be greater for the hard to place.

Additionally, if these individuals reside in a low-benefit State, the relative

replacement value for the TANF grant will be greater. This combination of

factors suggests that PRWORA distribution policies that increase child support payments to these families may have an even greater effect on welfare

exits.13

Congress has recognized the importance of giving more child support to families

that have left welfare. PRWORA gave families leaving TANF greater claims to their

past-due child support than they had under AFDC. This Subcommittee is considering H.R. 1471, which would eliminate remaining exceptions to ‘‘Family First’’ distribution for families that have left TANF. The changes to the post-TANF assignment and distribution rules in H.R. 1471 certainly would increase the amount of

child support that families leaving TANF receive, and would help them avoid a return to welfare. However, changes that also would make it feasible for states to

change the distribution rules for families while they are on welfare could produce

additional increases in the amount and timeliness of the child support that families

receive when they leave welfare for two reasons.

68

14 Vicki Turetsky, What If All the Money Came Home? 6, Center for Law and Social Policy

(2000), http://www.clasp.org/pubs/childenforce/pilr2300.htm. 15Paula Roberts, State Policy Re: Pass-through and Disregard of Current Month’s Child Support Collected for Families Receiving TANF-Funded Cash Assistance As of January 1, 1999, CLASP (1999), http://www.clasp.org/pubs/childenforce/1999cht.htm. 16 Information about the assumptions CBO used in estimating the cost of H.R. 4678 (106th

Congress) and H.R. 1471 (107th Congress) obtained in conversations between NWLC staff and

CBO analyst Sheila Dacey in fall 2000 and spring 2001. 17See, e.g., American Public Human Services Association, Crossroads: New Directions in Social Policy 62 (2001, http://www.aphsa.org/reauthor/crossroads.pdf; National Governors’ Association Policy Position, Child Support Financing Policy, Passthrough, § 14.3.1 (2001), http://

www.nga.org/nga/legislativeUpdate/1,1169,ClPOLICYlPOSITION¥Dl530,00.html.

First, if child support payments were passed through to families while they were

on welfare, there would be no disruption in payments when they left welfare. Although families are legally entitled to receive current support payments after they

leave welfare, in practice there have been delays of several months in some states

in redirecting payments from the state to the family.14

Second, the incentive effects on support payments are likely to be greater if states

are able to change the mission and message of the child support program in a more

comprehensive way. As noted above, Wisconsin had a harder time explaining the

new policy to families that had experienced the old system, and the increases in

payments, although they occurred, were lower among prior recipients than among

those new to the system. This suggests that the incentive effect would be greater

if states could give parents a simple, consistent message: than whenever noncustodial parents pay support, whether their children are receiving assistance at the time

or not, those payments directly increase their children’s well-being. This would complement the efforts of programs working with low-income fathers to encourage and

help them to provide more economic and emotional support to their children.

In sum, the evidence shows that giving more child support to families on welfare

will make the child support program a more effective tool for promoting self sufficiency. At a minimum, federal policy should eliminate the barriers to states’ adopting such policies.

2. In general, what are State policies toward passing through child support to

families while they are receiving TANF benefits? How many States do you think

would change their policy if H.R. 1471 were enacted into law?

As of January 1999, the latest date for which complete state-by-state information

is available, slightly more than half the states (28, including the District of Columbia) did not pass through and disregard child support to families receiving TANF.

Eighteen states passed through and disregarded child support up to various

amounts: $50 per month (15 states), $40 (1 state), $75 (1 state), $100 (1 state). One

state passed through and disregarded all child support for TANF recipients. Four

states had policies other than a pass-through and disregard that permit TANF recipients to benefit from child support paid on their behalf. One of the four retained

child support payments, but increased the TANF grant by up to $50 per month for

those on whose behalf current support is collected. (This has the same effect on family income as a $50 pass-through and disregard, but is administered differently.)

Three of the four had no specific child support disregard, but allowed recipients to

use other income, including child support, to ‘‘fill the gap’’ between the state’s max- imum benefit and the income eligibility standard. If the earnings of a family receiving TANF did not fill the gap, child support income would be disregarded. (Two

states with a $50 pass-through and disregard also had fill-the-gap policies.) 15

The Congressional Budget Office estimates, based on conversations with state representatives, that if federal law were changed to eliminate the requirement that

states reimburse the federal share of child support collections passed through and

disregarded for TANF families, about half the states that do not currently have a

$50 pass-through and disregard would adopt such a policy (about 14 states). In addition, 10 to 20 percent of states that have a $50 pass-through and disregard would

increase it (two to three states).16

I know of no other estimates of the number of states that would change their policies in response to the legislation. However, organizations representing states have

expressed both considerable interest in experimenting in this area and concerns

about fiscal impacts in some states,17 suggesting that state responses will vary.

3. Please expand on the importance of requiring review and modification of child

support orders for TANF recipients every 3 years and for reviewing the child support

cases of families leaving TANF.

Making an extra effort to ensure that families leaving TANF receive appropriate

child support and medical support would benefit families and reduce returns to welfare (see research cited in response to question 1, above). Unfortunately, few IV–

69

18DHHS, OIG, Review and Adjustment of Support Orders 7–8, OEI–05–98–00100 (1999). 19OCSE, Child Support Enforcement FY 99 Preliminary Data Report, Table 2 (2000). 20OCSE, Compendium of State Best Practices and Good Ideas in Child Support Enforcement

2000, Fifth Edition, ‘‘Management Methods’’ (Hennepin County Bonus Incentive Program),

quoting Barry Bloombren, Hennepin County Child Support Division Manager, http://

www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cse/pubs/reports/best/minnesota.html#N15ad.

D agencies are systematically undertaking such an effort. Requiring that IV–D

agencies conduct a full review of the cases of families leaving TANF would ensure

that states make a priority of improving services to this vulnerable population.

Under PRWORA, periodic reviews of child support orders are no longer required

in TANF cases. States are supposed to notify all parents, TANF and non-TANF, custodial and noncustodial, every 3 years, of their right to request a review of their

order. However, a 1999 review of state policies and practices in this area by the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services found

that 18 states did not notify parents of their right to request a review, and nine

had no plans to do so, despite the requirements of federal law. No state used

proactive measures to promote review requests from parents close to exiting public

assistance. And, although all states reported that it was their policy to check for

and add medical support to orders they reviewed, in seven of the ten states visited

by the OIG, the IV–D staff interviewed said that they did not always pursue medical support if the order did not otherwise require adjustment.18 Without adequate

notice to parents, including the financial information parents need to make an informed decision about whether to request a review, the current ‘‘on-request’’ review

and modification system will not ensure that orders reflect the changing circumstances of parents and children.

Requiring that IV–D offices conduct a full case review for families leaving TANF

and take additional actions, if appropriate, to locate noncustodial parents, establish

paternity and support awards, review and modify awards, and collect support, could

produce significant increases in child support. In 1999, only 24 percent of current

assistance cases had collections as compared to 42 percent of never-assistance

cases.19 The main reason for the difference was that fewer current assistance cases

had orders: 44 percent as compared to 64 percent of never-assistance cases. Once

an order was established, the difference in collection rates was smaller; 56 percent

of current assistance cases with orders had collections, as compared to 66 percent

of never-assistance cases.

Intensively working the cases of parents who are about to leave welfare will require additional resources—but can produce results. In Minnesota, for example, several years ago the state legislature offered performance bonuses to counties for establishing paternities, reviewing orders, and enrolling children in the noncustodial

parent’s insurance plan. Hennepin County substantially increased its staffing in

those areas—and increased the number of paternities established each month by 40

percent, conducted four times as many modification reviews, and increased threefold

the number of children enrolled in the noncustodial parent’s medical insurance plan.

Moreover, results were obtained even in the older AFDC cases.

‘‘[C]lients are now better prepared for self-sufficiency because more cases

have orders and older orders now have higher amounts. We were much better prepared for welfare reform than we would have been without this program.’’ 20

4. Dr. Johnson’s testimony (in his attachment ‘‘NPCL Peer Learning College,’’ Page

4) cites a report that suggests that. . . .

‘‘. . . arrears will remain high unless child support agencies enter realistic

orders in low-income cases, compromise uncollectible arrears, and work cooperatively with community-based organizations and state agencies that can

help noncustodial parents overcome the underlying problems that prevent

them from getting and keeping the kinds of jobs needed to support their children.’’

Would you agree with his statement? What does it take to, for example, ‘‘compromise uncollectible arrears?’’

I would agree generally with the statement, but emphasize that it refers to lowincome obligors and to arrears owed to the state, not to custodial parents. Some arrearages accumulate because noncustodial parents with the ability to pay have

avoided paying child support; however, those noncustodial parents and those arrearages are not the subject of Dr. Johnson’s testimony, or this response.

The large arrearages that many low-income noncustodial parents owe to the state

are a problem not only for them, but for custodial parents and children, as repVerDate 11-MAY-2000 18:14 Nov 08, 2001 Jkt 074742 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\B742.XXX pfrm04 PsN: B742
70

21 National Women’s Law Center and Center on Fathers, Families and Public Policy, Family

Ties: Improving Paternity Establishment Practices and Procedures for Low-Income Mothers, Fathers and Children 9–11, 28, http://www.nwlc.org/pdf/commgrnd.pdf. 22DHHS, OIG, The Establishment of Child Support Orders for Low-Income Non-custodial Par- ents, OEI–05–99–00390 (July 2000); Paula Roberts, An Ounce of Prevention and a Pound of

Cure: Developing State Policy on the Payment of Child Support Arrears by Low Income Parents, CLASP (2001). 23OIG, Establishment of Child Support Orders, supra. 24Fragile Families Research Brief No. 3, Unwed Fathers, the Underground Economy, and

Child Support Policy, Bendheim-Thoman Center for Research on Child Wellbeing and Social Indicators Survey Center, Columbia University (January 2001). 25Fred Doolittle and Suzanne Lynn, Lessons for the Child Support Enforcement System from

Parents Fair Share, Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation (1998); Wendell Primus

and Kristina Daugirdas, Improving Child Well-Being by Focusing on Low-Income Noncustodial

Parents in Maryland, Abell Foundation (September 2000). 26David Gray Ross, Commissioner, OCSE, ‘‘State IV–D Program Flexibility with Respect to

Low-Income Obligors,’’ PQI–00–13 (September 2000). 27For more details on these and other options see Roberts, An Ounce of Prevention, supra.

resentatives of both groups explained in the ‘‘Common Ground’’ project of the National Women’s Law Center and the Center on Fathers, Families, and Public Policy.21 Many states pursue a variety of policies that create particularly high arrears

for the low-income parents of children receiving public assistance. For example, the

vast majority of states order noncustodial parents to pay retroactive support in public assistance cases, and a few order parents to reimburse Medicaid birthing costs,

creating large debts to the state as soon as an order to pay support is entered. Orders may be entered that are unrelated to ability to pay; some states set a high percentage of their orders by default, and set the amount of the award by imputing

income when the obligor’s income or earning capacity is unknown. In the case of

low-income obligors who have very low and sporadic earnings, these imputed orders

may far exceed the obligors’ ability to pay. Or, awards that are realistic when entered may be difficult or impossible to modify when circumstances change.22

Policies that create huge arrearages for low-income noncustodial parents make it

less likely that these parents will make current support payments. The Inspector

General found that noncustodial parents who were charged for more than 12

months of retroactive support were two and a half times more likely to make no

support payments following the establishment of an order than noncustodial parents

who were not charged retroactive support.23 Noncustodial parents that owe large

and face the prospect of having up to 65 percent of their wages garnished indefinitely for repayment of the debt, may quit their jobs, move, or join the underground

economy, which is already an important source of income for some.24 Programs that

work with low-income noncustodial fathers have found arrearage policies, along with

policies that give current support payments to the state instead of to their children,

to be major barriers to recruiting participants and encouraging them to participate

in the formal child support system.25 Thus, harsh and unrealistic arrearage policies

can deprive children of badly needed support, and ultimately increase public costs.

In addition to developing policies that prevent the buildup of arrearages, some

states have begun to consider compromising arrears owed to the state. Under federal law, a child support obligation becomes a final judgment when it comes due

and cannot be retroactively modified. 42 U.S.C. § 666(a)(9). However, as with other

judgments, the individual or entity to whom the child support judgment is owed

may agree to a compromise. Thus, states already have the ability to compromise arrearages permanently assigned to the state.26

States can consider a variety of factors in determining when and how they will

compromise arrearages owed to the state. For example, the state could consider the

source of the arrearage. Was it the result of an on-going failure to pay a support

order by someone with the ability to pay? If so, compromise might be rejected. Or

did it arise all at once, as retroactive support or for Medicaid reimbursement? Was

the order, when set, based on unrealistic assumptions about the obligor’s ability to

pay? Did the arrearage accumulate while the obligor was unemployed, incapacitated, or incarcerated? States also could link forgiveness of the debt to current behavior; for example, tying adjustments to payment of current support or participation in a program. States also might treat forgiveness of interest or fees differently

from forgiveness of the obligation, or limit forgiveness policies to low-income obligors.27

Principled policies allowing the compromise of arrearages owed to the state are

consistent with the message of parental responsibility that the child support program seeks to convey. They recognize that some debts to the state are not only

uncollectible today, but may have been unrealistic from the beginning, and that securing parental support for children should take precedence over cost recovery.

71

28See Turetsky, What If All the Money Came Home, supra. 29DHHS, ASPE, Characteristics of Families Using Title IV–D Services in 1995 (1999). 30Michael Fishman, et al., State Financing of Child Support Enforcement Programs, Final Report to DHHS/ASPE, Lewin Group (1999). 31 Irwin Garfinkel, Theresa Heintze, and Cheien-Chung Huang, Child Support Enforcement:

Incentives and Well-Being 14, Paper Presented at the Conference on Incentive Effects of Tax and

Transfer Policies, Washington, DC (2000); Burt Barnow et al., The Potential of the Child Support Enforcement Program to Avoid Costs to Public Programs: A Review and Synthesis of the

Literature 39–45, Final Report Prepared for DHHS (April 2000). 32 Barnow, Potential of the Child Support Program, supra, at 46–48.

5. In his testimony, Ron Haskins raises the issue that, as the welfare caseload declines, there are fewer potential child support collections for parents on welfare. This

has been a partial funding source for operating child support programs. Aside from

simply expecting the State or Federal governments to provide more funds to fill this

gap, can you offer us any other creative ideas for addressing this problem, which is

likely to be with us for the long term?

I would emphasize to the Subcommittee that the financing gap that is projected

in the child support program is the result of declining welfare caseloads; state child

support agencies have increased their collections per welfare case. If federal and

state welfare policies are to continue to emphasize family self-sufficiency, with only

transitional use of public assistance, then state and federal governments must be

prepared to provide adequate and stable financing for the child support program to

help families become self-sufficient and enforce the legal responsibility of parents to

support their children.28

There is no easy alternative. Attempting to finance the child support system by

charging families for the child support services they receive will not provide the

child support enforcement system with a stable source of financing and would significantly harm the low and moderate income families who depend on the IV–D system. Over 75 percent of the families served by the IV–D program have incomes

below 250% of poverty.29 They can ill afford to lose part of their child support income. Agencies might consider charging fees only to higher income families; but the

small amount that could be collected from this small group of families would hardly

justify the administrative expense.

It is for these reasons that few states make significant use of fees against voluntary users of the IV–D system. According to a report on the financing of the IV–

D system done for the Department of Health and Human Services, child support

fees collected from parents represented only two percent of the funds states use to

finance their child support programs. And, although when the study was conducted

state and federal governments were already aware that falling welfare caseloads

would mean falling welfare collections, it also found that most states were not contemplating making greater use of fees.30

Some have suggested that fees could be paid by noncustodial parents instead of

deducted from support. In the end, this approach also is likely to result in lower

child support payments, especially for low-income families. Excessive fees could discourage parents from paying through the formal system, increase administrative

costs as cases moved in and out of the IV–D system, and increase tensions between

custodial and noncustodial parents. Child support awards could be reduced to adjust

for the amount being charged in fees. Finally, for low-income noncustodial parents,

assessing large fees could simply increase uncollectible arrearages, and ultimately

reduce the amount of child support paid.

Ensuring that children receive support from both parents by enforcing support obligations and helping low-income parents to provide support is a vital public function. Effective child support enforcement not only increases family income and reduces reliance on public assistance, but is linked to reductions in divorce and nonmarital birth rates,31 and to increases in children’s educational attainment.32 Moreover, child support enforcement is a function that must be performed and financed

jointly by the state and federal governments.

There are a number of important financing questions to consider: how much of

the funding should come through incentive payments and how much through matching funds; whether the incentive system could work more effectively if the pool of

funds was not capped; when states should be able to use TANF or TANF MOE

funds for functions related to child support. However, the focus should be on restructuring public financing. Low-income families that are struggling to support

72

1Farrell, Warren, Ph.D., ‘‘Father and Child Reunion,’’ Tarcher-Putnam, 2001, p. 175, from an

HHS study. 2 Comanor, William S., Ph.D., ‘‘Child Support Feels Different on Male Side,’’ Los Angeles

Times, Feb. 22, 1999. 3Testimony of Cynthia L. Ewing, Senior Policy Analyst, Children’s Rights Council, before the

US House of Representatives Committee on Ways and Means, Subcommittee on Human Resources, Feb. 6, 1995.

themselves without public assistance should not be expected to continue to bear the

burden of financing the child support enforcement program.

Sincerely,

Joan Entmacher

fVice President and Director

[Submissions for the record follow:]

Statement of John Smith, Research Analyst, Alliance for Non-Custodial

Parents’ Rights, Burbank, California

Analysis of the Background Information

A problem cannot be solved until it is recognized and understood. The information

presented in the background section contains many misunderstandings, myths and

falsehoods.

CSE programs were established in 1975. Year after year, we hear of record

amounts of child support that has been collected. If child well-being is proportional

to the amount of money one has, then we should be experiencing record-high child

well-being. There has been a 100 percent increase in collections from 1993 to 2000.

Has child well-being increased 100%? To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, ‘‘Are children

better off today than they were in 1975?’’ The 1996 welfare reform act is all too typical of child support legislation. Its sole

focus is on dollars collected, not child well-being. If collecting money is so important

for children, then why not amend our laws to grant custody to the higher wage

earner—usually the father? This would also reduce the collection problem. Even

though noncustodial mothers have by far the worst child support compliance rate,

all things being equal, because their orders are systemically set lower than a father’s child support order,1 less money would go uncollected.

The 1996 welfare reform act still promotes the notion that one parent can be replaced by money. Conservatives correctly recognized that sitting at home collecting

a welfare check was wrong, but failed to recognize that sitting at home collecting

a child support is just as wrong. Child support contains no accountability on the

part of the custodial parent, as to how it’s spent. Economists estimate that only $1

out of every $5 in child support is spent on the child’s needs.2

Social science research has been showing us for the past 10–20 years that this

is wrong. Kids need both parents. Money is not the solution, it is the problem. Parental involvement is the solution. It’s what kids need. It reinforces each parent’s

responsibilities. We must remove the profit motive from family disintegration.

A common myth is that poverty is the root of all these problems and money is

the cure for poverty (no distinction of earned versus unearned money is made—a

fatal flaw). Studies show an inversely proportional relation between child support

and child well-being. These studies show states with the highest child support and

welfare awards rank lowest in child well-being, while states with the lowest child

support and welfare awards had children with higher child well-being?3 The key determinant is family structure. Child support and welfare are single-mother household enablers. And don’t use poverty as an excuse. Recent immigrants living below

the poverty line had children with better academic performance and fewer behavioral problems than kids living above the poverty line. The reason: the immigrant

families tended to be intact families. Poverty doesn’t cause broken homes, broken

homes cause poverty.

Another major problem with using money is that in today’s dynamic, global economy—one’s economic stability is unpredictable, as evidenced by the stock market

and the economy—last year, the sky was the limit. This year, a constant stream of

bad news. Our child support laws ignore this reality, which is why many ignore

these laws. If you remove the specific monetary amounts from child support and

simply let each parent raise their child according to their own beliefs, we’d be much

better off.

73

4 American Association of Blood Banks 1999 Annual Report. See also ‘‘In Genetic Testing for

Paternity, Law Often Lags Behind Science,’’ New York Times, March 11, 2001. 5Los Angeles Times, April 12, 1998, B1.

6Los Angeles Times, Oct. 11, 1998, A27.

7 Braver, Sanford, Divorced Dads—Shattering the Myths, Tarcher Putnam, 1998, p. 22.

By forcing people to pay a fixed amount of their income (based on a percentage,

but not allowed to fluctuate with actual income), we ignore reality. By basing child

support NOT on what it costs to raise a child, but on what the average person

spends (USDA figures), we strip a person of their individuality and force average

values down their throats. Since we have the second-lowest savings rate and one

of the highest debt rates of Western countries, this goal is nothing to aspire down

to. Ironically, it punishes the responsible (frugal) people the most.

The increasingly draconian measures passed by Congress now threaten everyone’s privacy and freedoms. The Financial Institution Data Matching (FIDM) program

scours everyone’s bank account, whether they have been part of this child support

system or not. Ditto for the National Directory of New Hires (NDNH). The Federal

Parent Locator System (FPLS) is used against fathers, but if the mother kidnaps

his children, it will not be used for the father. Blatantly sexist policy.

Paternity establishments have hit record levels, but there’s a dark side to this

story which is now becoming very public. 28% of DNA tests reveal that men accused

of being the father are in fact, not the father.4 In Los Angeles County, over 70%

of paternity establishments are done on a default basis.5 The DA’s office estimates

that more than 350 innocent men are incorrectly named in child support orders

every month.6 This means the alleged fathers were not present. Very often, the alleged father was never notified. Paternity fraud perpetrators have not been prosecuted, while innocent men are being driven into poverty and homelessness by child

support policy.

Creating programs to ‘‘improve the employability and earnings of non-custodial

parents’’ is nothing short of slavery. It sounds nice. Sounds like you’re here to help

them, but when you see that federal law permits wage garnishment of up to 65%

of their pre-tax wages, this program is slavery. Enslaving men to perform labor to

earn money which is then blindly handed over to custodial mothers for use at their

discretion.

Is the ‘‘Child Support Distribution Act of 2001’’ really seeking to enhance the role

of noncustodial fathers or to enhance the pocketbook of custodial mothers? If the

purpose is to enhance the father’s role, then money will be de-emphasized and parental involvement (visitation) will be greatly emphasized.

The proposals want to promote marriage. This sounds well and good, but when

one considers what happens to married men in family courts and child support, this

becomes a specious goal. Dr. Sanford Braver of Arizona State University points out

the two distinct groups of fathers—never-married and divorced:

‘‘It should be obvious that the two groups should always be separately addressed

in any analysis or policy discussions. The distinction, however, has been too infrequently recognized or cited.’’7

If, for the first time in history, this government program (HR 6) works perfectly

as intended, we will have solved the unmarried portion of the problem. Men will

marry and take responsibility of their children.

Alas, some small flaws exist in this thinking. What do we know about divorced

fathers? We know that women initiate the vast majority of divorces. And no, folks,

these women are not ‘‘trapped in bad marriages’’ or ‘‘abusive relationships’’ that

many feminists with an agenda claim (ironically these same feminists have never

been married or raised children). They had simply ‘‘grown apart’’ or ‘‘didn’t feel appreciated.’’ Dr. Braver questioned the women actually going through the judicial

system and they loved it. Why? Because they got whatever they wanted and felt

they were in complete control. We know that men are helpless to stop this, thanks

to no-fault divorce laws. We know that the judicial system has a systematic bias

against including these fathers in their children’s lives (known as the tender years

doctrine). We know that politicians believe men to be politically impotent and therefore write gender-biased laws favoring women.

Once these poor, irresponsible fathers become middle-class, responsible fathers,

they will face the same unfairness of the child support system. In the divorced

group, it hurts even more because these fathers were connected with their children,

they are educated enough to know they are getting screwed out of their money and

children. So while HR 6 is looking for ways to raise never-married fathers up, our

system forces divorced fathers into exile by placing into law excessive child support

awards and draconian punishments. Then politicians wonder why we have a

fatherlessness problem.

74

Recommendations

1. Shared Parenting

Make equal shared parenting the law of the land. Each parent would get exactly

50% of the physical custody time with each parent, unless the parents reach a voluntary agreement stating otherwise. Neither parent is allowed to move away (outside the school district or county) unless a voluntary agreement is reached. The concept of custody is eliminated—neither parents owns the child. Because each parent

is spending equal time raising their children, the need to collect child support disappears. Write the law in such a way that eliminates all discretion from judges, as

judges tend to write law from the bench. Any judge that deviates from this statute

should be removed without pay until a full investigation is completed as to why she

did not follow the law (similar to an officer involved shooting).

2. Paternity Fraud

Prohibit courts and administrative agencies from prosecuting a man whose DNA

test results prove he is not the father.

Make DNA testing a prerequisite for opening child support cases.

Paternity will be based strictly on DNA evidence, not on actions such as holding

yourself out as the father, written or signed paternity acknowledgements, confessions or statements. Since the man was given fraudulent data to base his decisions

on, any paternity decision represents an invalid contract. Exceptions to the strict

DNA rule would be (1) when the father has legally adopted the child and/or (2)

when the child was conceived through a sperm donor.

Vigorously prosecute perpetrators of paternity fraud.

Allow the alleged father to have custody of the non-biological child and make the

mother pay him child support.

No statute of limitations placed on the alleged father for challenging paternity or

make the statute of limitation on paternity determination the same length as those

used for failure to pay child support. For example, the statute of limitations might

be 7 years from the last time the mother or State asked for (not received) child support—which was a fraudulent action.

Provide the victim the ability to sue the mother to recover any and all child support, legal costs, other costs, lost wages, lost interest and emotional damages. [Since

the State provide enforcement services for collecting child support, perhaps the

State should be mandated to provide for recovering this fraudulently obtained

money.]

Allow family victims (e.g. second wives, parents) to sue the mother for damages,

including emotional damages.

3. Promoting Marriage

Instead of, or in addition to, creating new programs to promote marriage, eliminate the existing programs that punish married men.

Eliminate no-fault divorce laws. Withhold federal funds to states that do not repeal no-fault divorce laws (I believe the Feds withheld highway funds to Arizona

when the State failed to make Martin Luther King’s birthday an official holiday).

Withhold federal funding from any and all groups that provide no-cost and lowcost divorce clinics. This is currently being done to groups that provide abortions.

4. Promoting Fatherhood

• In addition to making shared parenting law that national standard, we need to

recognize that:

• Fathers are much more likely than mothers, to make sure the children spend

time with the other parent.

• Fathers want to spend more time with family; Mothers want to spend more

time on their careers.

• The more money a man earns, the more likely he is to marry. Just the opposite

is true for women.

• Single-mothers are afraid to enforce rules and discipline as they fear losing

their child’s love. This leads to kids that respect nobody, feel they don’t have

to obey rules (they never had to before) and there are no consequences for

breaking rules. The world revolves around them.

• Fathers’ rights groups are fighting for more responsibility in their children’s

lives, while Women’s rights groups are fighting for less responsibility (e.g. govt

funded daycare centers).

• We must stop granting women special privileges, often with reduced responsibilities. For instance, pregnant women can choose to:

• Have the baby and remain as an intact family.

• Have the baby and charge the father with child support.

75

1Preliminary Statistics 1999, Federal Office of Child Support.

2Chart 10 shows $634 million in undistributed funds. $120 million of this could be due to

the 2-day legal delay in distribution of funds ($15.8 billion in 260 workdays/year). 3 Argys, Peter, Brooks-Gunn, and Smith, ‘‘Contributions of Absent Fathers to Child WellBeing: The Impact of Child Support Dollars and Father-Child Contact, University of Colorado

(1996). 4Graham, Beller, and Hernandez, ‘‘The Relationship between Child Support Payments and

Offspring Educational Attainment’’ in Child Support and Child Well-being (Garfinkel,

MacLanahan, and Robbins (eds), Washington DC (1994). 5 H McLanahan, et al, National Survey of Families and Households (1994). 6Chart 10 shows $634 million in undistributed funds. $120 million of this could be due to

the 2-day legal delay in distribution of funds ($15.8 billion in 260 workdays/year). 7 Nixon, Lucia, The Journal of Human Resources, XXXII–1, Winter 1997, Vol. 32, No. 1 and

Barnow, Burt S., et al ‘‘The Potential of the Child Support Enforcement Program to Avoid Costs

To Public Programs: A Review and Synthesis of the Literature, U.S. Department of Health and

Human Services, HHS 100–97–007 (2000).

• Anonymously drop off the newborn at designated centers, without fear of

prosecution.

• Have an abortion.

• Put the child up for adoption.

• Why aren’t men offered any of these choices? This reflects the gender bigotry

rampant in our society.

• End gender bigotry. As Dr. Farrell points out, ‘‘He gets jail; She gets an array

of social services offered to her.’’

It’s time we stopped blaming fathers (and men) for everything that is wrong in

the world. Until we do, we shouldn

f’t expect things to get any better.

Statement of the Association for Children for Enforcement of Support, Inc.,

Sacramento, California

ACES has 47,000 members and almost 400 chapters located in 48 states. We are

representative of the families whose 20 million children are owed over $71.9 billion

in unpaid child support. We have banded together to work for effective and fair

child support enforcement. ACES believes that parents who fail to meet legal and

moral child support obligations should not benefit from federal government funding.

We support The Child Support Distribution Act of 2001, H. R.1471 which will ensure that children benefit from support paid and simplified support payment distribution.

There are 20 million U.S. children owed over $71.91 billion in unpaid child

support

• State governments alone have been unable to collect sufficient back-support due

(see Chart 1)

• State governments have been unable to collect support in interstate cases (see

Chart 2)

• New State government central payment systems are failing to distribute all

payments. States had over $634 million2 in undistributed child support payments at the end of 2000 (see Chart 10)

Children who receive child support:

• Are more likely to have contact with their fathers 3

• Have better grade point averages and significantly better test scores.4

• Have fewer behavior problems.5

• Remain in school longer 6

Receipt of child support is associated with significantly higher expenditures on

children than any other source of income.

About 20% of our nation’s children have a parent living outside the household and

are entitled to child support. They are four times more likely to be poor and five

times more likely to receive food stamps than children who live with two biological

parents. Child support, when received by low income families, accounts for 26% of

family income.

Strong child support enforcement:

• Reduces the divorce rate 7

76

8 Case, Anne, Fathers Under Fire, Chapter 7, The Effects of Stronger Child Support Enforcement on Nonmarital Fertility and Plotnick, Robert D., et al, ‘‘The Impact of Child Support Enforcement Policy on Nonmarital Childbearing,’’ University of Washington (2000). 9Plotnick, Robert D., et al, ‘‘Better Child Support Enforcement: Can It Reduce Teenage Premarital Childbearing?’’University of Washington (1998).

• Reduces the number of births to never married parents 8

• Reduces teenage pre-marital childbearing 9

New studies show that strong child support enforcement programs have far-reaching positive social impact that reduces the number of children living in fatherless

households and promotes marriage. Many recent studies have shown that strict establishment and enforcement of child support obligations is leading to a lower divorce rate and fewer illegitimate births. In ‘‘The Effect of Child Support Enforcement on Marital Dissolution,’’ Lucia A. Nixon found that strong child support enforcement reduces marital breakups, and in ‘‘The Effects of Stronger Child Support

Enforcement on Non-marital Fertility,’’ Anne Case found that anything which increases the cost of fatherhood reduces the probability of the children being born.

‘‘The Impact of Child Support Enforcement Policy on Non-marital Child Bearing,’’ showed that in states with a strong child support enforcement program non-married

women had fewer children.

States have more undistributed funds on hand than ever before: $63.84 million

Undistributed funds are payments collected not sent to families due to problems

identifying payee or payor, location of payee, or problems determining how to distribute payments if the family was or is on public assistance. This means thousands

of families leaving the welfare rolls are not receiving child support collected by the

state. This undermines their self-sufficiency efforts.

In February, 2001, ACES filed a Writ of Mandamus in State Appeals Court

against the Ohio Department of Jobs and Family Services (ODJFS). ODJFS knowingly brought online a computer system in October 2000 that miscalculates distribution of child support payments owed families in order to avoid further late penalties from being assessed against the State under Federal Law. The net effect is

to reduce monthly payments to families under terms mandated by the 1996 welfare

reform law. In doing so, ODJFS put the interests of the State ahead of those of affected children. Legal action was taken only after negotiations with ODJFS failed

to produce an acceptable plan for fixing the problem.

Also, The Ohio State State Disbursement Unit, (SDU) is contracted to Bank One

who is paid $125 million out of interest collected on child support payments which

accumulates during the two days they are legally allowed to hold money. Families

throughout Ohio are experiencing delays much longer than two days. ACES believes

families, not Bank One or ODJFS, are due interest on these delayed payments.

In Michigan, the lack of the state having valid addresses for custodial parents has

led to $303,000 being sent to the state’s coffers in 1999, then in 2000 after the State

Disbursement Unit (SDU) was established, $700,000 between October and December 2000. Another $2.75 million or more could go to the state coffers if not claimed

by families for 2001. The SDU is only operational in some Michigan counties. The

process used is for some employers in the state to send child support withheld from

employees pay to the SDU, where it is recorded and then sent to the county Friend

of the Court, the local IV–D agency, for disbursement to the family. This cumbersome process of transferring money between agencies rather than transferring

records and sending payments directly to families is responsible for some of the undistributed funds. Additionally, the Michigan statewide child support computer system funded 90% by the federal government for $327 million does not calculate family-first disbursement as required under PRWORA, and these distributions are

being done manually case by case. This results in families receiving two checks for

each payment made and further increases the distribution errors.

Texas failed to implement family-first distribution until March 2001 when the law

required it by October 1, 2000. California reports the largest amount of undistributed funds at $176 million and no SDU. Officials there tell us this amount is incorrect due to previous record keeping practices. They are in the process of surveying

each of California’s 58 counties to determine exactly how much there is in undistributed/unidentified funds.

Many states have systems whereby undistributed and unidentified funds are sent

to the state unclaimed funds. However, IV–D child support recipients are not told

of this process and it is not required to be publicized.

Our members in North Carolina report delayed and missing payments since September 24, 1999, when the new State Disbursement Unit went into operation. ReaVerDate 11-MAY-2000 18:14 Nov 08, 2001 Jkt 074742 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\B742.XXX pfrm04 PsN: B742
77

sons cited are that Clerk of Courts bundled checks, money orders, and cash brought

in by non-resident parents and mailed them to Raleigh without identifying information attached. Employers did not use the new case numbers assigned to them for

income-withholding purposes. Each case was given a new number in the distribution

unit system. The number was neither parent’s social security number nor the court

docket number. Rather than obtaining a list of names and addresses from employers

for whom the payments had been sent, the money was returned to the employers.

Other families report massive problems because the statewide computer system cannot adequately interlink with the state distribution computer system to determine

payment distribution in multi-family cases.

In Illinois, ACES members report the same types of problems as experienced in

North Carolina. County Clerks of Courts mailed checks and money orders paid to

them by non-resident parents to the state with no identifying social security numbers. The state cancelled the contract with Dupage County for the SDU and hired

a private contractor. They are in the process of replacing the current SDU and hiring a new vendor.

States chose to set up systems where all payments are sent to a central intake

and then disbursed. This process has made it more difficult for parents to pay. The

lack of adequate planning and testing has led to missing payments, long delays, and

other problems for some of the poorest families in our nation. North Carolina made

families pay back emergency aid checks out of the first child support check issued,

after months of not receiving any payments. This newest bureaucratic glitch has

caused thousands of children to go to bed hungry.

In a survey done by the Inspector General, the percentage of states that report

the following problems with implementation of SDU’s are:

• 100%—distributing payments for interstate cases • 86%—identifying poorly labeled payment • 86%—identifying payments with no case in the system • 60%—redirecting payments mailed to wrong place • 71%—meeting customer serve demands • 60%—securing, training and retaining staff • 31%—disbursing support within two days • 40%—predicting volume for staffing purposes • 34%—monitoring SDU performance

The Office of Inspector General recent report, Child Support Enforcement State

Disbursement Units, August 2000, reported that 38 states have fully implemented

the federal law to centralize payment processing of most child support payments.

Indiana, Wyoming, and South Carolina ask for waivers to link local disbursement

units. Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky and Oklahoma report they have central payment processing but are not yet using it for the federally required caseload. Michigan and Nevada were granted extensions to implement their SDU’s until October

1, 2000 and October 1, 2001, respectively. Alabama, California, Kansas, Nebraska,

Ohio and Texas report they have not yet begun central payment processing.

ACES recommends changes in the federal law which require:

Families benefit from effective child support enforcement

ACES has been monitoring the current child support enforcement system since

1984. In addition to obtaining information about the child support enforcement system for our members, ACES operates a national toll-free Hot Line for families with

child support problems, issues, and questions. We receive up to 100,000 calls per

year from parents throughout the U.S. From these calls and our members, we gather statistics and data on the status of the current child support enforcement system.

The average ACES member is a single-parent, and she has two children. About

50% of ACES members are divorced, and the other half were never married. Members average income is $14,400 per year as of the end of 1999, and 85% have, in

the past, received some form of public assistance. At present, about 33% of our

membership receives public assistance. ACES members report that collection of

child support, when joined with available earned income, allows 88% to get off public assistance. Collection of child support enables our low-income working-poor members to stay in the job force long enough to gain promotions and better pay so that

they can move their family out of poverty, and on to self-sufficiency. The collection

of child support, when joined with earned income, means our members can pay their

rent and utilities, buy food, pay for healthcare, and provide for their children’s educational opportunities. Lack of child support most often means poverty and welfare

dependency. At the very least it means having to work two or three jobs to survive.

This leaves our children with literally no parent who spends time providing their

children adequate nurturing, supervision, and the attention they need and deserve.

78

Parents have the ability to pay child support: 60% have an income of over $30,000

Characteristics of Families Using Title IV–D Services in 1995, a study by Matthew Lyon shows that 1% of families using IV–D services had $0 income; 10% had an income of $1–$5,000; 18% had an income of $5,000–$10,000; 15% had an income of $10,001–$15,000; 10% had an income of $15,001–$20,000; 7% had an income of $20,001–$25,000; 8% had an income of $25,001–$30,000 and 30.5% had an income

above $30,000. In the book, Fathers Under Fire, by Irv Garfinkel, data reported on

the income of non-resident parents showed that 20% had an income under $6,000;

20% had an income of $10,000–$30,000; 10% had an income of $30,000–$40,000; 40% had an income of $40,000–$55,000 and 10% had an income over $55,000

(Chart 3).

Data from the 1997, National Survey of American Families showed that of the 11

million fathers who weren’t living with their children, about 4 million paid formal

child support while the other 7 million did not. Of these 7 million fathers, 4.5 million have sufficient income to pay support. 2.5 million were poor and probably unable to contribute significant child support.

Government child support enforcement avoids costs to public programs

The principal finding of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

study, ‘‘The Potential of the Child Support Enforcement Program to Avoid Costs to

Public Programs: A Review and Synthesis of the Literature,’’ was that child support

payments can decrease TANF participation and increase labor participation. For example, a $1,000 increase in child support payments received by woman on TANF,

conditional on remaining unmarried, will decrease TANF participation among these

households and will increase the average hours worked. Part of this change is mechanical, 61%, but 39% is a behavior change.

The study also finds the child support could have a long-term cost avoidance and

tax revenue implications because of its impact on increasing the number of children

who have access to higher education. Educational attainment is a leading indicator

of future financial and social success. Individuals who attain higher levels of education have a higher income and a more stable family life. Child support enables

families ability to afford to send children to private schools, purchase tutoring services, and to invest money in a college fund. Also, it allows families to purchase goods

and services that increase cognitive stimulation in the home and thus indirectly affects educational attainment.

Other studies outlined in the report find that collection of child support avoids

cost in the Title XX Child Care Program. For every $1,000 in child support received

it is estimated that a low-income single mother would reduce work hours to 22–25

hours and with each additional $1,000 received work hours would be reduced by 54

hours. Since almost 50% of single parents who do not receive child support work

two jobs to support their family, this would also have the very beneficial effect for

children of having at least one parent being able to spend more time with them,

to nurture, assist with home work, and care for the children in a way that day care

cannot.

State child support agencies fail to collect significant amounts of child support

A whole generation of our children have not received adequate and regular child

support payments as promised when the Title IV–D child support system was introduced in 1975. The system was supposed to establish paternity, establish child support orders, and enforce orders. Children born in 1975 were 9 years old when Congress acted to improve the child support system for the first time in 1984. The number of cases without orders was about 50% and the collection rate was 15% when

income-withholding laws, liens on property, posting of bonds, attachment of tax refunds, and reporting of child support debt to credit bureau laws were passed as part

of the 1984 Child Support Amendments. When the children were 13 years old in

1988, Congress acted again because only about 50% of the children had orders and

the collection rate was only 18%. In the 1988 Family Support Act, income-withholding was to begin at the time of divorce or establishment of paternity, modification of orders were to occur every 3 years, child support guidelines were required

to be followed by the courts, and paternity was to be established via genetic tests

and through voluntary programs.

When the children were 17 years old in 1992, about 50% of the children still did

not have orders and the collection rate was 19.7%. Congress again acted in the

Child Support Recovery Act to assist children with interstate cases. The collection

rate on interstate case was less than 50% of the other cases. When the children

were 18 in 1993, about 50% of the children still did not have orders and the collecVerDate 11-MAY-2000 18:14 Nov 08, 2001 Jkt 074742 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\B742.XXX pfrm04 PsN: B742
79

tion rate was 18.2%, Congress acted yet again. This time, medical support orders

were required and a better system for establishing paternity was put in place as

part of the budget. When the children were 19 in 1994, about 50% of the children

still did not have orders and the collection rate was 19.4%. Congress enacted the

Full Faith and Credit Act in another attempt to correct problems with interstate

cases. When the children reached age 21 in 1996 and slightly fewer than 50% of

the children still did not have orders and the collection rate was 20%, Congress

acted again as part of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunities Act

(PRWORA) establishing the New Hire Directories, Case Order Registries, and State

Distribution Units (SDU), professional driver’s and recreational license revocation,

and required states to adopt UIFSA (Uniform Interstate Family Support Act).

UIFSA is the third attempt to remedy interstate case problems.

The Federal Office of Child Support, in its preliminary data from the year 2000,

shows that collections rose from $15.4 billion to $18 billion, for families with cases

open at a government child support agency. 1999 data shows that slightly less than

50% of the children still do not have orders and the collection rate is 37%. This increase from 23% in 1998 is in part due to new reporting requirements for states

and new regulations which allowed states to close old cases where collections had

not been made. U. S. Census Bureau data from the May 1999 Current Population

Report, which includes data for families with and without a government child support case, for the year 1998, shows that the percentage of single-parent families who

receive child support (some or all support due in 1998) was only 32%. The collection

rate shows no significant improvement. The collection rate remained about 30%.

The most recent data available from the Federal Office of Child Support (Chart

4) shows that the total collections for 2000 are $18 billion up from $15.8 billion in

1999, up from the $14.3 billion in 1997, which was up from $13.3 billion in 1996.

IV–D agencies spend $25 to collect $100, and 55.5% of collections are from payroll

deductions.

In Chart 2, interstate collections are listed from 1993 to the present. Collections

have risen from 1993 (pre-PRWORA) $725 million to $983 million in 1997, and to

$1 billion in 1998 and 1999. Collections on interstate cases have risen about $100

million/year before and after PRWORA. UIFSA, the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act required PRWORA to be adopted verbatim by all states. PRWORA has not

yet shown itself to be of any assistance in processing interstate cases faster or more

effectively. In fact, ACES has been told by several state IV–D agencies and state

courts that it is more difficult to use than URESA, its more complicated predecessor.

Problems are being reported with the provision for direct income-withholding. If a

non-resident parent receives an income-withholding order at their place of employment and the order is for the wrong amount, wrong person, or contains some other

mistake of fact, there is no mechanism in place to resolve problems. The state which

sent the order is inaccessible to the non-resident parent and the state IV–D agency

in their state is not even aware of the order or that a case exists in another state.

Families report PRWORA has not helped and has hurt!

Statistics indicate little or no effect from any portion of PRWORA. Lack of results

from the expanded Federal Parent Locator System with the National New Hire Directory and Case Order Registry are particularly disheartening.

ACES members report no noticeable improvements since enactment of PRWORA,

even with the National New Hire Directory reporting that 3.5 million matches were

found in 2000, more than triple the 1.2 million matches in 1998. Our research shows

that the majority of the 3.5 million data matches made by the National New Hire/

Case Order Registry have not been acted on by the State IV–D agencies. Certainly

collections have not tripled since 1998. For example:

Texas processed 2,481 income-withholding orders due to New Hire information from the National Directory in three months. Texas received over 300,000

matches from state and the National New Hire directories.

Virginia reports averaging 100,000 matches/year with their State New Hire

Directory, resulting in collections of $7.5 million. This is $75/match. For 180,000

matches/year with the National Directory, collections of $13 million resulted.

This is $72/match.

Iowa reported 20,000 matches to date with the National New Hire Directory

and has collected $365,297. This is $18/match.

Arizona, in three months of comparisons with the National New Hire Directory, located 11,218 matches. No data is available for the number of cases where

action was successfully taken to collect support. The intrastate New Hire Reporting System resulted in collections of $13 million on 45,083 matches. This

is $288/match.

80

10 Certification Reviews of Child Support Enforcement Systems, Division of Child Support Information Systems, January 6, 2000.

Minnesota, in FY 1999, had 39,078 matches with its state directory, and col- lections increased by $11.6 million (3%). This is $296/match. Minnesota is averaging 166 matches/day with the National New Hire Directory, but no data is

available on the action taken on these matches.

The Federal Office of Child Support reports they have made matches of delinquent parents with financial institutions for 900,000 accounts since August 1999.

The accounts are valued at about $3.5 billion. No data is available about whether

any of these accounts were successfully attached to collect child support.

Problems exist with the bank account attachment process. Administrative Process

is used by 31 states to attach bank accounts; 12 states use Judicial Process; and

7 states use both. Twenty-six states do not accept orders from other states, 2 states

sometimes accept orders from other states, 1 state leaves it up to the financial institution, 8 states have not yet made decisions about whether or not they will accept

out-of-state attachment orders, and 2 states have state laws which are silent on the

issue.

Automation problems

Since the 1984 Child Support Amendment passed, Congress has been giving

states incentives and funding to put statewide computer systems in place. Many

deadlines have passed or have been extended. In the 1988 Family Support Act,

states were told to have computers in place by Oct. 1, 1995 in order to receive 90%

federal funding. When only 1 state met this deadline, it was extended to October

1, 1997. When only 21 states met this deadline, penalties were changed so that

states could get waivers to penalties if they were making sufficient progress on computerization.

The Federal Office of Child Support reports the following 10

Montana was the only state to the meet the October 1, 1995 deadline.

The October 1, 1997 deadline was met by Delaware (conditional), Georgia

(conditional), Virginia, Washington, West Virginia (conditional), Arizona (conditional), Utah, Connecticut (conditional), Wyoming, Mississippi, Louisiana (conditional), New Hampshire, Idaho, Colorado, Oklahoma (conditional), Wisconsin,

Rhode Island (conditional), Guam, New York (conditional), Iowa, and Alabama

(conditional)

Certified in 1998: Texas (conditional), Arizona (conditional), North Carolina

(conditional), New Jersey (conditional), Vermont (conditional), Puerto Rico (conditional), Maine, Tennessee (conditional), Minnesota (conditional), Kentucky,

South Dakota, Arkansas, Massachusetts, Florida, Missouri, and Hawaii

Certified in 1999: New Mexico (conditional), Illinois (conditional), Oregon (conditional), Maryland, Pennsylvania (conditional), Arkansas

Certified in 2000: Washington DC, Indiana, Kansas, North Dakota, Nevada States NOT Certified (representing 4.6 million children owed $24 billion in

unpaid child support): California, Michigan, Nebraska (report pending), Ohio,

South Carolina, and the Virgin Islands

Conditional Certification for many states is due to the inability of their computer

systems to process referrals. Because of lack of action by the U. S. Justice Department, few charges have been filed under the federal criminal non-support statue.

In 1995, charges were filed on only 82 cases. In 1996, charges were filed in 104

cases. In 1997, charges were filed in 212 cases. In 1998, charges were filed in 249

cases; and in 1999, charges were filed in 396 cases. In 2000, charges were filed in

405 cases. There are 7 million children owed $25 billion in unpaid child support

with interstate cases.

Poor customer service

The number one complaint that ACES receives from families is about state IV– D child support agencies on our Hot Line is that they are provided poor customer

service from local agencies. Families report that they are victimized by caseworkers

who tell them, ‘‘What do you expect, you went out and got yourself pregnant?’’ or ‘‘What did you do to make him so mad he won’t pay?’’. Not even one state has a

system for notifying clients of actions taken on their case. Families report that they

are unable to understand quarterly distribution notices, if received, and that there

is no system in place for the notices to be explained to them. Families report that

many IV–D agencies restrict hours when they will accept phone calls from families

to obtain or give caseworkers information. This is a major barrier to families providing agencies needed information about location and employment status of nonVerDate 11-MAY-2000 18:14 Nov 08, 2001 Jkt 074742 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\B742.XXX pfrm04 PsN: B742
81

11 ACES annual membership survey (2000).

payors. We have not found even one state which sends delinquency notices to nonpayors when they miss a monthly payment.

Liens on property not routinely used

Only 15 states report routinely placing liens on property of non-payors. Twenty

six states report that placing liens is a difficult and technical legal action.

Suspension/revocation of licenses rarely used

Although proven effective, suspension or revocation of professional licenses is

rarely used by any states. Suspension/revocation of fishing and hunting licenses is

rarely used by states. Most states do not have any effective system for recreational

license suspension/revocation. Several states identify non-payors who buy fishing or

hunting licenses and ask them to voluntarily report themselves when making a license purchase at a local carry-out, sporting goods store, etc. This has been very

ineffective. Colorado recently did a study of suspension/revocation of driver’s licenses

and their reporting to credit bureaus for failure to pay child support. Support collections increased 20% within the first six months following notices being sent to nonpayors. Only a few states have an on-going program for driver license suspension

and/or credit-reporting, and often these states only make the threat action. Thousands may receive notices of potential suspension but only a small percentage are

actually suspended.

Expedited process and federal timeframes are not being followed by state

IV–D agencies

ACES members report a 1–3 year wait to establish paternity, 2 years to establish

an order, 6–9 months for an income-withholding, 6–9 months for court hearing, 1–

3 years for modification, 5 years for medical support establishment and/or enforcement, 1 year for a Federal Parent Locator results, and 1–2 years for action on interstate cases.11

Private child support collection agencies prey upon desperate families

‘‘I signed the contract with a private child support collection agency because

the District Attorney office had done nothing in two years to collect the $10,000

in child support due to my children. I didn’t realize that I had given the company power of attorney so payments go to them not to the DA and then onto

me. I didn’t realize the contract defined current support as back support. I

thought the private collector would only get 33% of any back support collected

as a recovery fee. Instead, the contract gave them 33% and attorney fees so it

added up to 44% or more of any support collected. When I got my first check,

and 44% was missing. I called to complain and found out the truth. Now I have

to hire an attorney to try to break this contract. I don’t have the money to pay

the attorney. How can this company advertize one thing and do another? My

children are the real losers here and I was the pawn’’—a caller to ACES Child

Support Hotline from Los Angeles, CA (January 2001)

Families entitled to child support enforcement services, who are mainly low income face a new problem—being preyed upon by unscrupulous private child support

collection agencies. The private companies are not licenced or regulated by state or

federal laws because child support is not considered a debt under the Fair Debt

Practices Act. Private collection agencies have been soliciting families via TV and

Radio ads, promising much needed child support payments. Often they require the

custodial parent to sign a power of attorney and contracts which are adhesion by

legal definition. These contracts are almost impossible to break, have many hidden

clauses, and usually result in the family losing 40–50% of the child support due to

them to the private collector as a fee for services.

Private collection agencies for child support do not work any better than the government child support agencies. These agencies do not and should not have access

to confidential IRS information. They should also not have access to state information; such as tax records, employment records, worker’s compensation records, and

any other protected government records. The private agencies collecting child support are currently not regulated. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that

these agencies do not fall under the regulations of the Consumer Credit Protection

Act.

Custodial parents who have used private collection agencies have encountered

many problems:

82

• The private collection agency collected payments from the non-custodial parent

but never sent the payments to the family. This is literally stealing money from

the children.

• Private agencies have closed down and totally disappeared after custodial parents have paid application fees of over $100.

• Private collectors take fees for money they had no part in collecting. For example: The private collectors got paid by taking their 30% fee from an IRS refund

that the state government child support agency attached.

• Families owed support have had to pay additional court costs and attorney fees

on top of the 34% fee taken from the child support collected.

• Defined current support as back support in the contract and included language

wich states that if even one payment no matter the amount is collected in the

first 12 months the contract is binding until all support due, current and back,

is collected. This binds the family to the contract forever.

Other pending federal legislation ACES supports

H.R. 866, sponsored by Rep. Bilirakis (R–FL) would assist millions of children.

The intent of the bill is to ensure that children benefit from federal assistance received by a low-income non-custodial parent. Language needs to be added to the bill

to make sure that receipt of food stamps, TANF, medicaid and other means tested

programs needed for basic necessities are exempted. Other programs such as job

training and college education should not be affected due to the good cause provision

and the payment arrangement section.

Here are a few examples of federal programs where parents who fail to pay child

support currently can and do receive federal funding which does not benefit their

children. HR 866 is needed to prevent those who neglect their children from receiving these types of federal assistance.

• Creation and Presentation Grant money to creators for literary publishing, cultural festivals, and various types of artistic or cultural exhibits funds given by

National Endowment of the Arts.

• Grants to Develop New Technology money to venture capitalists for the creation

of high risk technologies’ funds given by National Institute of Standards and

Technology.

• Business and Industry Loans Money to developers for modernizing or purchasing land, building, machinery.

• Heritage and Preservation Grant money to creators and inventors for projects

that present to the public conservation of art or exhibits funds given by National Endowment for the Arts.

• Money doctors for constructing medical facilities incorporating new construction

concepts’ funds given by U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

• Money to Create Recreation Areas money to families to buy their old farm for

the creation of public recreation areas funds given by National Park Service.

H.R. 1618 (Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D–CA). The bill will allow child support to be treated in the same manner as taxes by allowing the custodial parent to receive a tax

credit for unpaid child support and essentially turning the unpaid support into a

tax bill for the obligor.

H.R. 413 (Andrews, D–NJ 1st)—Will create child support trust accounts to hold

profits from sale of real estate in trust for children, if the seller owes child support.

This will stop non-payors from profiting on real estate sales while avoiding their obligations to their children.

H.R. 869 (Castle, R–DE) Will allow federal income tax refund intercepts to be applied to child support that is owed for children who are older than 18. This stops

the incentive for active evaders to hide from their families until the children reach

age 18.

83

IRS Offset Chart 5

84

Chart 4—IV–D Collections

Number of Cases: 16.4 Million

Dollars Collected: $15.4 Billion

$25 in costs for every $100 collected

55.5% from payroll deductions

Chart 4a—IRS Collections

Number of Taxpayers: 268 Million

Dollars Collected: $1.9 Trillion

$0.44 in costs for every $100 collected

83% from payroll deduction

Chart 6—IV–D Summary

• New Hire reporting leads to payroll deduction in mainly cases

• No system for collecting from self-employed

• Lowest collection rate for interstate cases

• 26 state don’t accept interstate bank account attachment orders

• Major problems with SDU’s and statewide computer tracking systems

• Poor track record for customer service

• Poor track record on collections: rare use of liens, license revocation, referrals

to the U.S. Attorney

Chart 7—IRS Summary

• New hire reporting: payroll deduction in almost all cases

• Collection system for self-employed taxpayers

• Interstate cases not an issue

• Bank account attachments routinely attached: 500,000 a year

• Recent automation improvements

• New customer service improvements: Taxpayer Bill of Rights

• Good track record on collections: 83% citizens pay taxes (17% are non-filers)

85

Attn: Chairman, Congressman Wally Herger

Statement of Reverend Dennis Austin, Salisbury, North Carolina

f Chairman Herger and Members of the Subcommittee, although I am a minister

who runs a help-line for suicidal depressives, I have also had experience dealing

with non-custodial parents. Being able to speak here allows me to share a unique

perspective of the problem with child support enforcement, both its causes and its

costs.

If possible, I would suggest that your subcommittee recommend that the G.A.O.

investigate the true costs of collection. Typical of most states are hidden costs incurred when states ‘‘borrow’’ attorneys from their attorney general’s office in order

to prosecute non-payment. Unfortunately, in Virginia, much as in Florida and many

other states, most who do not pay are unable to pay. The cost of incarcerating Virginia fathers is not factored into the actual cost of collecting their past due support.

Nonetheless, when a member of Virginia’s 1999 Child Support Quadrennial Review

Commission motioned to have that commission sponsor a bill to determine both the

cost of incarceration (versus the actual dollar amount owed) as well as the numbers

of fathers imprisoned (it has been estimated that 20–30% of Virginia’s county jails

are comprised of support delinquent non-custodial fathers), his motion was voted

down by the judges, lawyers, and state legislator who served with him.

That state’s Director of Child Support Enforcement was made aware of one stunning fact: when fathers are given adequate parenting time with their children, child

support payments reach almost 90%! It seems that only Oklahoma, led by Governor

Keating’s determined effort to stem the high rate of divorce in his state, has taken

that into consideration. Almost two years ago, he signed into legislation a pedente

lite bill that allows either separating or divorcing parent to ask for shared residential parenting rights of his or her children. That legislation has not only served to

guarantee that children of divorce will retain both parents. It also eliminates most

child support enforcement costs because both parents share child-rearing costs and

86

responsibilities. Most importantly, it removes a significant incentive for divorce: the

‘‘reward’’ that follows the winner of sole custody.

Oklahoma’s legislation accomplishes a number of other important things. Among

them is the fact that fathers—I say fathers because, historically, mothers have been

given sole custody in almost 90% of cases, are not minimalized as parents. As a result, children do not suffer the emotional and behavioral and educational deficiencies of children raised in single parent homes. Such costs, those of addressing

the problems of fatherless children, must be factored in to the costs attributable by

the G.A.O. to child support implementation. It is enormous.

And not just to children raised in single parent homes. What must also be considered are the hidden costs of the non-custodial parent’s lost productivity. And, worse

than that, the tragic expense of human life as measured by the number of suicides

by fathers denied adequate access to their children. Thanks to legislation like Oklahoma’s, that profound expense can be reduced to zero. And that is a number, Mr.

Chairman, that, I’m certain, both the G.A.O. and your subcommittee can truly appreciate.

Responsibility for Child Support

When it comes to Child Support, most everyone recites the same mantra. Fathers

are to blame for children growing up without a Father. The mantra goes something

like this, if we can just get Fathers to be responsible and pay the Child Support,

then children and moms would be right with the world. Even so-called Pro-Father

statements include, ‘‘promoting responsible Fatherhood’’. What that really means is

holding Fathers accountable to pay Child Support.

But just who is responsible and who is irresponsible when it comes to Child Support.

Mothers who deny visitation are not being responsible. Collecting Child Support

and denying the Father access is not being responsible.

Lawyers who seek maximum Child Support just so they can get paid are not

being responsible.

Guardian ad litems who routinely separate Fathers from their children do not act

in the best interests of the children and that is not being responsible.

Judges who routinely treat the guidelines as minimums when awarding Child

Support are not being responsible.

Politicians (mostly lawyers) who know the current guidelines are flawed are not

being responsible.

Current Child Support guidelines do not leave the Father a living wage. If a Father increases his income, he is further penalized. This is a no-win situation. Mothers, lawyers, guardian ad litems, Judges and politicians, by their irresponsibility,

make their idea of a ‘‘Responsible Father’’ impossible. The notion of destroying a

child’s Father is in the child’s best interest is ridiculous and totally irresponsible.

[Attachments are being retained in the Committee files.]

fLedyard, Connecticut 06339

June 28, 2001

Allison Giles, Chief of Staff

Committee on Ways and Means

U.S. House of Representatives

1102 Longworth House Office Bldg.

Washington, DC 20515

RE: Child Support

Dear Ms. Giles and others,

Thank you very much for allowing my comments to be delivered to Congress on

this important topic.

I am a single father residing in Connecticut (formerly R.I.) with a 20-year old son

living with his married mom in Massachusetts. The laws of Massachusetts governed

our divorce and subsequent modifications, typically for child support. This process

of modification has been ongoing since generally 1983, about a year after our son

was born.

I refuse to disparage anyone, and would prefer instead to offer Congress some constructive ideas to address this former ‘‘issue’’ which has evolved into a national

‘‘phenomenon.’’ The fact is that past laws and legal wrangling only addressed a

‘‘band-aid’’ approach versus looking squarely at the problem. I submit that this imVerDate 11-MAY-2000 18:14 Nov 08, 2001 Jkt 074742 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\B742.XXX pfrm04 PsN: B742
87

portant issue be standardized throughout the country, versus each state having differing views and laws on this topic.

First, I must ask that society at large NOT view fathers as some unnatural element of a child’s family or future, as well as a ‘‘paycheck.’’ We individually and collectively have feelings towards our own and other’s children. We individually and

collectively prefer to be an influence in our children’s lives. We individually and collectively want the best for all children, including our own. It is wrong to assign the

negative elements of some arrogant, disruptive, or even ‘‘deadbeat’’ dads to the

whole, which appears to be society’s answer to fathers. I am not quite sure of the

percentages of ‘‘good’’ versus ‘‘bad’’ dads, but I don’t act nor care to be a negative

influence in my own son’s life.

Second, it appears from this writer that most custodial parents (usually mothers)

see money as a motivating force against custody and visitation for the non-custodial

parent (typically fathers). You will hear a lot about joint custody, and the influence

of the father.

I might be different in this respect, but I do not condone joint custody as that

is meant by others, and I base this on first-hand experience. Joint custody as probably meant by others is an almost equitable schedule of parental visitation and

physical control over the life and mind of a child of that marriage. I submit that

this is nearly impossible to accomplish, for a variety of reasons: (1) the child gets

lost in the discipline of two or more households; (2) it is sometimes impossible for

parents to regulate schedules to accommodate the ‘‘transfer’’ of the child; (3) in some

cases, the child suffers from abuse (physical, and mental) which caused the original

marital breakup; (4) it introduces a new ‘‘feature’’, or person, into the parent-child

relationship, which may be good or bad, depending (for example, one parent may

now become indifferent to the child when the ‘‘dating game’’ commences)—where is

the child when that happens?

Nonetheless, I firmly believe that children deserve the presence and influence of

the non-custodial parent, rather than a complete obliteration of parental rights,

which appears to be slowly evolving in this country. I do feel saddened by those fathers who do not want any relationship with their children, but I believe that their

attitude stems from having to awkwardly deal with their ex-spouse, which may resurrect some animosity.

Another issue is finances. There appears to be a wide berth of custodial guidelines

among the various states, especially as they deal with child support. For example,

Massachusetts assigns a certain percentage of ‘‘gross’’ income depending upon the

age and number of children to the marriage or adjoining marriage. Most other

states that I am aware of assign a percentage of ‘‘net’’ income. That is why, in the

80’s especially, many fathers from Massachusetts went to alternate states for a

change of venue in order to reduce child support requirements. Rep. Barney Frank

can attest to this, as he introduced a bill—I believe in 1986—that disallowed such

an adventure—regardless if the custodial spouse had counsel present in her divorce.

Massachusetts support requirements are simply too expensive and it could be for

a variety of reasons (too expensive to live near Boston versus the balance of the

state or elsewhere; ‘‘good’’ fathers paying for the sins of the ‘‘bad’’ fathers, to put

it very simply, so that the state does not have to bear the burden of increased child

welfare; legal costs, etc.). The father in the latter instance went to Florida courts

simply because he could not afford expensive support. I submit he left because of

the finances of the situation, and would have stayed involved in his children’s lives

had there been more equitable treatment.

Does Congress realistically want fathers to be part of their children’s lives? Or

must fathers travel elsewhere (or take on many jobs) for financial reasons, and thus

remove themselves away from their sons and daughters?

In many instances, and because of expensive support requirements, non-custodial

parents (i.e., fathers) see their living arrangements dwindle economically and substantially. Yet there is no incentive to gain additional employment, because this additional income gets further eaten up by the support requirements—regardless if

their child’s cost of living hasn’t changed one iota.

The result? Because of various support requirements (child support @ 25% on average; federal, state, and local taxes @ approx. 30%; rent or mortgage @ 25%; utility

bills @ 10%, of a weekly paycheck), the father generally has to live on just 5% of

his net income. The mother’s income, however, increases because of the support, in

most cases by 25%, admittedly less as a percentage of income if there is more income in her household. There is quite a disparity between households . . . especially

if the custodial parent re-marries and lives in a mansion because of her new combined income. This is not taken into account.

The added income would only replace what was taken; PLUS, because of the

added employment schedule, the visitation schedule is thereby reduced concomiVerDate 11-MAY-2000 18:14 Nov 08, 2001 Jkt 074742 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\B742.XXX pfrm04 PsN: B742
88

tantly (the father never gets to see his child, often because of two or three jobs).

The custodial parent begins the cycle of support modification yet again, because of

the expected added income. Again, no incentive for added income.

There ought to be equitable financial treatment in court orders, as well (i.e., and

I hate to use these words, but ‘‘what’s good for the goose is good for the gander’’).

Too often I’ve seen judicial modification orders where the father has to ‘‘. . . report

any and all changes in income. . . ,’’ yet the mother is not required to report her

changes in income—even though she is quite capable of work (and sometimes is

working via crafts, home businesses, etc.); the children have grown and are no

longer present during ‘‘mother’s hours’’. Discovery material and judgments ought to

treat non-married parents equally, especially as to work reporting requirements.

Another financial issue relates to unemployment. In some instances, a non-custodial parent under court-ordered child support loses his position, becomes unemployed, and begins receiving unemployment compensation. Yet the court-ordered

child support remains. The reply is to return to court to reduce the payments. Yet

to do so: (a) costs money for lawyers; and (b) by the time any hearing comes, generally 6 months later, the non-custodial parent has started new work. The support

order during the unemployment phase eats up over 50% of the unemployment compensation, AND, the other bills remain the same during this period (WHICH INCLUDES FEDERAL TAXES). This forces the parent to perhaps work ‘‘under the

table’’ (which is illegal) just to maintain bills, or go to work at menial jobs, and thus

have to report this new income (and new court modification) while he is out looking

for a better job (and cannot find time for an interview because he is working at this

menial job . . .). The custodial parent thus does not share in the problems of the noncustodial parent, even if it was not of his own doing.

Another issue involves a custodial parent using another state to gain what she

couldn’t in the governing state. For example, using a doctor-child privilege in an adjoining state to unwarrantedly disparage the non-custodial parent, and bringing

that evidence into the governing state. The governing state thus orders new visitation, regardless if it is warranted, but only under the supervision of the doctor in

the adjoining state. The doctor then suggests that they cannot enforce another

state’s order—the non-custodial parent thus has to go to the adjoining state’s court

for a similar court order, and for a few more $$ thousand. Where is the justice in

using adjoining states?

An important issue is arrearage—when does it begin?? I submit that you have 501

House Members, with 501 different answers. Does it begin at the moment of filing

a complaint for modification? At the moment of hire for the non-custodial parent?

At the moment when the custodial parent finds out about any new job of the noncustodial parent? At the moment of the court order filing for increased support with

the clerk of courts?

An example of this in action was when the non-custodial parent (the father generally) was hired for a new job, and alerted the mother, by phone and by correspondence with their child—not once, but on three separate occasions, close apart.

The mother delayed filing for a modification of increased child support 5 months

later. During the 5 months interim, she also telephoned the father (proven by phone

records) at his new place of employ (so she cannot state that she was not aware

of where he worked). Seven months later they were in court, and the court retroactively assigned an increase in child support to the date of hire—the father is thus

in immediate arrears to the tune of thousands of dollars, and is automatically told

by his friends and employer that he is a ‘‘deadbeat dad’’—even though he did everything by the book!! He also had to forego subsequent tax payments in order to pay

child support or face incarceration, and is now in arrears with the IRS!!

So when does arrearage begin?

Why incarcerate a legitimate ‘‘deadbroke dad’’? That only makes him lose his job

to begin with, and thus spiral ever downward. How can he earn a living from prison? Again, a band-aid approach . . .

In summary, I want to request that child support be somewhat standardized nationally (percentage of ‘‘net’’ versus ‘‘gross’’ income, for example), AND, that fathers

NOT be considered as merely a paycheck, which is the personal bias of many, many

judges—we want to be a direct influence in our children’s lives.

And so do grandparents. . . .

Respectfully,

f Robert E. Brien

89

1The presumption that children’s interests override parental rights in all cases leads to laws

and regulations which place the burden of proof on parents to show they are fit. Such impediments can not be placed on fundamental liberty interests guaranteed by the constitution, nor

can these rights be compromised for administrative convenience. The U.S. Supreme Court has

established that, ‘‘The State cannot, consistently with due process requirements, merely presume that unmarried fathers in general . . . are unsuitable and neglectful parents. Parental

unfitness must be established on the basis of individualized proof.’’ (Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S.

645 (1972)). ‘‘It is the government’s burden to demonstrate an overriding interest in order to

validate an encroachment on protected interests’’ (Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (1976)). ‘‘The

only requirement being . . . the best interest of the child . . . sweeps too broadly . . . The Federal

Constitution permits a State to interfere with (parents’ fundamental right to rear their children)

only to prevent harm or potential harm to the child.’’ (Troxel v. Granville, (99–138) (2000)). 2Laws designed to bring a few deadbeats into parental compliance are instead forcing millions

of children to live with single parents who subsist on ‘‘child support’’ which is, in its present

form, a welfare plan underwritten by non-custodial parents. It is public policy that parents must

work to serve their children. Diversion of support money without accountability to provide for

another adult, who is not likewise required to work, runs afoul the U.S. 13th Amendment. Also,

it is a parent’s constitutional duty to ensure that resources are directed to their children. The

state, acting as parens patriae, tells parents to presume their money is benefiting their children,

and that children are enlightened to become model citizens when they see one parent become

a slave and the other a parasite. 3The constitutional problems with federally mandated presumptions are not insurmountable.

There is no federal prohibition that a state cannot by statute review worksheet awards that

have been found to be federally correct. States should be required to make particularized written

findings in ALL cases. To find for a presumptive award as correct, a court should state ‘‘the

Continued

Statement of Patrick R. Caffrey, Seeley Lake, Montana

Until constitutional guarantees are incorporated in national child support policy,

legislation presuming to provide for the children of disassociating parents will fail.

The United States Supreme Court, from 1925 to the present, has repeatedly and

consistently held that the care, custody and control of children by their parents is

a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment.1

Congress should stop pretending the child support enforcement apparatus, which

treats parents worse than felons, isn’t being used as a welfare plan where parasite

parents are enriched to advance personal lifestyles while forcing slave parents out

of their children’s lives.2

For millions of Americans there is no American Dream. For them this nation has

become a gulag where they are stripped of their parental authority in their children’s presence, prohibited from pursuing logical career decisions, and pre-empted

from managing their own finances for the benefit of their children, their estranged

parenting partners, and themselves. Their freedom to travel is at risk, and they are

subject to police harassment and imprisonment. Their constitutional guarantees are

routinely ignored in statute and practice. Even children and the parents they live

with most of the time are degraded by a system that rewards immoral opportunism

and vindictive motivations. In short, national policy professes to operate for the best

interests of children, but the opposite effect is achieved. This policy increases the

adversarial tenor of incompatible parents who might otherwise restructure their

children’s upbringing in a more positive and accommodating manner.

Destruction of parental involvement increases with the conscientiousness of the

disenfranchised parent. Those most vulnerable are those guilty of the following

crimes:

• Being a parent

• Being a responsible citizen

• Believing in our system of government

• Caring for their children

Those of less integrity can evade their natural parental obligations. The apprehension of some of them is of no real benefit to their children, since money can never

replace a parent. Meanwhile, dedicated parents become financially and spiritually

exhausted fighting in a process where even eventual vindication guarantees government-sponsored psychological child abuse.

The underlying cause of the problem is federal involvement. The Family Support

Act of 1988 generalized children’s needs. States were then mandated to implement

presumptive rather than advisory child support guidelines. The path of least resistance for judges and administrators is to accept presumptions. This is the heart of

the problem, as it places the burden of proof on parents to rebut presumptions.3

90

non-custodial parent is unfit, neglectful, absent, or nonparticipating.’’ This appears to increase

the judicial system’s workload. More likely, a parent who is not guaranteed windfall enrichment

at the expense of the other parent would be more rational and considerate of the children’s needs, reducing case loads.

Parents should spend their time and money on their children, not on struggling

to conform to arbitrary guidelines or proving to the government that they merit constitutional protections.

Actual earnings are always acceptable for raising children of married parents. We

pay taxes on what we earn, not on what we could have earned. Yet disenfranchised

supporting parents are forced to pay a percentage of what they presumably could

earn.

Most state procedures calculate the amount of funding necessary to replicate the

family standard of living. They then assign all the money to one parent. The only

way the paying parent can maintain previous parenting styles is to pay for them

twice.

The ‘‘best interests of children’’ as a matter of public policy has been regarded as

the best interests of children as a constitutional right. The two standards are not

on par. Children do not have a constitutional right that their best interests be met.

If they did, every family would be subjected to continual government interference

to determine and maximize benefits to their children. Parents would have to choose

between the interests of their children and the protection of their individual rights.

The constitution would force parents to become adversaries to their own children.

Sadly, this happens to divorcing parents. Parental rights in this disenfranchised

class of citizens are subordinated to the presumed rights of their children. The preeminent interest of children should be that the constitutional right of parents to the

care, custody and control of their children be preserved. Otherwise, the State is telling children their parents don’t have rights, and neither will they when they have

children.

Adversarial custody battles are now pursued, not to benefit children, but to use

children as a shelter from persecution by an orwellian child support enforcement regime. Those who insist children need government protection from hostilities between their parents have created a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Our children deserve for two cooler heads to prevail.

When considering family legislation, please consider, ‘‘Could I force this upon

married parents?’’

fBridgton, Maine 04009

July 9, 2000

Allison Giles, Chief of Staff

Committee on Ways and Means

U.S. House of Representatives

1102 Longworth House Office Building

Washington, D.C. 20515

FATHERHOOD ISSUES IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY

Modern Tools for Modern Families

Issues that must be consiered in the development of laws and policies that impact

fathers and children of divorce should include the following:

1. Fathers are taking increasing role in parenting.

The most recent U.S. Census Department data indicates that 22% of single-parent

homes in the U.S. are headed by fathers. That amount is 47% higher than the typical estimated amount used by policymakers in the U.S. Numerous studies, notable

by Barnett and Rivers, indicate that (especially among younger fathers,) fathers are

putting their parenting obligation ahead of career and any other interests.

In Maine single-parent households headed by fathers is a high 27%, which is estimated to be about twice the rate that fathers are assigned primary custody by

courts, and estimated to be about 4 times more numerous than child support cases

where men would be the recipients of child support.

Fathers’ actual role in parenting is probably twice to four times greater than that

presently recognized by the courts or support collection agencies.

2. By considering the roles of most fathers of divorced children in the U.S. to be

that of a ‘‘non-custodial parent’’, U.S. and state agencies use a term of convenience;

rather than a term that describes an accurate role of many divorced fathers today.

91

‘‘The structure of single-parent households has also been affected by the fact that

more parents have shared legal custody for their children. This means that it is the

right of both parents to be involved in important decisions, like health care, even

when the children reside primarily with one parent. In addition, some parents are

deciding to take primary physical responsibility for one or more of their shared children, and some states are no longer using the term ‘custody,’ but instead are allocating ‘parenting time’ between the mother and father.’’ (The Medical Child Support

Working Group Report, June 2000, page 1–4)

Even the reports being issued US Office of Child Support Enforcement, such as

the report above, are recognizing that the term ‘‘non-custodial parent’’, is, in fact,

obsolete in many situations.

3. Disenfranchisement of fathers from the policy process.

Few studies or panels that investigate divorce, parenting or child support include

representatives of fathers or non-custodial parents. Fathers are under-represented,

if at all, in the policy making process that affects both them, and their relationship

with their children.

In most states there are no programs available specifically designed to assist divorced fathers.

In order to permit an air of legitimacy to the process of developing laws and policies that affect fathers of divorce, fathers will need to have their input considered,

and adopted into the laws and policies.

I thank you in advance for your consideration of these issues.

Respectfully Submitted,

Tom Chandel

cc: Rep. Tom Allen

Sen. Olympia Snowe

Statement of Daniel L. Hatcher, Senior Staff Attorney, Children

Sen. Susan Collins

f ’s Defense

Fund

Chairman Herger and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to submit this statement for the record regarding child support and fatherhood proposals. The Children’s Defense Fund (CDF) is a private, nonprofit advocacy

organization whose mission is to Leave No Child Behind. We receive no government funds. CDF provides a strong, effective voice for all the children of America

who cannot vote, lobby, or speak for themselves.

The effectiveness of the child support program is now steadily improving, in large

part due to the 1996 child support reforms. However, poor children in families receiving welfare or leaving welfare for work often receive little of the child support

collected on their behalf. The success of the child support system is significantly reduced for poor children due to the continued use of child support to recover welfare

costs, and due to the fact that low-income noncustodial parents often cannot afford

to pay support.

Last year, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed the JohnsonCardin Child Support Distribution Act of 2000 (H.R. 4678) by a vote of 405–18. Billions of dollars in child support would have been re-directed to children. The Act

would have also provided funding for much-needed programs to help low-income

noncustodial parents improve their economic status and provide better support for

their children. H.R. 4678 was referred to the Senate, and a similar Senate bill was

introduced. Unfortunately, the Senate did not take action on the bill.

The Johnson-Cardin Child Support Distribution Act has been reintroduced in the

House this year (H.R. 1471), and is also incorporated into the Act to Leave No Child

Behind (H.R.1990/S.940), an omnibus bill for children supported by the Children’s

Defense Fund and many other organizations and child advocates. It is crucial for

Congress to act quickly on this legislation. As TANF time limits run out, and more

and more families continue to try to follow the rules of the new welfare law and

work towards family independence, the child support system must be changed to

support, not hinder, the efforts of custodial and noncustodial parents to support

their children.

Performance of the child support program is improving.

Child support enforcement tools have been strengthened in recent years. Wage

withholdings were made mandatory in 1988, and then were made more effective

when the National Directory of New Hires was established in the 1996 welfare law,

92

1Data is from U.S. Department of Health and Human Services press release, ‘‘HHS Announces New Record Child Support Collections’’ (January 17, 2001), the U.S. Department of

Health and Human Services, Child Support Enforcement FY 1999 Preliminary Data Report

(September, 2000), and an analysis by Vicki Turetsky, ‘‘Families Participating in the State Child

Support Program,’’ (Center for Law and Social Policy, 2001). 2 U.S. Census Bureau, Child Support for Custodial Mothers and Fathers, P 60–212 (October

2000). 3 Vicki Turetsky, What if All the Money Came Home? (Washington, D.C.: Center for Law and

Social Policy, June 2000). 4Office of Child Support Enforcement, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1999

Report to Congress: Analysis of the Impact of Welfare Recidivism of PRWORA Child Support

Arrears Distribution Policy Changes (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human

Services, 1999). 5Paula Roberts, ‘‘The Performance of the Child Support Enforcement System: Two Points of

View,’’ (Center for Law and Social Policy, November 2000).

the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (‘‘PRWORA’’).

Employers must now report all new hires to state agencies that then transmit the

information to the National Directory of New Hires. Child support offices can then

check the directory against a list of noncustodial parents with overdue child support. After a match is made, a wage withholding order is issued to deduct automatically child support payments from the noncustodial parent’s paychecks.

PRWORA also required each state to implement centralized computer systems for

collections, made improvements to paternity establishment, and provided uniform

interstate child support laws to address enforcement complications that exist when

multiple states are involved.

With the strengthening of enforcement tools and increased recognition of the importance of child support for child well-being, the performance of the child support

program has improved. $15.8 billion in child support was collected in 1999, a 10 percent increase over fiscal year 1998, and according to the U.S. Department of Health

and Human Services, that number reached $18 billion in fiscal year 2000. Paternities were established and acknowledged for 1.5 million children in 1999, about a

220 percent increase over fiscal year 1992. The child support collection rate has doubled since 1995.1

Continued improvements are needed to help low-income children.

Low-income children of current and former welfare recipients have the greatest

need for the additional family income possible through the receipt of child support

payments. The child support program can have a significant anti-poverty effect—

when it is successful in getting support payments to families.

• Among custodial parents receiving none of their ordered child support, the poverty rate was 35.7 percent, whereas for those receiving all the support due, the

poverty rate was 15.2 percent.2

• For poor families who get child support, the child support amounts to 26% of

the family’s budget, or $2000 per year.3

• Even small amounts of child support going to families that received TANF assistance reduce the likelihood that the families will need public assistance

again.4

Unfortunately, the bulk of the collections are not reaching those children with the

greatest needs. Almost two-thirds (63 percent) of the IV–D child support caseload

is made up of current and former welfare recipients, but the majority of the funds

collected in FY 1999 were for families who have never received welfare assistance.

Of the small percentage of owed child support that is collected for current TANF

recipients (9.3 percent), very little actually gets to the families—the government

kept $1.3 of the $1.5 billion collected in 1999. Former TANF recipients are getting

more of the child support collected on their behalf ($3.8 billion out of the $4.83 billion collected), but still over $1 billion of the amount collected did not get to the

children in families struggling to leave welfare for work.5

The 1996 welfare law has made the cost recovery purpose of the child support system obsolete.

In 1996, PRWORA changed the AFDC welfare program to encourage family financial independence. Child support was seen as an important part of a single-parent

family’s income package. As a result, the child support program began to shift its

primary purpose from recovering welfare costs to encouraging both parents to support their children and actually getting child support to the custodial families.

Unfortunately, the federal law requiring families who need temporary public assistance to assign their child support rights remains, along with a complex set of

child support distribution rules. The assignment and distribution rules are now in

93

6Office of Child Support Enforcement, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Child

Support Enforcement FY 1999 Preliminary Data Report (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of

Health and Human Services, 1999).

conflict with the goals of encouraging family independence and support for children

from both parents.

The current child support system withholds support owed to children who

need it the most—those in families struggling to make ends meet who

have had to rely on public assistance.

Families needing TANF must assign their child support rights to the government

under the outdated notion of welfare cost recovery. The effect is that child support

collections are then withheld from the children, kept by state governments, who in

turn pay a share to the federal government. Children often get nothing.

States do have the ability to give some child support back to families after assignment, but only after they pay the federal government its share. Currently, only a

small amount of the child support is given back.

The Johnson-Cardin bill provides states with options and incentives to create

child support pass-through and disregard policies to promote the goal of family financial independence. States can opt to pass through up to $400 a month in child

support collections to a family receiving TANF; to the extent that the payment is

disregarded in calculating TANF benefits, the state does not have to pay the federal

government its share of the amount collected. Passing through at least a portion of

the current child support collected ensures a smooth transition when families move

from welfare to work. Often, when families do not receive any child support while

on welfare, there is a considerable delay in starting direct child support payments

after the family leaves cash assistance. Child support payments made directly to the

family during and after TANF receipt prevent a delay in benefits during the critical

period of transition.

Intercepting tax refunds is the most effective way to collect past due support for families leaving welfare—but the money is often withheld from

poor children.

When families are able to leave welfare for work, the assignment of child support

stops. The transition to work is a critical time where families desperately need the

extra income from child support payments to achieve economic stability and avoid

the need to return to welfare. In addition to the need for reliable ongoing current

support payments, effective ways of collecting past due child support owed to families leaving welfare are essential. At the end of 1999, $34.5 billion in arrears was

owed for families who formerly received public assistance.6

Intercepting federal tax refunds owed to the noncustodial parent is an increasingly successful method in collecting this past due child support. Tax intercepts account for the majority of back support collections made on behalf of families who

have had to rely on public assistance. For many low-income families, where noncustodial parents’ work is intermittent and child support payments irregular, intercepting federal tax refunds may be the only real chance they will have of getting

past due child support.

Unfortunately, the child support system is taking this effective enforcement tool

away from poor children. When families leave welfare for work, the assignment of

child support stops but past due child support is still often owed in part to the government and in part to the family. Under current law, past due child support collected by federal tax refund intercepts is kept by the government to pay itself first—

even when most of the child support is owed to the children.

Example (hypothetical): an eight-year old girl is owed almost $20,000 in past

due child support (from a $200/month order that has never been paid). The

girl’s mother lost her job and eventually needed temporary public assistance last

year—at that point, the girl had to begin assigning her right to child support

to the government. The family left public assistance after just 6 months, and the

child support assignment then stopped—the government is now owed $1,200 in

assigned child support, whereas $20,000 plus current support is still owed to the

girl. If a $600 federal tax refund is intercepted this year from the non-custodial

father, the government would take all of the money from the child to pay itself

first.

As the example illustrates, the practice of the government paying itself first from

intercepted federal tax refunds can result in much-needed additional child support

income being withheld from families at the critical time of their transition to work.

H.R. 1471 would change the child support distribution rules to ensure that child

94

7This testimony often refers to noncustodial parents as fathers for purposes of simplicity, and

because the majority of noncustodial parents are men. There are also many female noncustodial

parents and male custodial parents.

support collected through federal income tax refund intercepts is paid to families

leaving TANF before the government takes its share.

Withholding child support from the children on whose behalf it is collected

further divides already fragile families.

Children in low-income families experiencing separation or divorce need emotional

and financial support from both parents. Most poor mothers and fathers want to do

right by their children, and work together to support their children—yet the child

support system itself can sometimes stand in their way.

When poor noncustodial fathers 7 are able to pay child support, they want to know

the money is getting to their children. Noncustodial fathers become more alienated

from their families when they must struggle to pay child support they know is being

kept by the government. Some noncustodial parents will risk incarceration by providing money to their children directly, rather than paying government-owed support payments. Many noncustodial parents simply decide to pay nothing and avoid

contact with their children.

When poor mothers and fathers attempt to reunify and raise their children together, the system of assigned child support can significantly block their efforts.

Parents that reunify are often still stuck with making payments to the government

in the name of ‘‘child support,’’ because of past due child support that was assigned

to the government when one parent received welfare during the period of separation.

Many noncustodial parents are poor and face barriers to employment.

For many low-income families who have had to rely on welfare, the noncustodial

parents are often poor as well, limiting their ability to pay child support. Poor fathers may face multiple barriers to employment, including lack of training and education, incarceration and criminal records, lack of transportation, disabilities, and

substance abuse.

Poor fathers facing such barriers to employment may accumulate significant back

due child support. The problem of large child support arrearages is heightened when

states add Medicaid childbirth costs to the initial order, which can amount to thousands of dollars. Large child support arrearages may then create an additional barrier to legitimate employment. Faced with seemingly insurmountable arrearages, fathers may work in the ‘‘underground’’ labor market.

H.R. 1471 would prohibit welfare cost recovery for Medicaid birthing costs, to reduce the creation of large state debts that may reduce the likelihood of low-income

noncustodial parents paying current support. H.R. 1471 would also provide funding

for demonstration projects to work directly with ‘‘dead-broke’’ low-income noncustodial parents to help them support their children financially and emotionally. The

funding would create a competitive matching grants program for projects to promote

marriage and successful parenting, and to address barriers to employment and improve the economic status of low-income noncustodial parents.

H.R. 1471 provides Congress the opportunity to stop the child support system from withholding child support from poor children, and to provide

needed services to help poor noncustodial parents better support their

children.

H.R. 1471 provides a tremendous opportunity for Congress to fix the child support

system in order to get more child support distributed to families who have had to

rely on welfare, and to provide much-needed services to low-income noncustodial

parents. It is crucial for Congress to take immediate action and seize this important

opportunity to help families struggling for financial independence—by making child

support more about truly providing support to children, and providing services to

poor noncustodial parents to help them become better able to provide that support.

Statement of Bill Wood, and Jay Gell, Children

f ’s Legal Foundation,

Charlotte, North Carolina

Bill Wood is a Business Management and Technology Consultant volunteering his

time to help families and children in the State of North Carolina and around the

country. He is a principal custodian of a 9 year-old girl. Jay Gell is the Founder

95

1 J Kelly. Assoc. of Family and Conciliation Courts, California Chapter Mtg, Sonoma, CA, Jan.

1991. 2D. Blankenhorn. Fatherless America. (New York: BasicBooks, 1995), Title page. 3D. Popenoe. ‘‘Life without father.’’ In: C. Daniels, ed. Lost fathers: The Politics of Fatherlessness in America. (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1998). 4 June 1992, Vice President Dan Quayle criticized the TV show Murphy Brown for promoting

single motherhood. Chaos ensued and he was incessantly ridiculed by Hollywood and the media.

Candace Bergen wins an Emmy for her portrayal of Murphy Brown and begins another career

giving commencement speeches on University campuses. [Author commentary] With the complete absorption of feminist, anti-family, anti-father philosophy so deeply entrenched in Hollywood, the media, and gaining a stranglehold over the courts, is it any wonder that families are

being destroyed, children are suffering, and our culture is decaying? 5S. McLanahan. Demography 25, Feb. 1988, p. 1–16. 6 Y. Matsuhashi et al. (1988). J Adolescent Health Care 10, 409–412. 7Most WW2 baby-boomers are past child-bearing age and their children are beyond teenage

years. 8K. Harris et al. Paternal involvement with adolescents in intact families: The influence of

fathers over the life course, presented at the annual meeting of the Am. Sociol. Assoc., New

York, N.Y., August 16–20, 1996; Univ. of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, N.C.,

27516, p. 28.

of the Children’s Legal Foundation in Charlotte, North Carolina. A small group of

about 10 people formed after personal experiences with the excesses and abuses of

the divorce Industry. Its mission is to promote intact families and create national

alliances to change the child-destructive divorce industry.

Affects of Fatherlessness on Children—Social Consequences.

‘‘Children describe the loss of contact with a parent as the primary negative aspect of divorce.’’ 1 Meanwhile, society is just now beginning to recognize on a widespread basis what children have known all along—; father-absence is one of the

most destructive forces to children in our society. As has been noted ‘‘[f]ather-absence is the greatest social problem we face.’’ 2 Father-absence associated with divorce and sole maternal custody, is the primary predictor of a host of societal ills

affecting and destroying children.

‘‘The decline of fatherhood is a major force behind many of the most disturbing problems that plague America: crime and juvenile delinquency; premature sexuality and out-of-wedlock births to teenagers; deteriorating educational achievement; depression, substance abuse, and alienation among adolescents; and the growing number of women and children in poverty . . .

Fathers are the first and most important men in the lives of girls. They provide role models, accustoming their daughters to male-female relationships. Engaged and responsive fathers play with their daughters and guide them into

challenging activities. They protect them, providing them with a sense of physical and emotional security. Girls with adequate fathering are more able, as

they grow older, to develop constructive heterosexual relationships based on

trust and intimacy . . .

Why does living without a father pose such hazards for children? Two explanations are usually given: The children receive less supervision and protection

from men mothers bring home, and they are also more emotionally deprived,

which leaves them vulnerable to sexual abusers. . . . Even a diligent absent father can’t supervise or protect his children the way a live-in father can. Nor is

he likely to have the kind of relationship with his daughter that is usually

needed to give her a foundation of emotional security and a model for nonsexual

relationships with men. . . .’’ 3

Promiscuity, teen pregnancy, child sexual abuse, and ongoing difficulties

in later family life are results of feminist misandry infecting society

with a ‘‘father hatred’’ causing father-absence.

Single motherhood, once lauded by the feminist icon ‘‘Murphy Brown,’’ has thoroughly produced its cultural ‘‘poisoned fruit’’ (Candace Bergen 4 and the feminists

then attacked Vice President Dan Quayle for his support of the family). White teenage girls in 1988 were 72% more likely than their father-present peers to become

single mothers, while there was a 100% increase for black teenage girls,5 other studies also reported up to a 600% increase in teenage illegitimate births.6 Over 10

years later, out-of-wedlock-births have reduced slightly and stabilized, while the

subject population has reduced accounting for much of the difference.7 In contrast,

more involved fathers protect girls from engaging in first sex, lower the risk of using

illicit substances, and also reduce the risk of violent behavior.8 This protection ‘‘from

96

9 H. Biller, (1974). Paternal Deprivation: Family, School, Sexuality, and Society (Lexington,

Mass.: D.C. Heath). 10G. Rekers. Journal of Family and Culture, 2, No. 3 (Autumn, 1986), p. 8–31. 11 As was listed in the Psych profession’s DSM–III before it was removed through political

pressure from the DSM–IV. 12 H. Biller, Paternal Deprivation: Family, School, Sexuality, and Society (Lexington, Mass.:

D.C. Heath, 1974), p.114. 13 Ibid. 14S McLanahan, L Bumpass. (July, 1988). Am J Sociol, 4, 130–152. 15 A Sedlak (August 30, 1991). ‘‘Supplementary Analyses of Data on the National Incidence

of Child Abuse and Neglect’’ (Rockville, Md.: Westat) table 6–2, p. 6–5. see also, GomesSchwartz, Horowitz, and Cardarelli, Child Sexual Abuse Victims and their Treatment, 1988

(69% of victims of child sexual abuse came from homes where the biological father was absent). 16 H. Biller, (1974). Paternal Deprivation: Family, School, Sexuality, and Society (Lexington,

Mass.: D.C. Heath), p. 21f. see also, Fatherless Families Spawning Virulent Form of Child

Abuse,’’ New York Tribune, June 6, 1984. 17W. Marsiglio Family Planning Perspective 19 Nov/Dec, 1987, 240–251. 18 B. Christensen. The Family in America. Vol 3, no. 4 [April 1989], p. 3. 19Warren Farrell presentation at NCMC conference, 1992; Hetherington, 1972. 20Wilson and Daly, ‘‘The Risk of Maltreatment of Children Living with Stepparents,’’ in Richard J. Gelles and Jane B. Lancaster, eds., Child Abuse and Neglect: Biosocial Dimensions, Foundations of Human Behavior (New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 1987), p. 215–232. 21Wilson and Daly in Child Abuse and Neglect: Biosocial Dimensions, 1987. 22K. Harris. Reuters. Fathers’ Care Benefits Children. N.Y., August 25, 1998. 23 National Center for Health Statistics, June 1991. 24David M. Fergusson, Michael T. Lynskey, and L. John Horwood, (1996). ‘‘Childhood Sexual

Abuse and Psychiatric Disorders in Young Adulthood: I. Prevalence of Sexual Abuse and Factors

Associated with Sexual Abuse,’’ Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Vol. 34, pp. 1355–1364. 25Diana E. H. Russell, (1984). ‘‘The Prevalence and Seriousness of Incestuous Abuse: Stepfathers vs. Biological Fathers,’’ Child Abuse and Neglect, Vol. 8, pp. 15–22. 26See Wilson and Daly, ‘‘The Risk of Maltreatment of Children Living with Stepparents,’’ p.

228.

engaging in first sex,’’ or promoting abstinence, is the most certain way to reduce

teenage pregnancy and avoid a whole host of issues caused by promiscuity.

Father-absence creates increases in child sex-role conflicts,9 and a 100% increase

in gender identity struggles.10 Before it became ‘‘politically correct taboo’’ to treat

homosexuality as a potential malady or disorder,11 father-absence created a significant increase in the likelihood of homosexual behavior in males as well as females.12

The contrasts are striking because reversing the trend of illegitimacy requires,

above all, presence of a father in the daily lives of children. It is not just ‘‘participation’’ of a father in the lives of children. It is primarily the ‘‘presence’’ of a father:

‘‘Fathers who actively engage in joint activities and interaction with adolescents promote their educational and economic achievement and fathers who

maintain a close stable emotional bond with adolescents over time protect adolescents from engaging in delinquent behaviors.’’ 13

Some of the additional ‘‘poisoned fruit’’ deeply planted and rooted in young women

by the ‘‘enlightened, anti-marriage, male-hating feminists’’ include difficulty for girls

in building a stable family in adulthood,14 increased incidence of child sexual

abuse,15 and heightened incidence of fatal child abuse by mothers.16 Teenage boys

risk a 77% 17 to 100% 18 increase in the overall likelihood of fathering an illegitimate

child and therefore, as the research has shown, perpetuating the father-absence

cycle for another generation (or generations to come). Teenage girls run a 92%

greater risk of continuing the divorce cycle.19 Infants and toddlers (two and younger)

proved up to 100 times more likely to be killed by stepparents than by biological

parents.20 Preschoolers living without their biological father were 40 times more

likely to be a victim of child abuse as compared to those living with their father.21

Even stepfathers do not foster improvement much better than outright

father-absence.

There seems to be little substitute for the presence of a caring biological father.

‘‘Receipt of child support does not appear to make a significant difference’’ and ‘‘the

presence of a step-parent does not significantly improve a child’s situation, either.’’ 22 Children living with a mother and stepfather fared poorly on most indicators.23 Child abuse occurs most frequently within stepfamilies, and, in fact, most

sexual abuse occurs in stepfamilies.24 Sexual abuse of girls by their stepfathers can

be at a minimum six or seven times higher,25 and may be up to 40 times 26 that

of sexual abuse by biological fathers in intact families. When it comes to the risk

of abuse with unrelated males, Barbara Dafoe Whitehead explains:

97

27M Daly, M Wilson. Homicide (N.Y.: Aldine de Gruyter, 1988), p. 89. 28M. Gallagher, (1996). The abolition of Marriage: How We Destroy Lasting Love. DC.,

Regnery Pub, Chapter 6. 29M. Wynn. Fatherless Families: A Study of Families Deprived of a Father by Death, Divorce,

Separation, or Desertion Before and After Marriage (N.Y.: London and Maxwell, 1964), p. 147. 30 R. Zagar. J Am. Acad. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 28 [1989]:437–440. 31 U.S. Department Health and Human Services Bureau of Census. 32 U.S. Dept. of Justice, Special Report, Sept. 1988. 33 Rainbow for All God’s Children. 34Fulton Co. Georgia jail populations, Texas Dept. Corrections, 1992. 35 R. Knight, R., R. Prentky. Criminal Justice and Behavior Vol. 14 (Dec 1987), 403–426. 36 Christensen at footnote 24. 37 N. Kalter. Am. J Orthopsychiatry, 57 (4), October, 1987. 38 Center for Disease Control. 39 E Wakerman. Father Loss: Daughters Discuss the Man that Got Away. (Garden City, N.Y.:

Doubleday, p. 109. 40 H Biller. Father, Child, and Sex Role. (Lexington, Mass.: D.C. Heath, 1971), p. 3. 41Prof. Victor R. Fuchs, Stanford Univ., LA Times, Oct. 24, 1988. 42 U.S. D.H.H.S., Bureau of the Census. 43M Thompson, K Alexander, D. Entwwisle. Social Forces, 67, Dec. 1988, 424–451. 44 R Forehand et al. Journal of Behavior Therapy and experimental Psychiatry, 18, (Dec 1987):

325–328. 45 H Biller, R Solomon. Child Maltreatment and Paternal Deprivation: A Manifesto for Research, Prevention, and Treatment (Lex, Mass.: D.C. Heath, 1986), p. 136. 46G Bauer. Report to the President from the White House Working Group on the Family.

Feb., 1988. 47 National Principals Association Report on the State of High Schools. 48T Biblarz, A Raftery. Am Sociol Review, 1 (Feb 1993), p. 97.

‘‘Stepfathers also pose a sexual risk to children, especially stepdaughters. They

are more likely than biological fathers to commit acts of sexual abuse, and are

less likely to protect daughters from other male predators. According to a Canadian study, children in stepfamilies are forty times as likely to suffer physical

or sexual abuse as children in intact families.’’ 27

It is worth noting that stepfathers cannot make up for the lack of a biological father. In fact, Maggie Gallagher notes:

‘‘Children in stepfamilies do no better on average than children in single-parent homes. . . . Failing to understand the erotic relations that are at the heart

of family life, they [sociologists] failed to predict what, sadly and surprisingly,

later research strongly suggested: Remarriage is not only not necessarily a cure;

it is often one of the risks children of divorce face.’’ 28

Father-absence promotes anti-social behavior as well as criminal activity

and psychological problems.

Delinquency of children, and in particular boys, is promoted by father-absence.29

The problems with not having fathers in children’s lives can be so severe that they

can cause an 86% increase in the likelihood that a child will become a psychotic delinquent.30 Some of the widely recognized statistics of the ills, and cost to society

of father-absence include; 90% of all homeless and runaway children,31 70% of juveniles in state-operated institutions,32 75% of all adolescent patients in chemical

abuse centers,33 85% of prison youths,34 and talk about promoting a danger to

women—up to 80% of rapists, motivated by displaced anger.35 There is also a threefold increase in the likelihood that a child will be involved in gang activity.36

Over the existing population, there is a 200% increase in the likelihood that a

child will require psychological treatment 37 with 85% of all father-absent children

exhibiting behavioral disorders.38 This is a crucial point for consideration for every

attorney, and every judge that separates a fit father from his children. They are

PROMOTING behavioral disorders. Low self-esteem is suffered by both girls 39 and

boys.40 There is a 200% increase in attempted or successful teen suicides41 with 63%

of all [successful] youth suicides from fatherless homes.42

Academic performance is severely affected.

Father-absence creates a significant decrease in school performance,43 a significant increase in disruptive school behavior,44 a significant decrease in performance

on aptitude tests, in cognitive skills, in terms of grades, and is cumulative in nature; 45 and predicts truancy and grade repetition.46 Fatherless children also account

for 71% of all high school dropouts.47 Some of the affects of this low academic

achievement can be seen in the substantial increase in men’s odds of ending up in

the lowest occupational stratum 48 repeating the ‘‘illegitimacy cycle,’’ and ending up

‘‘dead-broke’’ unable to support their children.

98

49 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics, NCES 98–117

(June 1998). 50 ‘‘Non custodial parents, who are usually men, are likely to be negatively affected in psychological ways. A most pervasive problem is suffering caused by the feeling that they have lost

their children.’’ Increasing Our Understanding of Fathers Who Have Infrequent Contact With

Their Children. James R. Dudley, Professor, University North Carolina, under a grant from

Temple University, Family Relations, Vol. 4, No. 3, July 1991 pg. 279, col. 2, 2, lines 1–5. 51This is a limited list as there is an abundance of sources:

Friedman and Percival (1976). ‘‘Who sues for Divorce?’’—5 Journal of Legal Studies 61–82.

see pages 71, 75, 78, 81.

Gunter and Johnson (1978). ‘‘Divorce Filing as Role Behavior: Effect of No-Fault Law on Divorce Filing Patterns,’’ Journal of Marriage and Family 571–574. see page 572.

Pettit, E.J. & Bloom, B.L. (1984). ‘‘Whose decision was it: The effects of initiator status on

adjustment to marital disruption.’’ Journal of Marriage and the Family, 587–595.

Stark (1991). ‘‘Divorce Law, Feminism, and Psychoanalysis: In Dreams Begin Responsibilities,’’ 38 UCLA Law Review 1483–1531. see page 1514, note 149.

Braver et. al. (1993). ‘‘Who Divorced Whom? Methodological and Theoretical Issues,’’ 20 Journal of Divorce and Remarriage 1–19.

Brinig (1993). ‘‘The Law and Economics of No-Fault Divorce,’’ 26 Family Law Quarterly 453–

470.

Brinig and Buckley (1998). ‘‘No-Fault Laws and At-Fault People,’’ 18 International Review of

Law & Economics 325–340.

Brinig, M. and Allen D (2000). ‘‘These Boots are Made for Walking: Why most divorce filers

are women.’’ 52This is a limited list as there is an abundance of sources:

Weitzman, 1985. ‘‘The Divorce Revolution: The Unexpected Social and Economic Consequences

for Women and Children in America,’’ New York: The Free Press, page 460.

Chambers, 1979. ‘‘Making Fathers Pay—the wife is the moving party in divorce actions seven

times out of eight.’’ Chicago: University of Chicago Press. page 29.

Hite, 1987. ‘‘Women and Love: A Cultural Revolution in Progress’’ where it is stated ‘‘ninetyone percent of women who have divorced say they made the decision to divorce, not their husbands.’’ New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1987, page 459.

Colorado Supreme Court—Task Force on Gender Bias in the Courts. Gender and Justice in

the Colorado Courts from the Task Force Report, 1990. Revealed that 7 out of 8 divorces are

initiated by women (88%).

Fetzner, William of WFEJ clerk of the courts data from a five county study of child custody

and support assessments in Marian, Howard, Hancock, Grant, and Rush counties (Indiana) in

1985. Petitions filed by mother: 76.7%—of 2,033 dissolutions granted, 1,599 (76.7%) were filed

by wives, 474 (23.3%) were filed by husbands.

Joan Kelly, author of Surviving the Breakup, ‘‘Divorce is sought about three to one by women’’

(cited in Joint Custody Newsletter, January, 1988).

Ahrons, C. (1994). The good divorce. NY: Harper Collins page 92.

In contrast to this academic destruction of children, father-present children ‘‘are

more likely to get mostly A’s, to enjoy school, and to participate in extracurricular

activities if their nonresident fathers are involved in their schools than if they are

not.’’ The report laments that ‘‘[t]he majority of nonresident fathers, however, are

not involved in their children’s schools.’’ 49 There are ample studies to show (explored later) that this is not entirely by their choice.

Surprising CAUSES of Fatherlessness.

Certainly, no reasonable person would suggest that some fathers do not abdicate,

or completely avoid and abandon their responsibilities to their child(ren). Surprisingly, that is not one of the larger causes of fatherlessness.50 The largest causes of

fatherlessness will come as a surprise and shock to most. The single largest reason

that fathers do not see their children is a result of female-initiated divorce for no

‘‘good’’ reason.51 There are a number of studies and commentaries that indicate the

reasons of female-initiated divorce, and rates that may be greater than 80% while

most of the studies indicate 66%–75%.52

‘‘In reality . . . throughout most of North American history wives

have filed for divorce twice as often as husbands. . . .’’

The proportion of divorces initiated by women ranged around 60% for most

of the 20th century, and climbed to more than 70% in the late 1960s when nofault divorce was introduced: so says a just-released study by law professor

Margaret Brinig of George Mason University in Arlington, Virginia and Douglas

Allen, economist at Vancouver’s Simon Fraser University. The researchers undertook one of the largest studies ever on divorce, using 46,000 cases from the

four American states that keep statistics on which partner initiates the action.

In addition to women filing twice as often, the researchers found, they are more

likely to instigate separations and marriage break ups.

99

53Mclean, Candis. Look Who Doesn’t Want A Divorce. New Studies Indicate Women Are First

To File, But That Joint Custody Keeps Families Together. January 11, 1999.

The Brinig-Allen study also explodes the myth of the brutish husband, finding, for instance, that cruelty is cited in only 6% of divorce applications in Virginia, one of the few states that still uses fault grounds for divorce. . . .

Arizona State University psychologist Sanford Braver provides backup for the

Brinig-Allen study. In his new book, Divorced Dads: Shattering the Myths, Mr.

Braver surveyed 400 divorcing couples seeking causes for the breakdown of

their marriages. He found ‘‘violence or abuse strikingly absent.’’ Instead, less

dramatic factors prevailed, such as ‘‘growing apart’’ or ‘‘spouse not able or willing to meet my needs.’’

. . . In 25% of marriage breakdowns . . . men have ‘‘no clue’’ there is a problem

until the woman tells them they want out. . . . [W]omen are more likely to file

if the divorce rate is high in their area or if their friends and families are doing

it. ‘‘Where the divorce rate is low so there’s a lot of stigma attached,’’. . . ‘‘they

won’t leave. . . .’’

‘‘The rights of women in society have been pushed to such an extent that they

now feel if they’re not happy, it’s their partner’s fault,’’ says marriage researcher Walter Schneider. . . . ‘‘That perception is heightened by the social conditioning of men to be chivalrous. Men have to be protectors of women and children, so they are reluctant to become involved in an adversarial process against

a woman. They’re also less likely to seek divorce because that would destroy

their self-image as providers and protectors of the family. It would destroy their

world; all they’ve sacrificed for would go down the drain.’’

Mr. Schneider points to an Australian study indicating that . . . divorced persons have the highest suicide rate. . . .

But according to Professors Brinig and Allen, [the mother’s] custody of the

children may be the very reason her husband provides so little support. There

are three basic reasons people file for divorce they say: (1) to stop being exploited within the marriage, (2) to exploit the other spouse by running off with

marital investments, or (3) to establish custody over children. They believe that

determining which of the three predominates could assist divorce law reformers.

If divorces result mostly from bad (or exploitive) marriages, the Brinig-Allen

study suggests, then divorce should be made (or kept) easier; if divorces result

mostly from a desire to exploit the partner, then it should be made more difficult or expensive; and if it is custody outcomes which most influence divorce

filings, a presumption of joint custody, except where one parent can demonstrate the other is unfit, would ‘‘mitigate the incentive for one party filing for

the purpose of gaining unilateral control over the children and therefore the

other spouse.’’ After analyzing 21 wide-ranging variables, the Brinig-Allen study concludes

that the person who anticipates gaining custody of the children is the one most

likely to file for divorce. Therefore, Prof. Brinig speculates, if joint custody were

the norm, there would likely be fewer divorces, not more. . . .

In fact, however, divorce rates are plunging in states where courts typically

award custody of children to both parents. A study headed by Richard Kuhn of

the Children’s Rights Council based in Washington, D.C., found that states with

higher levels of joint custody awards in 1989 and 1990 ‘‘have shown significantly greater declines in divorces in the following years through 1995, compared with other states.’’ Overall divorce rates declined nearly four times faster

in high joint-custody states compared with states where joint custody is relatively rare. A large factor, the researchers believe, is that joint custody ‘‘removes the capacity for one spouse to hurt the other by denying participation

in raising the children.’’ 53

Dr. Richard Warshak, among America’s leading experts on father custody, described the history of routine custody arrangements as follows:

‘‘In earlier times it was assumed that men, by nature, are better suited to

protect and provide for children. Since 1920, it has been assumed that women,

by nature, are better suited to love and care for children.

‘‘These assumptions, which so powerfully affect so many children’s lives, are

based on nothing more than folklore and sexual stereotypes. . . . As guidelines

for custody dispositions, folklore, sentiment, and stereotypes are poor substitutes for factual information. In the last two decades, social scientists have

examined different custody arrangements and their effects on children’s development. If this information is ignored, and we continue to allow myth and sentiVerDate 11-MAY-2000 18:14 Nov 08, 2001 Jkt 074742 PO 00000 Frm 00103 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\B742.XXX pfrm04 PsN: B742
100

54Dr. Richard Warshak, The Custody Revolution (1992) ppg. 33–34. 55Serial No. 106–107—H.R. 1488, The ‘‘Hyde-Woolsey’’ Child Support Bill, March 16, 2000. 56 Census Bureau P–60, #173, Sept 1991. p. 6, col.II, para. 6, lines 4 & 5. 57Frank F. Furstenberg, Jr. and Christine Winquist Nord, ‘‘Parenting Apart: Patterns of

Childbearing after Marital Disruption,’’ Journal of Marriage and the Family 47, no. 4 (November

1985): 874, cited in Sylvia Ann Hewlett, When the Bough Breaks (1991) at 286–287. 58While it is possible that the correlation between these two studies may be anecdotal, the

time frame is similar, and can the courts continue to ‘‘flirt with disaster’’ in so many separations

of children from their fathers? 59 Visitational Interference—A National Study, Ms. J Annette Vanini, M.S.W. and Edward

Nichols, M.S.W. (September 1992). 60Frequency of visitation by Divorced Fathers; Differences in Reports by Fathers and Mothers. Sanford Braver et al, Am. J. of Orthopsychiatry, 1991. p. 449, col. II, lines 3–6, (citing Fulton). 61See footnote 50. Family Relations, Vol. 4, No. 3, July 1991 pg. 279, col. 2, 2, lines 15–19. 62Frequency of Visitation by Divorced Fathers: Differences in Reports by Fathers and Mothers—Sanford H. Braver, Ph.D., Sharlene A. Wolchik, Ph.D., Irwin M. Sandler, Ph.D., Bruce S.

Fogas, Ph.D., Daria Zvetina, M.Ed. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry pg. 451, col. 2, 2, lines

11–14.

63Surviving the Breakup, Joan Kelly & Judith Wallerstein, p. 125. 64 Journal of Marriage & the Family, Vol. 51, p. 1015, Seltzer, Shaeffer & Charing, November

1989. 65 ‘‘Unilateral abuse of parental custodial power is more common in court ordered sole custody

situations.’’ Child Custody and Parental Cooperation—Frank Williams, M.D., Dir. Psychiatry—

Cedar-Sinai—Presented to the American Bar Association, Family Law Section, August 1987 and

January 1988 pg. 4, col. 1, 1, lines 17–20. 66The Effect of the Post Divorce Relationship on Paternal Involvement: A Longitudinal Analysis—Constance R. Ahrons, Ph.D., and Richard B. Miller, Ph.D., American Journal of

Orthopsychiatry, Vol. 63, No. 3, July 1993 pg. 442, Col. 1, 1, lines 23–27. 67 ‘‘Most men were dissatisfied with the frequency of visitation.’’ Visitation and the Noncustodial Father—Mary Ann P. Koch, Carol R. Lowery, Journal of Divorce, Vol. 8, No. 2, Winter 1984,

pg. 54, 4 lines 5 also noted was ‘‘70% of fathers felt they had too little time with their children.’’

pg 54, 4, lines 5–7. 68 ‘‘The court’s failure to enforce or expand visitation agreements were a frequently mentioned

complaint’’ Increasing Our Understanding of Fathers Who Have Infrequent Contact With Their

Children—James R. Dudley, Professor, University North Carolina, under a grant from Temple

University, Family Relations, Vol. 4, No. 3, July 1991 pg. 281, col. 2, 2, lines 14–16.

ment to rule custody decisions, we short-change our children and we shortchange ourselves.’’ 54

Excerpt as adapted from US House of Representatives written testimony of Richard Weiss and William Wood.55

Non-compliance with court ordered visitation is three times the problem of

non-compliance with court ordered child support and impacts the children of divorce even more. And the picture gets worse. When mothers are awarded primary or ‘‘sole’’ custody, 37.9% of fathers, end up with no access/visitation

rights.56 And another study found that 42% of fathers fail to see their children

at all after divorce.57 The very narrow difference (∼4% variance) between these

two studies where the COURTS remove the father, and the overall loss of parental contact indicates that the courts themselves are the biggest culprit in

this.58

Non-compliance with court ordered visitation by custodial mothers prevents

77% of non-custodial fathers from being able to ‘‘visit’’ their children.59 40% of

custodial mother SELF–REPORTS indicate they interfered with the father’s visitation to ‘‘punish’’ children’s fathers,60 other fathers ‘‘often experience intense

conflicts with their former spouses, and these conflicts typically interfere with

their on-going parent-child relationships.’’ 61 Another study reported that 25–

33% of them outright DENIED visits (in defiance of an established order) 62

∼50% see no value in the father’s involvement with the child,63 and many use

the children to retaliate against the father for their own ongoing personal problems.64 Sole custodial mothers exert power and control to abuse court orders,

denying fathers visitation,65 and they would also sabotage father’s involvement

in their children’s lives.66 And finally fathers absolutely WANT to be with their

children, or these child-destroying, spiteful acts would be useless 67 without a

‘‘control and power’’ incentive.

The court system does not enforce orders for ‘‘visitation’’ 68 but jails for non-compliance with a ‘‘child’’ support order. This is a clear indication that the whole DIVerDate 11-MAY-2000 18:14 Nov 08, 2001 Jkt 074742 PO 00000 Frm 00104 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\B742.XXX pfrm04 PsN: B742
101

69This is a list of some who benefit or participate, financial or otherwise, in the continued

breakdown of the family, destruction of marriage, or in the increased male acrimony (termed

misandry—male hatred). 70 ‘‘Few men can afford to legally contest every infringement of the visitation agreement.’’ Visitation and the Noncustodial Father—Mary Ann P. Koch, Carol R. Lowery, Journal of Divorce,

Vol. 8, No. 2, Winter 1984—pg. 60, 3, lines 11–12. 71See J. Atkinson, ‘‘Criteria for Deciding Child Custody in the Trial and Appellate Courts,’’

Family Law Quarterly, Vol. XVIII, No 1 (Spring 1984). 72Michael E. Lamb & Abraham Sagi eds., 1983) Studies show that fathers can be ‘‘just as

sensitive and competent in care-giving as mothers’’; William Marsiglio, Fatherhood, Contemporary Theory, Research and Social Policy (William Marsiglio ed., 1995) Men interact differently

with children but their ability to parent is just as effective; Pamela Daniels & Kathy

Weingarten, The Fatherhood Click: The Timing of Parenthood in Men’s Lives, in Fatherhood

Today: Men’s Changing Role in the Family (Phyllis Bronstein & Carolyn Cowen eds., 1988) (‘‘Fatherhood Today’’) Nurturing is not inherent in either a mother or father, but must be learned

and developed by both. 73 ‘‘[A]part from any response to the women’s movement, men are also seeking increased emotional closeness with their infants as part of a men’s movement toward fuller personhood, and

as a reaction against the alienation and burnout of the purely instrumental role of family provider.’’ Michael W. Yogman, James Cooley, and Daniel Kindlon, Fathers, Infants, and Toddlers,

in Fatherhood Today. 74 Hetherington et al., 1982; Kurdek & Berg, 1983; Wallerstein & Kelly, 1980, Warshak &

Santrock, 1983.

VORCE INDUSTRY 69 is about money 70 and children are just the ‘‘poker chips’’ in

this high stakes ‘‘game.’’ Their destruction is just ‘‘collateral damage’’ for the marriage hating special interests pushing their child destroying propaganda.

As the Family Law Quarterly noted as early as 1984, the majority view of the

psychiatric and pediatric profession is that mothers and fathers are equals as parents.71 There is an abundance of studies indicating fathers are equally qualified parents.72 And fathers have been seeking to be involved in family matters for some

time now.73

The legal system uses an indeterminate criteria, pseudo-named a ‘‘standard’’

called the ‘‘best interests of the child standard’’. If the courts were honest in their

use of the ‘‘best interests of the child’’ then so much social science information and

information that ‘‘[t]he primary negative aspect of divorce reported by children in

numerous studies was loss of contact with a parent’’ 74 could not be ignored so easily.

After all, there is a repeated description of ‘‘the dissatisfaction of so many youngsters who felt they were not seeing their fathers often enough. If custody and visiting issues are to be within the realm of the ‘best interest of the child,’ then such

102

75 J. Wallerstein and J. Kelly, Surviving the Breakup, 142–143 (1980). See also, D. Luepnitz,

Child Custody, A Study of Families After Divorce, (1983). 76M. Koch, C. Lowry. Journal of Divorce, Vol. 8, No. 2, Winter 1984. 77 1988 Census ‘‘Child Support and Alimony’’: 1989 Series P–60, No. 173. pages 6–7. 90.2%

of fathers with joint custody pay the child support due. 78 Census Bureau P–60, #173, Sept 1991. p. 6, col. II, para. 6, lines 4 & 5. 79 5 Wm. & Mary J. Women & L. 1 (1998)—HOW JUDGES USE THE PRIMARY CARETAKER STANDARD TO MAKE A CUSTODY DETERMINATION. Page 37. ‘‘Compared with

those [children] raised in intact two-parent families, adults who experienced a parental divorce

had lower psychological well-being, more behavioral problems, less education, lower job status,

a lower standard of living, lower marital satisfaction, a heightened risk of divorce, a heightened

risk of being a single parent, and poorer physical health.’’ (as cited from Paul R. Amato, Lifespan Adjustment of Children to Their Parents’ Divorce, in 4 The Future of Children page 146.

(1994)). 80 As excerpted from the preamble of the U.S. Constitution. This preamble sets these principles forth as the GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR ALL CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION. 81 1988 Census ‘‘Child Support and Alimony’’: 1989 Series P–60, No. 173. pages 6–7. 79.1%

of fathers with visitation privileges pay the child support due. Only 44.5% of fathers with no

visitation pay the child support due. 82Government studies in a number of family issues that were not ‘‘politically correct’’ were stopped in 1993 under the previous administration.

widespread discontent must be taken very seriously.’’ 75 When examining the undisputed child’s viewpoint, cutting through the hysterical feminist propaganda and hyperbole, and looking at the child’s viewpoint, there is only one tenable answer—; the ‘‘best interests of the child’’ dictates something akin to 50–50 shared parenting. ‘‘One clear message from the accumulated divorce research is that children profit

by continued [frequent] exposure to both parents.’’ 76

Unfortunately it is the rule, rather than the exception that trial courts are bound

by the relics of antiquated stereotypes in their dealings with child custody and visitation questions. Especially when there are modern approaches that better serve the

‘‘best interests of the child’’. Courts are ruthlessly efficient in establishing specific standards, guidelines, criteria and rules for dealing with Child Support where the state has a vested interest

in collecting TANF funds provided by the Federal Government. So much so that

there are almost NO reasons that some party cannot be found to PAY. Even in those

cases where there is CLEARLY fraud involved (such as in the case of an unfaithful

spouse who becomes pregnant and deceives the other).

Recommendations:

Make TANF funds contingent upon a statutory presumption of 50–50 shared parenting with the rebuttal to that presumption being a VOLUNTARY reduction by either party, OR a detailed finding of unfitness by one of the parties.77 When mothers

are awarded primary or ‘‘sole’’ custody, 37.9% of fathers, end up with no access/visitation rights.78

Require all, or at least a portion of the TANF funds to be used to promote marriages and father involvement.79 [Federal and State governments have an obligation

of promoting ‘‘a more perfect union . . . establish[ing] justice . . . insur[ing] domestic

tranquility . . . promot[ing] the general welfare . . . secur[ing] the blessings of liberty

to ourselves and our posterity.’’ 80 Anything less is a violation of the INTENT AND

PURPOSE of the U.S. Constitution and is therefore, unconstitutional.]

Tie TANF Funding to enforcement of visitation orders. Courts ROUTINELY imprison for Child support under the GUISE of ‘‘contempt’’ (which could reasonably

be argued as the forbidden ‘‘debtor’s prison’’), yet rarely prosecute for, or enforce visitation except under extreme circumstances.81

Tie TANF fund bonuses, and additional block grants to those states that are successful in reducing divorce, and in promoting stable families. If this is really all

about the children, then a father’s wallet can no longer be a substitute for

his presence. Change the Health and Human Services mission to strengthening

marriages and parental relationships, away from ‘‘divorce industry support.’’ What

greater ‘‘Human Service’’ than promoting children’s Health by supporting marriage

and fighting divorce??

Have the Federal Government begin gathering social studies data once again.82

In spite of the studies listed in this paper, the federal government no longer collects

data on many family issues and only the Census has given any indication of how

bad the situation REALLY is.

Conclusions:

In tying TANF funds to those things that are anathema to the divorce industry

the culture is stabilized, and the repair and restoration of our children can begin.

It also removes the pressure, and the performance measures from the state to knowVerDate 11-MAY-2000 18:14 Nov 08, 2001 Jkt 074742 PO 00000 Frm 00106 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\B742.XXX pfrm04 PsN: B742
103

83 All judicial pensions and retirements are tied to the State’s bonds, funds, and the general

fund. When TANF funds are allowed in the general fund, it supplements and supports the

strength of their retirements and is a strong motivator for potential abuses by some (though

certainly not all) unscrupulous judges.

ingly, or unknowingly, advance anti-family, and anti-father policies. While no ‘‘Family Law’’ judge will admit it, it will also remove any incentive or pressure upon them

to ‘‘maximize’’ child support awards even if it destroys one parent or the family.83

Additional benefits of a 50–50 legal and physical custody presumption (akin to the

Child Support rebuttable presumption), are: (1) Reduces parental incentives to carry

out litigation; (2) Reduces judicial discretion; (3) Creates greater incentive to settle

outside of court; (4) Lowers acrimony and ‘‘back and forth’’ battles; (5) Lowers case

backlogs and judicial burden and thereby maximizes judicial economy; (6) Lowers

some of the incentives to divorce; (7) Reduces some of the struggles that children

must endure by being ‘‘caught in the middle’’; and a whole host of other benefits.

No matter how mighty America may be, and no matter what this country may

believe, there is no nation in recorded history that has long survived the destruction

of its families and culture. There will certainly be those who are opposed to these

recommendations, but careful scrutiny will quickly reveal that they have some vested interest (usually financially) in the continuation of the current family destroying,

and child injuring system.

In the shining light of the evidence, government and judicial policies that

reduce fathers to little more than ‘‘wallets’’ and do not promote involvement as their PRIMARY focus, serve to undermine the Constitution’s purpose of ‘‘a more perfect union . . . establish[ing] justice . . . insur[ing] domestic tranquility . . . promot[ing] the general welfare . . . and secur[ing] the

blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.’’ Fatherlessness studies

can no longer be ignored for the effects it has on our ‘‘posterity.’’ The government and the judiciary MUST change their ‘‘automatic-men-at-fault’’

policies lest our posterity look back upon this and see today’s policies as

an attempt to undermine the Constitution and the country. There is

enough data to suggest that any policy OR PRACTICE by government, or

its agencies, that prevents father involvement, whether by legislation or judicial decree, is promoting child abuse and may violate the intent of the

United States Constitution (noted in the preamble) making it unconstitutional!

Statement of David L. Levy, President, Children

f ’s Rights Council

Our Children’s Rights Council has been involved in proposals to strengthen families since 1985. Our proposals have led to legislative reform (including the first ever

block grants to the states to promote child access/visitation to non-custodial parents), and greater awareness, through 13 CRC conferences, evaluation of data, and

reports, on why, for children, generally, ‘‘The Best Parent is Both Parents.’’ Our

chapters in 32 states, Washington, D.C., Europe, Asia and Africa, have also been

the catalyst for improvements in children’s lives.

In announcing the hearing, Chairman Herger, you said that ‘‘We also will learn

more about current proposals to enhance the role of fathers in their children’s lives.’’

The Children’s Rights Council suggests the following:

(1) A recognition that just as there are ‘‘deadbroke dads,’’ there are also

‘‘deadbolted dads,’’ a term coined by noted author Gail Sheehy in a New

York Times article June 21, 1998.

‘‘The newer reality is the Deadbolted Dad—locked out of his children’s hearts

after divorce ...,’’ said Sheehy, with ‘‘little attention paid to enforcing or honoring

their visitation rights.’’

Some of these parents walk-away from their children, but as Sheehy stated, many

are deadbolted out. Many divorced mothers are deadbolted out, as well.

104

CRC believes that much of this disconnect between children and previously involved married parents occurs within 2 to 3 years after the divorce, just as many

never-married parents disconnect from each other a few years after the birth of the

child.

Remedy: An understanding of what ‘‘deadbolted dads’’ (and moms)

means, coupled with an expansion of federal funds for mediation, counseling and other low-cost programs to promote access of children to their

non-custodial parents.

$10 million a year was provided in the 1996 Welfare Reform Act for access/visitation programs, and because these activities have operated for the past four years,

a total of $40 million has been spent in the states for these access programs. Each

state receives about $185,000 a year, the largest federal program to date to encourage contact between children and non-custodial parents.

And don’t forget that there are nearly 3 million non-custodial mothers, many of

whom (like many dads) are deadbolted out of their children’s lives, unable to make

phone or personal contact, access (visitation) interfered with or denied, the custodial

parent moves far away with the child, a child is given denigrating messages by one

parent against the other parent, etc.

(2) A recognition that the states with the highest amount of shared parenting (including Montana, Kansas and Connecticut) subsequently had the

lowest divorce rate. See data from the National Center for Health Statistics and

the Census Bureau first reported by CRC in the Children’s Rights Council newsletter, ‘‘Speak Out for Children,’’ Vol. 12, No. 4, Fall 1997/Winter 1998 issue, available from CRC; later cited in the Indiana Law Journal, Spring 1998, Vol. 73, No.

2, by Margaret Brinig and F. Buckley, law professors at George Mason University,

Fairfax, Virginia.

Shared parenting (joint physical custody) is defined by researchers as at least 1⁄3

of the time spent between a child and a parent on a year round basis. The knowledge that parents will have to continue to be involved with each other for the sake

of the child is apparently the inducement that enables some parents to avoid divorce

in the years following the liberal awarding of shared parenting in their state.

One of the first acts of President Bush when he became governor of Texas was

to sign a presumptive joint custody law on June 16, 1995 (see Vol. 10, No. 3 of

‘‘Speak Out for Children.’’)

One of the remedies to help reduce the number of divorces and to increase financial child support compliance:

Increase contact between children and their non-custodial moms and dads. Federal government data has shown a correlation between financial and emotional child

support.

(3) A recognition that ‘‘Safe Haven’’ Child Access Centers are helping children and families.

When parents appear before a judge, they sometimes disagree as to whether access (visitation) has taken place or not. So the judge will order the transfer at a

‘‘Safe Haven’’ if one exists, or possibly at a police station if one does not exist. CRC

operates 14 ‘‘Safe Haven’’ Child transfer Centers in 6 states and Washington, D.C.

They are located in church day care centers. At the sites, parents peacefully transfer

their children from one parent to another for the weekend.

Some children are seeing their parents for the first time because of these sites.

Even if CRC does not have a grant to manage a particular site, we do not charge

the parents. We do not believe a parent should have to pay to see his or her child.

A surprising 40 percent of parents who use these sites are women, and about 40

percent are never-married parents. The churches often provide the monitors, but

any grant is supervised by CRC. Supervision of the grant by CRC insulates the

church from direct funding by the government, but the church helps to deliver the

family services. Some sites are developing parent education components.

Remedy: Again, expand the access/visitation block grants to the states to

$40 million a year; also provide funds in the ‘‘Fatherhood’’ bills to provide

services such as these.

Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony.

f

105

Citizens Against Paternity Fraud

Decatur, Georgia 30034–1853

August 10, 2001

Allison Giles, Chief of Staff

Committee on Ways and Means

U.S. House of Representatives

1102 Longworth House Office Bldg.

Washington, DC 20515

Dear Honorable Allison Giles:

I write to you to include our comments in the record for the upcoming ‘‘Hearing

on Child Support and Fatherhood Proposals’’ sponsored by Congressman Wally

Herger (R–CA), Chairman, Subcommittee on Human Resources of the Committee on

Ways and Means.

We specifically would like to address the increasing and confirmed reports of child

support fraud also known as the ‘‘Paternity Fraud Trap’’ in the Title IV–D section

of the Social Security Act as it regards to:

Establishment of paternity—no requirements for accurate establishment.

Contested Paternity—DNA evidence that confirms non-paternity and deception by

mothers is disregarded to extort money, property and assets from non-paternal man

under the color of law.

The current system has virtually no safeguards to restrict access to federal money

incentives to those states that have default judgments, acknowledgement of paternity at hospitals while the man has no legal representation nor proof of paternity

(predatory practice) and falsified paternity affidavits from mothers.

The states that want federal money have met the requirement to obtain large

numbers of established paternity (by any means possible) and the appearance of increased collections (even from parents that were already meeting their obligations

to custodial parents). But most of these states do not provide a means of relief for

‘‘Paternity Fraud Victims’’, and actively jail and extort money from these men after

confirming non-paternity using DNA or blood testing.

We propose that the current system be revised to provide financial incentives to

states that honest and accurate paternity establishments while preventing fraudulent mothers from collecting child support from any non-paternal man father unless

child is result of written agreement for artificial insemination or legal adoption after

notice requirements are met to the biological father. While insuring that constitutional rights of alleged fathers are not violated during the process of establishing

and dis-establishing paternity.

Respectfully yours,

Carnell A. Smith

Founder & Director

TWO STANDARDS EXIST

PROBLEM: WHEN WOMEN ARE VICTIMS OF ASSIGNMENT TO WRONG

CHILD (20/year?)

When mothers are the victims of maternity fraud aka baby switching, does anyone say the real biological mother should just forget about her child and go on her

merry way?

(July 31, 1998, AP Story Charlottesville, VA ‘‘Custody Petition Filed in Switched

Babies Case’’ The problem was not discovered until a paternity test revealed no biological connection to the mother nor the alleged father in a child support case—Exhibit 1). NO, in fact this problem of baby switching/kidnapping has forced the entire Hospital and Birth Industry to change its practices (Feb 23, 1999 CNN/AP

story, Orange, CA ‘‘Baby-Switch Hospital plans electronic security’’, ‘‘The mix-up

was not an isolated incident, but part of a systemwide problem’’ Exhibit 2).

SOLUTION: ACCOUNTIBILITY AND CHANGES WERE MADE—Promptly

In many cases, the guilty parties have been held accountable for their actions—

some have been fired, sued or settled out-of-court and finally the biological mother

is reunited with her biological child.

106

PROBLEM: WHEN MEN ARE VICTIMS OF ASSIGNMENT TO WRONG

CHILD (300,000/yr?)

When men are routinely released from jail/prison that were innocent of rape or

murder using DNA testing, why is justice denied for paternity fraud victims using

DNA?

The national paternity fraud rate of men tested was 28% in 1999 and 30% in 2000

per the annual Parentage testing report from the American Association of Blood

Banks mentioned on CBS News Early Show TV reports on 4/18/2001. This trend is

going the wrong way!

SOLUTION: ACCOUNTIBILITY AND CHANGES WERE MADE—less than

10 states

The Georgia Appellate court (Georgia Department of Human Resources v. Pinter,

241 Ga.App. 10, 525 S.E.2d 715 (Ga.App. 11/18/1999) [Exhibit 3] says, ‘‘it is not

the policy of this state to extort money from men who are not the fathers’’. This

is great in theory but it is not applied in most Georgia courtrooms nor in other

states.

The national media refers to men like Carnell Smith as ‘‘Duped Dads’’ (The complications for ‘‘duped dads’’ By Ellen Goodman, Globe Columnist, 4/29/2001 Exhibit

4), but rarely is anything said about the root cause of paternity fraud (fraudulent

mothers).

According to the Georgia Deputy Director of DHR (Robert Swain), ‘‘30% of the

45,000’’ (May 2, 2001, Creative Loafing Atlanta ‘‘Who’s your daddy? Paternity fraud

foes make their pitch for reform’’ BY GREG LAND—Exhibit 5) Georgia mothers

named the wrong man with ZERO consequences.

We believe that men would ask for a DNA test, if he knew there were other potential fathers. The mother is the only party that knows (100% certainty) of her other

intimate relations near the conception date before saying ‘‘you’re the father’’ to the

alleged father. This is where Fraud begins!

As one of our United States Officials, our National organization looks forward to

your written reply to the following:

What is your official position on including protections against child support fraud

and paternity fraud in HR–6? If against, please state why?

What is your official position on requiring mothers to make full disclosure of all

potential fathers to the alleged father in all divorce and child support cases? This

would limit surprises later by DNA tests. There must be consequences for any concealment of material facts, deliberate or accidental.

What is your official position to require mandatory DNA testing immediately after

birth? This is a pro-active solution that stops the paternity fraud problem, exposes

the truth and restores parity to the paternity establishment process.

The paternity fraud victim finds that it is extremely difficult to prevail against

the child support system that has one goal ‘‘collect maximum dollars’’ regardless of

actual paternity, make him choose between pay or go to jail and NEVER hold the

fraudulent mother responsible for her actions.

Paternity fraud victims, their wives, fiances or girlfriends with the same question ‘‘what can I do?’’ are contacting me with increasing frequency. The victims of this

great nation deserve an answer that our duly elected officials are equally concerned

about protecting our constitutional rights.

What shall we tell the people?

EXHIBIT 1

Custody Petition Filed in Switched Babies Case

By The Associated Press

CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va. (AP)—The maternal grandparents of a 3-year-old girl

who was switched at birth are seeking sole custody in a bid to deny visitation to

the child’s biological mother, relatives say. The custody petition filed in juvenile

court involves Rebecca Grace Chittum, who was taken home from the University of

Virginia Medical Center and raised by Kevin Chittum and Whitney Rogers.

Two of Chittum’s sisters, Roxane Cullen and Pamela Miskovsky, said Wednesday

that the petition was filed this week by Tommy and Linda Rogers, the divorced parents of Ms. Rogers who now help raise Rebecca.

Tests have determined that Rebecca is actually the biological daughter of Paula

Johnson, who gave birth about the same time as Ms. Rogers. Ms. Johnson returned

from the hospital with Callie Conley and raised the infant as her child. DNA testing

has revealed that Callie’s biological parents are Rogers and Chittum. The couple

died in a July 4 car wreck shortly before their families learned of the switch in June

1995.

107

The switch was discovered in blood tests ordered for a child-support case brought

by Ms. Johnson. Since then, the families involved have met, and the two girls have

played together.

Both families have said they want Callie and Rebecca to stay with the families

who raised them, and each suggested liberal visitation rights for both sides. But Ms.

Cullen said in today’s Daily Progress that she believes the Rogerses want sole custody ‘‘to block any visitation with Paula Johnson.’’ She said the relationship among

the families has deteriorated.

Other family members could not be reached for comment by the paper. Police and

state health investigators are investigating how the baby switch happened. The hospital has since added new security measures.

EXHIBIT 2

CNN—Baby-switch hospital plans electronic security—February 23, 1999

Baby-switch hospital plans electronic security

Parents Iliano Bravo and Brian Lambert were given the wrong newborn to take

home on February 14

ORANGE, California (CNN)—A new electronic security system for ensuring that newborn babies are never given to the wrong parents will be installed at a Southern California hospital where two newborn boys were accidentally switched earlier this month.

St. Joseph Hospital announced on Monday that mothers and babies will

wear encoded wrist bands that cannot be removed until a scanner makes

sure they match.

On February 14, new parents Iliana Bravo and Brian Lambert were allowed to

leave the Orange County hospital with the wrong child, while their son Aaron was

given to another mother.

It was the other mother who first noticed the mistake.

The mix-up was not an isolated incident, but part of a systemwide problem, according to hospital president Larry Ainsworth. He said there have been three other

accidental switches in the last year, but the mistakes were straightened out before

the babies left the hospital.

The two nurses responsible for February 14 incident have been fired. The hospital

is under investigation by California medical authorities for the baby switches.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

RELATED STORIES:

Nurse error cited in switched baby case

February 16, 1999

Genetic test confirms half of Virginia baby switch

August 18, 1998

Family authorizes genetic test in baby switching case

August 6, 1998

Families of switched babies seek custody solution

August 4, 1998

Switched babies may stay put

August 4, 1998

Babies switched at birth: On purpose or accident?

July 31, 1998

EXHIBIT 3

Georgia Department of Human Resources v. Pinter, 241 Ga.App. 10, 525 S.E.2d

715 (Ga.App. 11/18/1999)

Georgia Court of Appeals

A99A1600; 241 Ga.App. 10, 525 S.E.2d 715, 1999.GA.0043710

November 18, 1999

G. ALAN BLACKBURN, Presiding Judge, specially Concurring.

I write to point out the absurdity of the present state of the law that requires

a putative father to pay child support after he has scientifically proven that he is

not the biological father. As I stated in Smith v. Department of Human Resources,

226 Ga. App. 491, 493 (487 SE2d 94) (1997), ‘‘the law should not punish a purported father for failing to insist on a paternity test when he has no reason

to believe that he is not the father.’’

Not only has the putative father been cuckolded, the law adds injury to insult by

requiring him to pay child support even after he establishes that he is not the biological father.

108

Once non-paternity is scientifically established, courts cannot ignore such fact by

relying on policies developed when no such proof was possible. To create a fiction

in this matter does not make the male the biological father of the child; it simply

makes him the victim of the law. It also makes an ass of the law.

While the courts may preach their false policy, they lose the respect of any citizen

with common sense. The legislature should address this issue.

EXHIBIT 4

The complications for ‘duped dads’

By Ellen Goodman, Globe Columnist, 4/29/2001

IF HE WERE in jail for mass murder, he would have been sprung by now. After

all, the DNA evidence proved that he was the wrong man.

So how come a man who has been proven scientifically not to be the biological

father must go on paying child support? How come the same DNA test that can

force one man into paternal obligation can’t automatically free another?

This week, a Massachusetts man joined a fraternity that now has members as far

flung as Florida and Texas, Georgia and Ohio. They are known in the media lingo

as duped dads.

These are men who discovered that the children they believed were their biological offspring were not. And then they discovered that in some courts, DNA is not

necessarily destiny. There is really little new about duped dads. Throughout literary

history, the man tricked into raising another’s child was a stock figure of cuckolded

buffoonery. But in the eyes of the law, the husband in any marriage was legally

the father.

Now biological certainty intrudes into legal precedent and new scientific tests

produce new legal tests. In the fallout of divorce and child support, courts are being

asked to decide what’s fair for men and what’s best for children. And they are also

being asked what exactly makes a man a father.

Life, it turns out, is nowhere nearly as clear-cut as biology. In the Massachusetts

case, the unwed father had passed up the chance for a DNA test. He signed on the

dotted paternity line when Cheryl was born. Over many years and despite many

suspicions—rumors and infertility problems in a later marriage—he was called

‘‘daddy’’ and acted as one. His parents were her grandparents, and twice he sought

more rights to visitation. In short, as the court noted, ‘‘Cheryl grew to know and

to rely on him as her father, and he enjoyed her love and companionship.’’ Only

after the mother asked for more money did he take the DNA test and head to court.

But the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decided that he was too late to

resign from fatherhood as if it were genehood. ‘‘No judgment can force him to continue to nurture his relationship with Cheryl,’’ acknowledged the justices in a unanimous decision, ‘‘or to protect her from whatever assumptions she may have about

her father. But we can protect her financial security and other legal rights.’’

This ‘‘victory’’ for the child is cast as a defeat for the man. The duped dads lawsuits are, after all, brought into courtrooms under the flag of men’s rights. They are

testing men’s rights to cut their fatherhood ties and responsibilities.

As men cry fraud, several states have either passed or are considering laws that

would automatically end a man’s child support obligation. A South Dakota court

ruled that a deceived man should be reimbursed by the woman.

EXHIBIT 5

Creative Loafing Atlanta / NEWS / WHO’S YOUR DADDY?

NEWS / FEATURE

Who’s your daddy?

Paternity fraud foes make their pitch for reform

BY GREG LAND

An ancient Chinese parable recounts the tale of Hakuin, a Zen master who was

presented with a child by a young village woman who claimed he was the father.

‘‘Is that so?’’ replied Hakuin who, saying no more, took the infant and cared for it.

One year later, the child’s mother confessed that the father was, in fact, a young

fisherman. When her abashed parents went to Hakuin’s house to reclaim the child

and apologize, the monk’s response was, again, ‘‘Is that so?’’

Zen tales are wont to conclude with, ‘‘and he (or she) was enlightened.’’

A bit of high-tech enlightenment for an age-old dilemma was on the minds of

those at a hearing last week on legislation targeting ‘‘paternity fraud.’’ The hearing

offered several local men—and women—the opportunity to rail against a system

which frequently forces men to pay for the upkeep of children they may not have

109

fathered, and whom are often barred from even seeking a DNA test to answer that

very question. ‘‘The judge refused to allow me to have DNA testing done at all,’’ says Buddy Everhart, a software consultant who currently pays $2,500 in monthly child-support

for five children. ‘‘Even though my ex-wife and her boyfriend admitted on the stand

that two of those children may not be mine, the court said, ‘You will pay.’ ’’ The issue is even thornier for men who think they’ve fathered out-of-wedlock children and agree to pay support, only to find out later that another man is actually

the father. Carnell Smith, director of Citizens Against Paternity Fraud, says some

women actively decide whom to name as father on the basis of income. ‘‘So then,’’ says Smith, ‘‘the question becomes, ‘How did [she] pick me?’ ’’ Such a

deception, says Smith, ‘‘is the very definition of fraud.’’ Earlier this year, Rep. Stan Watson, D–Decatur, sponsored a bill that would allow

presumed fathers to seek legal permission to conduct DNA testing to determine actual paternity. Under the bill, if such tests proved that someone else fathered the

child, the presumed father would be able to stop paying further support, and might

also be let off the hook for lapsed or unpaid support. (Watson’s bill does not include

provisions forcing restitution of previously paid support, but he does plan to introduce companion legislation mandating penalties for women who knowingly

misidentify their children’s fathers.)

It would also remove the courtroom stumbling block that Everhart tripped over;

under current law, any of several actions—signing a birth certificate as the ‘‘father,’’ acknowledging paternity in child-support affidavit, marrying a woman to whom one

has been paying child support, and so forth—provide a ‘‘strong presumption of legitimacy’’ that even direct evidence may not overturn.

The number of people affected by paternity fraud is potentially enormous. CAPF’s Smith points to figures provided by a company that performs DNA screening for the

Georgia Child Support Enforcement Administration showing that, of 9,650 paternity

screenings performed last year, 2,919 men—30.2 percent—had been erroneously

identified as the father. ‘‘We use DNA to convict or free criminal suspects all the time,’’ he says. ‘‘Why not

free these men from paying for children that aren’t theirs?’’ The Georgia Department of Human Resources, which oversees child-support enforcement efforts, seems to agree. DHR Deputy Director Robert Swain says studies

confirm that, of the 35,000-to-40,000 unwed Georgia mothers who fill out affidavits

of paternity each year do, about 30 percent name the wrong man as father. Swain

sees Watson’s bill as a potential tool in helping ensure that children are properly

supported. ‘‘The bill, although not perfect, is not one we’ll complain about,’’ says Swain.

Even so, while the legislation easily passed the House, its progress halted when

it got to the Senate.

There, Sen. Charles Tanksley, R–Marietta, chairman of the Special Judiciary

Committee, found himself troubled by a couple of points. ‘‘My concern was that it

virtually did away with any kind of closure on this sort of issue. . . . It allowed a

challenge at any time, regardless of whatever other agreements might have taken

place prior to that. The bill that the House sent over had no limitation period at

all.’’

Tanksley notes that Texas, for instance, has a statute which allows one year for

a challenge to a paternity claim. Under the Watson bill, Tanksley says, ‘‘one could

decide—for any number of reasons, many years later—to go back and retroactively

undo whatever had been done in the past, whether in good faith or bad faith.’’

He also thinks the law should include provisions for men who may have knowingly shouldered a parental responsibility in the past, but later decide to rescind

that commitment.

A decision by Massachusetts’ Supreme Court last week illustrates just how such

limitations may impact future paternity suits. When a man had his 5-year-old

daughter DNA tested and found that he was not the father, a lower court said he

could stop making payments. But the state’s high court reversed, ruling that he’d

waited too long to challenge paternity.

Tanksley has appointed a subcommittee to study and recommend some changes

to the legislation, but Watson is adamantly opposed to any further limitation.

‘‘Under state law, we have to take care of a child until the child is 18; [Tanksley]

wants to go in and put a limitation on the time that can pass before you can go

in and get a DNA test. That’s not fair.’’

For Vickie McLennan, a lobbyist for several Georgia affiliates of the National Organization for Women, paternity fraud is an important issue but, she says, Watson’s

bill needs to be carefully studied. ‘‘I understand how somebody who might’ve gotten

stuck with support [payments] by some girl who slept with three guys a night then

110

said, ‘Oh, this one’s making good money. I’ll make him the daddy,’ would be angry,

and would want action taken. I would,’’ she says. ‘‘But this is an elephant gun to

deal with a very narrow issue. It does need to have a deliberative process.’’

Maybe so. But the folks who cheered Smith’s description of current law as ‘‘involuntary servitude’’ that tosses men into ‘‘debtor’s prison’’ begrudge every day they’re

asked to wait. In fact, the only light note during last week’s hearing was struck

when Rep. Henrietta Turnquest, D–Decatur, popped in to express her support. As

she left, she wagged a finger at the assemblage.

‘‘You single men out there, you know what you need to do,’’ she said. ‘‘You do

right, now.’’

And the mood—for a moment—

fwas enlightened.

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SANTA BARBARA

Santa Barbara, California 93106–9210

June 27, 2001

Congressman Wally Herger

Chairman, Subcommittee on Human Resources

Committee on Ways and Means

United States Congress

Rayburn House Office Building, Room B317

Washington, D.C. 20515

Re: Hearing on Child Support and Fatherhood Proposals

June 28, 2001

Dear Congressman Herger:

I appreciate the opportunity to submit this letter for the Hearing record.

I strongly support the President in his efforts to enhance the role of non-custodial

fathers in the lives of their children. There is a growing body of scientific evidence

that the lives of children are much improved when they are raised by their fathers

as well as their mothers. My own research demonstrates that a father’s presence

in the home significantly reduces the prospects that his son will be charged with

a crime between the ages of 14 and 22. There are various proposals to enhance contact between fathers and children, and I hope that your committee will lead the

way.

Among the major benefits that follow from continued contact between a father

and his children is the payment of child support. There is also evidence that fathers

who frequently see their children are more likely to make these payments, while

those who have little contact with them often neglect these responsibilities. Data indicate that among fathers who do not see their children at all, only 16.2 percent

pay any child support, while among fathers who see their children more frequently

than several times a year, 64.2 percent make these payments. [Judith A. Seltzer,

‘‘Relationships Between Fathers and Children Who Live Apart,’’ Journal of Marriage and the Family, Vol. 53, February 1991, p. 86.]

The problems of child support collection and continued contact between father and

children are not separate issues but rather two sides of the same one. For this reason, I commend your efforts to deal with these matters in a coordinated fashion.

I am submitting this statement on my own behalf, and not for any client or organization. Furthermore, my views do not necessarily reflect those of the University

of California.

Sincerely,

William S. Comanor

f Professor of Economics

111

1Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia, Texas, South Carolina, Connecticut, Ohio, Maryland, Colorado, Iowa, and Louisiana. 2 ‘‘State Launches New Program Improve Paternity Establishment’’: Detroit Free Press, 2/14/

01.3Michigan Department of Community Health, 1999.

4 Annual Report Summary 1999: American Association of Blood Banks, www.aabb.org; ‘‘Who

is daddy and Who is Not,’’ 2/25/00: Men’s Health Network, ‘‘http://

www.menshealthnetwork.org’’> www.menshealthnetwork.org. 5Michigan Compiled Laws: MCL 333.2824, MCL 722.714, MCL 722.1004, MCL 722.722, and

MCL 750.218. 6Michigan Senate Bill 757 enacted into law 10/2000 with bond amendment from 100% to 25%

of arrearage owing. 7 U.S. Constitution, Amendment VIII.

8Michigan Compiled Laws: MCL 552.15.

9 ‘‘Failed visitation policy harms kids,’’ The Detroit News 6/24/01; USHHS, OCSE, 9/14/00,

PIQ–00–03. 10 U.S. Department of Health & Human Resources, Office of Child Support Enforcement.

DADS of Michigan, P.A.C.

Southfield, Michigan 48034

June 27, 2001

Allison Giles

Chief of Staff

U.S. House of Representatives

Committee on Ways and Means

1102 Longworth House Office Building

Washington, DC 20515

As often is the case, unintended adverse results occur from well-intended legislation. Such were State reactions to the 1996 Welfare Reforms including the infamous

‘‘Bradley Amendment.’’ With regard to the specific reform objectives: (2) increase the

percentage of non-custodial parents identified, and (3) implement more techniques

to obtain support collections from non-custodial parents, it would appear State reactions have been collectively successful.

However, while several states 1 have heeded the available data and research by

implementing very effective, just legislative statutes and agency programs, unfortunately many other states including Michigan deliberately continue with unjust,

failed, and flawed legislative statutes, agency policies, and practices.

Specifically, the 1996 welfare reforms have encouraged Michigan (and other

states) to introduce statutes, policies, and procedures 2 to increase voluntary paternity establishment of unmarried births at state agencies and hospitals. As a result,

few unmarried fathers are adequately apprised of their rights to paternity testing

and/or traditionally feel uncomfortable with challenging the paternity allegations of

the mother. One third of all births in Michigan are to unmarried mothers.3 However, recent data demonstrates that nearly a third of all paternity tests EXCLUDE

the alleged father.4 Additional research indicates that at least 10% of marital births

EXCLUDE the husband.4 Yet, Michigan’s legislative statutes, agency policies, and

practices continue to omit mandatory paternity establishment of child support

claims resulting in thousands of innocent victims of Extrinsic Paternity Fraud.

Further, by facilitating the completion of documents fraudulently identifying the alleged paternity of man without appropriate verification, the State inadvertently acts

as a coconspirator to a felony in nearly one fourth of all child support cases and,

along with the mother, is also guilty of a misdemeanor.5

The 1996 Welfare Reforms (via incentives) have also encouraged Michigan (and

other states) to infringe upon and violate constitutionally protected rights in an effort to increase child support collections from non-custodial parents. The Michigan

Legislature continues to attempt legislation 6 that results in violations of the U.S.

Constitution.7 Michigan State Courts routinely use state statutes 8 to automatically

terminate a parent’s (typically the father) constitutionally protected right to the

care, custody, and nurturing of his/her children simply because of a no-fault divorce

filing; primarily in order to establish maximum child support for the custodial parent. Michigan state child support enforcement and state court administration officials decline new innovative approaches in use by other states to reduce child support arrearages in favor of only increased punitive measures.9 Michigan’s total child

support arrearage exceeds $6.3 Billion with the national state average at $1.4 Billion.10

112

11Michigan State Court Administrative Office: Invitation to Bid—Review of Child Support

Guideline 3/2001. 12 ‘‘Cost Shares Child Support Guideline: A working, superior alternative to current guidelines,’’ R. Mark Rogers Economic Consulting, CRC conference May 5, 2001. 13PICSLT Initial Review of Michigan Child Support Law, 2/15/00: ‘‘http:// ’’>www.geocities.com/capitolhill/5910/index.html; Child Support Conflict of Interest & Overassessment: ‘‘http://www.acfc.org/legallcitations.htm#support’’>www.acfc.org/

legallcitations.htm#support. 14 U.S. Census Bureau, Child Support for Custodial Mothers and Fathers: 1997 (P60–212). 15Divorce and Fatherhood Statistics Summary, ‘‘http://www.deltabravo.net/custody/

stats.htm’’>www.deltabravo.net/custody/stats.htm. 16 ‘‘Sheriff targets Deadbeat Dads’’. . . for mother’s day crackdown, The Detroit News 5/11/01;

‘‘Strained Agencies fail Michigan Children’’, The Detroit News 5/20/01. 17See Special Report dated 6/08/01 attached. 18 USHHS, OCSE, 9/14/00, PIQ–00–03. 19 ‘‘http://www.dadsofmichigan.org/’’>www.dadsofmichigan.org.

Finally, the 1996 Welfare Reforms (via incentives) have served to discourage

Michigan State Court Administration officials to use the federally mandated and

heavily subsidized quadrennial Child Support Formula Guideline review 11 to thoroughly evaluate its use of the ‘‘Income Shares’’ base model in use now for fifteen

years. Newer base models (e.g. Cost Shares 12) are now available which eliminate

the flaws, inequities, and over-assessments of the current model 13 in use while providing greater compliance with the federal mandates. Additionally, Michigan State

officials appear to not yet fully embrace the concept of responsible fatherhood education and job programs as significant contributors to increasing child support compliance and father involvement in their child’s life while reducing child support arrearages 14, along with many other societal maladies.15 Sadly, efforts continue to fix

blame to either ‘‘deadbeat’’ fathers 16 or Michigan’s Friend of the Court agency. We

feel there are many in Michigan (and Washington) who must also share the blame

for our child support failures.17

Recommendations:

It is hereby recommended that federal legislation such as H.R. 1488 or other appropriate welfare reforms be adopted and include provisions for:

• ensuring equal protection of Constitutional rights for both parents;

• mandatory paternity establishment for child support claims;

• enforcing parenting time (visitation) compliance equally as child support payment compliance;

• encouraging innovative, non-punitive techniques for reducing child support arrearages; 18

• requiring states to completely and thoroughly review Child Support Guideline

base models every four years;

• promoting faith and community-based responsible fatherhood and job programs.

DADS OF MICHIGAN 19 and DADS OF MICHIGAN PAC are responsible fatherhood advocacy organizations dedicated to keeping both biological parents actively engaged in the lives of their children despite divorce and custody, in most

cases. DADS OF MICHIGAN is the developer of the Dads Toolbox Series  of responsible fatherhood education for teenage, divorced, and unmarried fathers.

Respectfully submitted,

James Semerad

PAC Chairman

[Attachments are being retained in the Committee files.]

fLos Angeles, California 90036

July 6, 2001

Allison Giles, Chief of Staff

Committee on Ways and Means

House of Representatives

1102 Longworth House Office Building

Washington, DC 20515

CHILD CUSTODY

If the committee is truly interested in promoting responsible fatherhood, it should

not allow state courts to systematically strip fathers and their children of access to

113

one another. ‘‘Judicial discretion’’ in determining ‘‘the best interests of the child’’ is

consistently resulting in the exclusion of fathers from children’s lives.

DENY STATES FEDERAL TANF FUNDS UNLESS THEY PASS LEGISLATION

REQUIRING A PRESUMPTION OF EQUAL JOINT PHYSICAL CUSTODY OF

CHILDREN FOR BOTH DIVORCED AND NEVER-MARRIED PARENTS.

CHILD SUPPORT

The Family Support Act of 1988 required states to implement child support guidelines. Unfortunately, these guidelines have resulted in arbitrary and grossly excessive child support awards, far in excess of the actual costs of raising children. Most

child support is actually long-term alimony for the custodial parent. States are

using child support guidelines to micro-manage families by redistributing income on

a massive scale.

DENY STATES FEDERAL TANF FUNDS UNLESS THEY BASE CHILD SUPPORT AWARDS ON THE ACTUAL MARGINAL COSTS OF RAISING CHILDREN,

BASED ON PEER-REVIEWED, SCIENTIFIC STUDIES.

Respectfully submitted,

fRichard M. Green, M.D.

San Ramon, California 94583

July 8, 2001

Allison Giles

Chief of Staff

Committee on Ways and Means

U.S. House of Representatives

1102 Longworth House Office Building

Washington, D.C. 20515

Attn: Hearing Clerk

Dear Ms. Giles:

RE: family law, fatherhood and child support

My comments are the result of experience within the family law system, knowledge of other men’s experiences, and a recent reading of the California Judicial

Council’s Child Support Guideline Review for 2000.

I’d like to briefly discuss several issues. They include:

1. child support guideline levels

2. custodial parent move away cases

3. provisions for enforcement of visitation

4. false allegations of physical and sexual abuse

5. the ‘‘best interests of the child’’ principle

6. the punitive way men are dealt with by states—courtesy of the federal government

Child support guidelines are too high—the California averages are 23% of aftertax

income for 1 child (36/45% for 2 and 3 respectively)! My daughter’s mother moved

to Vancouver, B.C., against my wishes. However, because British Columbia’s support levels are so much more reasonable, I pay slightly over half what I would pay

if my child support was set by the California guideline.

Related to this are the increasing use of default judgments and the cavalier, assembly line attitude that prevails among some enforcement agencies. Errors get

made, and they aren’t so easy to correct. I hear stories frequently of men who have

incorrectly been identified as fathers and ordered to pay retroactive child support.

I’ve even heard of a case where a man was in jail when a default judgment was

entered incorrectly (he wasn’t the father). Because his pay is now being garnished

he doesn’t have enough money left to hire an attorney to remedy the situation!

It is outrageous to allow custodial parents (CP) to move away from the area where

they lived at the time of divorce/separation. This severs the bonds between fathers

and children and courts need to recognize that the bonds are fragile after a physical

separation takes place. Any more separation than is necessary is damaging to the

relationship.

Courts need to stop piously proclaiming ‘‘it takes two parents to raise a child’’

when it’s time to award child support and look the other way later when disputes

around visitation crop up. The reality is that once one parent is awarded custody

114

of the child, and the non-custodial parent (NCP) moves out, the NCP’s relationship

changes drastically for the worse. I have one child who lives apart from me and one

who lives with me so I speak from experience. It’s disingenuous to maintain otherwise and order men to pay a majority of a child’s support and upkeep, but fail to

vigorously enforce their visitation rights. Has anyone ever heard of a woman being

prosecuted for obstructing visitation or alienating the children from their father? I

certainly can’t remember such a case.

The subject of false allegations of physical or sexual abuse is similar. This area

is known to be the atomic bomb of divorce and custody battles. The person who alleges it knows that even if the charge is shown to be false, so much damage usually

occurs that a man’s relationship with his children is permanently harmed. And, like

visitation disputes, I can’t remember ever hearing about a woman being prosecuted

for this either. Evidently another case of possession, or, similarly, custody, being

nine tenths of the law.

The concept of best interests of the child borders on best interests of the mother

much of the time. The status quo power possessed by the CP is mighty strong and,

as one lawyer here in the Bay Area puts it on his radio show, ‘‘a woman has to

be a crack addict and a hooker to lose custody in CA.’’ If this perception is close

to accurate, what does this say about mens’ prospects in court and hopes for justice

when disputes crop up? If this message is imparted to men, and appears to be true,

who could blame a guy for being despondent about prospects about having a relationship with his kids? Why is it that the child’s interests are given paramount importance when there are three parties involved? Why shouldn’t the state be concerned about all three? The real problem is that in elevating the child, the custodial

parent’s (usually the mother’s) status usually gets elevated inadvertently too. These

statutes should be rewritten to include assurances of equity to all parties involved

when courts are choosing between options as long as the best interests of the child

are not significantly affected.

Recently it seems that two policies from 10 to 15 years ago are being revisited:

mandatory minimum criminal sentencing guidelines and zero tolerance policies in

schools for drugs and violence. It seems that dealing with complicated issues in a

mechanical way results in unfair and perverse outcomes. I would like to suggest

that the federalization of family law issues and the vilification of fathers belong in

the same category. It became (or maybe still is) fashionable to denounce and advocate harsher penalties for ‘‘deadbeat dads.’’ However, the truth is a bit more complicated. Research has shown that fathers with joint custody pay child support at

close to 100%. It has also shown that large numbers of custodial mothers admit to

actively impeding the father’s access to their children. Many of the cases where children no longer see their father are the result of a campaign of alienation where the

father just gives up rather than continue to fight. It shouldn’t be surprising that

in some cases like this, men stop paying child support too. Other ‘‘deadbeat’’ dads

are either unemployed, incarcerated, or broke. Research is beginning to reveal these

facts—the California Judicial Council’s report mentions them. It’s time to stop vilifying fathers and repeal the punitive federal laws that forced states to practically

criminalize fatherhood via inflexible and unrealistic child support guidelines. At the

same time, it would be beneficial for society to debate the best way to encourage

men to stay involved with their children. In my opinion, a necessary first step

should be to make the system truly fair to all parties involved.

Sincerely,

f Jim Hemenway

Statement of Jacqueline K. Payne, Policy Attorney, and Martha Davis,

Legal Director, NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, New York, New

York

NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund (‘‘NOW Legal Defense’’) appreciates the

opportunity to submit this testimony on child support reforms and fatherhood initiatives, especially as they pertain to low-income families. We stand firm in our belief

that there is an important federal role for providing support for parents and families, especially those living in poverty.

NOW Legal Defense is a leading national not-for-profit civil rights organization

with a 30-year history of advocating for women’s rights and promoting gender equality. Among NOW Legal Defense’s major goals is securing economic justice for

women. Throughout our history, we have used the power of the law to advocate for

the rights of poor women, focusing on increased access to childcare, reduction of doVerDate 11-MAY-2000 18:14 Nov 08, 2001 Jkt 074742 PO 00000 Frm 00118 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\B742.XXX pfrm04 PsN: B742
115

mestic violence and sexual assault, and employment and reproductive rights. In pursuit of gender equality, we have steadfastly advocated for social and legal change

to support fathers increased participation in the lives of their families.

Five bills pending in Congress include some combination of child support reforms

and fatherhood initiatives: the Child Support Distribution Act of 2001 (H.R. 1471),

The Child Support Act of 2001 (S. 918) the Responsible Fatherhood Act (S. 653, H.R.

1300), and the Strengthening Working Families Act (S. 685). NOW Legal Defense

heartily supports the child support reforms contained in H.R. 1471, S. 918, and S.

685, which will help low income families provide for their children’s basic needs,

help families move out of poverty, and remove draconian policies that penalize low

income men and their families.

NOW Legal Defense shares Congress’s interest in supporting fathers. We applaud

Congress’s interest in addressing the barriers to low income men’s economic self sufficiency, and back programs designed to provide supports to low income individuals

so that they may escape poverty. Moreover, we encourage and support Congress’s articulated interest in encouraging men to fully participate as parents, and hope

that this heralds a shift towards paid parental leave, as well as other meaningful

legal and policy changes that would make it possible for men and women across all

income levels to fully share parenting without suffering social or economic penalties.

Despite these shared goals, NOW Legal Defense cannot support the pending fatherhood initiatives as they are currently drafted. While these proposals are laudable in their goals, they ignore or misperceive the underlying causes of poverty and

fail to adequately deal with issues such as domestic violence and gender inequality.

Moreover, the bills’ emphasis on marriage suggests a disturbing willingness to

transgress the privacy rights of low income individuals.

Child Support Reforms are Needed

Genuine reform of the child support and welfare laws is overdue. For many years

these laws have been overly punitive to poor, non-custodial fathers without providing assistance to the custodial mothers and their families. Child support should

be first and foremost about securing support for children from their non-custodial

parent. However, the current system does far too little to help these children. Instead, all of the support paid by non-custodial parents whose children receive public

assistance, and much of the support paid by non-custodial parents whose families

ever needed assistance, goes to the state. The ‘‘child support’’ system under Title

IV–D is a state recovery system that penalizes poor fathers and fails to help their

children. Men earning marginal wages, whether absent or present in the family, will

not be able to provide enough support for their children to lift them out of poverty.

Under the current child support system, children whose families are on welfare

receive no additional money even when child support payments are made. This reflects a change in Federal law, which had previously required states to pay families

the first $50.00 of child support and disregard it in determining the welfare payment. Moreover, children whose families were ever on welfare often find they cannot

receive the support owed them because the state insists on being reimbursed for

past welfare assistance before the family can receive their support payments. The

present child support system, therefore, does very little to help poor children or increase the economic self-sufficiency of their families.

It is critical that child support be reformed to: (1) ensure appropriate levels of obligation for non-custodial fathers; (2) ensure that families on welfare receive the

money paid by the fathers (both to encourage payment by fathers and to ensure

some improvement in economic conditions for the children by virtue of the child support payment); (3) disregard any child support payments passed through to the family receiving benefits; (4) and ensure that families that have transitioned off welfare

receive all child support they are owed before the state reimburses itself for past

assistance.

The Child Support Distribution Act (H.R. 1471) includes important child support

reforms. The bill requires states to pay former recipients any current support owed,

as well as any arrearages not assigned to the state. The bill also offers financial

incentive to states to pay state-owed arrearages to the custodial parent; pass

through child support to families currently receiving benefits; and disregard the

amount of child support received by a family when determining that family’s TANF

grant amount. Unfortunately, these provisions would not become effective until

2006. NOW Legal Defense urges Congress to make those reforms mandatory, rather

than at the state’s option, and to remove the delay in implementation to hasten the

benefit to low income children.

The bill also includes a modification to the rule requiring assignment of support

rights as a condition of receiving TANF. The amendment clarifies that applicants

are only required to assign that support which accrues during the period that the

116

1See Tolman, R.M. & Raphael, J., Univ. of Mich. & Center for Impact Research, A Review

of Research on Welfare and Domestic Violence, Journal of Social Issues, 56(4) 655–682 (2000), ‘‘Prevalence’’ sec. 2 Id at ‘‘Child Support’’ sec.; Eleanor Lyon, National Resource Center on Domestic Violence,

Welfare, Poverty, and Abused Women: New Research and its Implications 10 (Oct. 2000). 3Lyon, supra note 2. 4Tolman & Raphael, supra note 1, at ‘‘Child Support’’ sec. 5See American Psychological Association, Violence and the Family: Report of the American

Psychological Association Presidential Taskforce on Violence and the Family, 40 (1996). 6See id. 7See D.G. Saunders, Child Custody Decisions is Families Experiencing Women Abuse, 39 Soc.

Work 391, 51–59 (1994).

family receives assistance under the program. While NOW Legal Defense heartily

supports that change, we believe Congress should remove the requirement altogether. Most TANF recipients will want to pursue child support enforcement once

states modify their laws so that child support will directly benefit the children. Forcing a low income woman to establish paternity and cooperate with child support enforcement in exchange for subsistence benefits infringes upon her privacy rights and

her judgment about what is best for her family. In many cases, it will also threaten

family safety.

Study after study shows that up to 60% of women on welfare have been victims

of intimate violence during their adult lives, and up to 30% have experienced domestic violence within the last year.1 Despite these statistics, studies indicate that only

about 7% of women on welfare seek good cause waivers from child support requirements 2 and many of those waivers are not successful.3 This is due to a combination

of factors, including lack of information and training for caseworkers, lack of information for recipients, and distrust of untrained workers. Many survivors on public

assistance appear to want to enforce child support 4 but doing so can open up a can

of worms. Studies show that abuse often escalates when survivors seek child support enforcement. Moreover, child support proceedings open up the issue of visitation and custody and provide the abuser access to mother and child. According to

a 1996 report by the American Psychological Association, custody and visitation disputes are more frequent when there is a history of domestic violence.5 Perpetrators

of domestic violence are more than twice as likely as other fathers to fight for custody of their children.6 When batterers seek custody, they win more often than not.7

The risks attendant on pursuing child support in an abusive relationship coupled

with the lack of effectiveness of good cause waivers in this area create powerful arguments that child support cooperation should not be required of all recipients.

Fatherhood Legislation

The marriage-based fatherhood legislation pending in Congress (S. 653, S. 685,

H.R. 1300, H.R. 1471) was conceived of as the next step in welfare reform—the promotion of married fatherhood as the solution to out of wedlock births and singleparent families.

This approach is problematic for several reasons: (1) it fails to identify and attack

the true cause of poverty in America; (2) it unrealistically assumes marriage is the

solution for everyone and, by requiring programs to promote marriage, economically

coerces low income individuals to trade their constitutional right to privacy in exchange for services; and (3) fails to appropriately deal with the high rate of domestic

violence among poor women and the danger forced reunification has for these

women and their children.

1. Making Fathers More Self-Sufficient, While Laudable, is Not the Answer

to Poverty in America

Poor education, lack of opportunity, racism, high rates of incarceration and other

poverty inducing factors affect men as well as women, crippling men’s ability to rise

much above the poverty level and contributing to the economic devastation of entire

communities. Congress should support programs that address these obstacles and

offer supportive services to empower all men and women to realize economic security. In doing so, however, Congress must not perceive father’s economic security as

the answer to women and children’s poverty.

The fatherhood legislation proposes using TANF money to provide grants to programs to help low income fathers and their families avoid or leave cash welfare and

improve their economic status by providing such activities as work first services, job

search, job training, subsidized employment, career-advancing education, job retention, job enhancement, and other methods. While in general two incomes are better

than one, and thus more likely to move people off welfare, Congress should use

TANF dollars to address the reasons why women and their children still make up

117

8 United States Census Bureau, Current Population Reports, Series No. p60–210, Poverty in

the United States: 1999 (2000), available at ‘‘http://www.census.gov/pord/2000pubs/p60–210.pdf. 9See Statement on Equal Pay, Submitted to the Senate Comm. on Health, Education, Labor,

and Pensions, June 22, 2000 (statement of Irasema Garza, Director of Women’s Bureau, U.S.

Dep’t of Labor) [hereinafter Statement on Equal Pay]. According to the TANF Report to Congress 2000, 59% of low-income single mothers with kids under the age of 18 are employed. 10 National Committee on Pay Equity, The Wage Gap: 1999, available at http://

www.feminist.com/fairpay/flwagegap.htm. 11Statement on Equal Pay, supra note 9, at vi. 12See id. 13See United States Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (206–207), Poverty in the

United States (1998). 14See Arloc Sherman, Children’s Defense Fund, Poverty Matters: The Cost of Child Poverty

in America, 1 (1997). 15Gwendolyn Mink, Welfare’s End 38–39 (Cornell Univ. Press 1998). 16See Institute for Women’s Policy Research, Working First But Working Poor: The Need for

Education and Training Following Welfare Reform, ch. 7 (to be released Sept. 3, 2001) (report

to the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund). 17See Wendell Primus, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, What Do We Know About Welfare Reform?, Coalition on Human Needs Briefing, Apr. 26, 2000.

the vast majority of people living in poverty and on welfare—despite sharing common experiences with their male counterparts.8 Factors such as lack of useful education and training, discrimination in the labor market, primary care giving responsibility without attendant employment protections, the lack of quality, affordable,

accessible childcare, and domestic violence keep women from being economically self

sufficient and reduce chances for all families’ to escape poverty. Moreover—due to

death, domestic violence, divorce, and job instability—focusing on fatherhood and

marriage will not assure women and children’s economic security.

In America today, the vast majority of women with young children work outside

the home.9 Despite their efforts, the families of waged-working women are punished

by gender discrimination in the workforce. The gender wage gap persists: Unequal

pay means that white women make 71.5 cents for every white man’s dollar. This

impact is even greater on African American women who make 65 cents on that dollar, and even more so for Latinas, who make only 52 cents.10 As a result, women

of color are disproportionately poor.11 In addition, jobs that are held predominately

by women consistently pay less than jobs that are held predominately by men.12

Furthermore, even where both parents are present, women are still overwhelmingly expected to act as the primary care giver—for children, other family members,

and the home. The combination of women’s role as primary caregiver (work for

which they are not paid) and their relative economic disadvantage in paid work as

compared to men has had serious negative consequences for women and children in

our society: 41% of all women and children in America today live below the poverty

line;13 one out of every five children is raised in poverty.14

As Congress looks to solutions for families, supporting fatherhood programs without simultaneously addressing these challenges to women’s economic security will

likely exacerbate—not solve—the problem for poor families. Without proper protections such programs could:

• Result in economically empowering men at the expense of poor women. A similar program, called the Work Incentive Program (WIN), was enacted under the

Social Security Act Amendments of 1967. Excitement over father involvement

resulted in a work program that trained and employed a disproportionate number of men. For example, in 1971, although women headed 90 percent of AFDC

households, 38 percent of participants in the work program were men.15

• Exacerbate the current problem with women on welfare being steered into traditional women’s work—work that pays substantially less—instead of training

them for living wage jobs with benefits—jobs that are traditionally held by

men.16

• Contribute to the increasing wage gap between men and women among the lowest waged workers. Under welfare reform, women have been leaving the welfare

rolls and entering the lowest paid jobs thereby increasing the wage gap. Introducing men into job training and referral programs without ensuring women

are trained and placed into nontraditional jobs will further increase the disparity between men and women’s wages.17

2. Marriage is Not the Solution for Everyone, Nor is it the Solution to Poverty

Our country consists of diverse family structures: those in which parents are married, single (including those who were never married, widowed, teen, or divorced),

118

18See CNN, Survey: Only a Quarter of U.S. Households of ‘‘Traditional’’ Families, Nov. 24,

1999. 19Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). 20Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967). 21See Patricia Horn, Beating Back the Revolution, Dollars and Sense, Dec. 1992, at 21. 22See Joan Zorza, Woman Battering: A Major Cause of Homelessness, 28 Clearinghouse Rev.

383, 384–85 (1994). 23See Jody Raphael & Richard M. Tolman, Taylor Inst. and the Univ. of Mich. Research Dev.

Ctr. on Poverty, Risk and Mental Health, Trapped by Poverty, Trapped by Abuse: New Evidence

Documenting the Relationship Between Domestic Violence and Welfare, 12 (1997). 24See Mary Ann Allard et al., McCormack Inst., In Harms Way? Domestic Violence, AFDC

Receipt and Welfare Reform in Mass., 12, 14 (1997) (64.9% of 734 women); Ellen L Bassuck et

al., The Characteristics and Needs of Sheltered Homeless and Low-Income Housed Mothers, 276

JAMA 640 at 12, 20 (1996) (61.0% of 220 women); William Curcio, Passaic County Study of

AFDC Recipients in a Welfare-to-Work Program: A Preliminary Analysis, 12, 14 (1997) (57.3%

of 846 women).

remarried, gay and lesbian, foster, and adoptive.18 These families have built loving,

healthy relationships with their children and cooperative relationships with other

caregivers, and deserve to be valued and respected as they are. Nevertheless, all of

the fatherhood bills pending in Congress require the fatherhood programs to promote marriage. Programs may do so through such activities as: counseling, mentoring, disseminating information about the advantages of marriage, marriage preparation programs, premarital counseling, marital inventories, divorce education and

reduction programs, including mediation and counseling.

Marriage may be the best choice for some individuals, but it is not the best choice

for everyone. In any case, marriage is a constitutionally protected choice. The Supreme Court has long recognized an individual’s right to privacy regarding decisions

to marry and reproduce as ‘‘one of the basic civil rights of man, fundamental to our

very existence and survival.’’ 19 Significantly, this constitutional right equally protects the choice not to marry.20 This right of privacy protects an individual from

substantial governmental intrusion into his private decision. The marriage promotion mandate in all of the bills essentially coerces economically vulnerable individuals to trade in their fundamental right to privacy regarding marital decisions

in exchange for receiving job and life skills training.

Fatherhood programs should not be forced to invade parents’ most fundamentally

private decisions regarding marriage as a condition for receiving these federal funds.

Children benefit greatly from the love and support of adults who are committed to

their well being, regardless of whether those adults are in an intimate relationship

with each other. They flourish in a safe, loving, healthy environment where their

caregivers, including custodial parent(s), non-custodial parent(s), step-parent(s), and

other caregivers, cooperate in a respectful manner to raise them with consistent

messages about rules and expectations.

The goal of ‘‘fatherhood initiatives’’ should be to foster this atmosphere of respect

and cooperation between parents and/or caregivers, to give them the tools they need

to provide for their children emotionally and financially, and to create a safe, loving,

healthy environment for their children. Supportive services should be made available to all families, regardless of their marital status or family composition, including services to help improve employment opportunities, budget finances, promote

nonviolent behavior, improve relationships, and provide financial support to children. Where parents choose to engage in an intimate relationship, resources should

be available to help ensure that it is a safe, loving, and healthy one. As explained

below, there are some situations where the non-custodial parent may endanger the

welfare of either the custodial parent or child and in those situations cooperative

parenting is not in the best interests of the child or of the custodial parent.

3. Domestic Violence

The promotion of marriage requirement in these bills endanger lives. Violence

against women both makes women poor and keeps them poor. The majority of battered women attempt to flee from their abusers.21 Over 50% of homeless women and

children cite domestic violence as the reason they are homeless.22 Many depend on

welfare to provide an escape from the abuse. As noted above, study after study demonstrates that a significant proportion of the welfare caseload (consistently between

15% and 25%) consists of current victims of serious domestic violence 23 and half to

two thirds have suffered domestic violence or abuse at some time in their adult

lives.24

For these women and their children, the cost of freedom and safety has been poverty. Marriage is not the solution to their economic insecurity. For them marriage

could mean death; it will almost undoubtedly mean economic dependence on the

abuser or economic instability due to the abuse. Between one-half and one-third of

119

25See United States General Accounting Office, Report to Congressional Committees, Domestic Violence: Prevalence and Implications for Employment Among Welfare Recipients, 7 (1998). 26 See Joan Zorza, Woman Battering: High Costs and the State of the Law, 25 Clearinghouse

Rev. 421 (1991). 27See Einat Peled, Parenting by Men Who Abuse Women: Issues and Dilemmas, Brit. J. Soc.

Work, Feb. 2000 at 29. 28See Janet Carter & Susan Schechter, Family Violence Prevention Fund, Suggested Components of an Effective Child Welfare Response to Domestic Violence (1997). 29See Peled, supra note 17, at 27. 30See id. 31See id. at 28. 32See id. 33See Peled, supra note 17, at 28. 34See Callie Marie Rennison & Sarah Welchans, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Intimate Partner Violence 8 (May 2000). According to the U.S. Department of Justice, intimate partners commit

937,490 violent crimes against women and 144,620 against men annually. 35See U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence,

33 (July 2000). 36See Lucy Salcido Carter et al., Domestic Violence and Children: Analysis and Recommendations, 9 The Future of Children 3, at 5–7 (1999). 37See Joy D. Osofsky, ‘‘The Impact of Violence on Children,’’ The Future of Children: Domestic

Violence and Children, Winter 1999, at 37 (1999).

battered women surveyed said that their partner prevented them from working entirely.25 Those who are permitted to work fare little better: 96% percent reported

that they had experienced problems at work due to domestic violence, with over 70%

having been harassed at work, 50% having lost at least three days of work a month

as a result of the abuse, and 25% having lost at least one job due to the domestic

violence.26 In short, domestic violence creates and exacerbates economic insecurity.

Even interactions between the batterer and his child can be dangerous—both for

the child and for the mother if she is forced to have contact with him. In some cases,

batterers intentionally injure their children in an effort to intimidate or control their

partners; in other cases, children are injured during attacks on their mother.27

Whether or not there is physical abuse, there is nearly always emotional and psychological abuse; 80–90% of children living in abusive homes are aware of the violence and abuse.28 Children commonly report feelings of worry, fear and terror.29

The abuse affects their relationships with their father; those relationships are often

a source of pain, resentment, disappointment, confusion and ambivalence.30 Unfortunately, separation increases the danger of abuse for battered women.31 Because

much of this violence is perpetrated before and after visits with the child, children’s exposure to this violence is increased.32 Not surprisingly, those fathers who were

physically or sexually abusing their children prior to separation continued to do so

in post-separation visits.33

While supervised visitation centers have been utilized as an avenue for allowing

visitation between batterers and their children, there are not enough supervised visitation centers and in many cases the security in those centers is inadequate, staff

is not trained in domestic violence, and women and children are abducted, harmed,

or killed. Thus, even supervised visitation centers are not always safe.

Clearly, most fathers are not abusive. But domestic violence impacts approximately one million women 34 and their children each year, and the incidence of domestic violence is particularly high within the population Congress seeks to reach

with this legislation.35 Thus Congress must not promote father involvement without

recognizing that some fathers will have a history of domestic violence and that, in

some cases, father involvement is not in the best interest of the children. Contrary

to the position of some fatherhood advocates, the mere presence of one’s biological

parent is not the most important factor in a child’s successful upbringing. Countless

studies show that children who witness violence and those who are victims themselves suffer enormous physical, psychological, and social damage.36

Children who have been abused and neglected are more likely to perform poorly

in school, to commit crimes, to experience emotional and sexual problems and to

abuse alcohol and substances.37 Any ‘‘fatherhood initiative’’ should explicitly recognize this reality and should ensure that father involvement is not promoted for fathers with a history of domestic violence in the same manner as it is for other fathers.

Given the emphasis on marriage and unification, the pending fatherhood legislation fails to sufficiently resolve key domestic violence concerns. While the original

sponsors have made commendable efforts to address the problem, the bills nevertheless fail to adequately protect domestic violence victims. The Responsible Fatherhood Act (S. 653, H.R. 1300) findings address the issue well. S. 685, S. 653 and H.R.

1300 require fatherhood programs to coordinate with a domestic violence program.

120

They also suggest that one of the ways in which a program can fulfill its requirement to promote marriage is by teaching on how to control aggressive behavior and

disseminating information on the causes of domestic violence and child abuse.

The Child Support Distribution Act (H.R. 1471) also suggests disseminating information on the causes and treatment [sic] for domestic violence and child abuse as

one means of promoting marriage and requires every fatherhood program to give information and referrals on the matter. Given the proclivity for batterers to seek visitation and custody of their children as a means of prolonging the abuse, all of the

bills include a key prohibition on use funds for court proceedings around visitation

or custody, and legislative advocacy.

While well intentioned, the language does not provide essential safeguards. Where

collaboration is required, the bills do not ensure collaboration with a recognized expert in the field of domestic violence, nor do they fund the mandated collaboration.

H.R. 1471 does not even require such collaboration, and instead relies on its national fatherhood program to piece the materials together for distribution to the

other programs. None of the bills require that program employees be trained by recognized experts in the field of domestic violence on domestic violence and its impact

on children. Nor do they require the fatherhood programs to assess whether participants in the program have a history of domestic violence, or describe procedures for

dealing with such participants—including, among other things, how the program

would alter its policy of promoting marriage or father involvement for such a participant, and what precautions would be taken to ensure that any involvement with

the child was safe for the mother and child.

Where the very lives of these women and children are at stake, we cannot afford

to encourage the involvement of fathers who have a history of domestic violence

without taking every reasonable precaution, and without recognizing that in some

cases father involvement is not appropriate. Unfortunately, these bills continue to

promote marriage and father involvement without these precautions. This Congress

has consistently recognized that domestic violence is a serious national problem and

has made efforts to minimize the severe risk to women and children from that violence. We urge you to reject fatherhood legislation without these important safeguards.

Conclusion

Congress should be concerned with ending poverty and supporting economic security for all. Addressing the barriers to economic security for low income noncustodial

parents and other low income individuals is a laudable step towards that goal, but

Congress should not raid TANF dollars to do so. TANF money must continue to address the barriers directly affecting those who make up the welfare rolls: custodial

parents and their children.

We applaud Congress’ proposed child support reforms and hope to assist Congress

in ensuring that when child support can be paid and safely collected, it will be

passed through to the children. Furthermore, NOW Legal Defense supports

Congress’s continued interest in and support for men’s increased responsibility for

contraception, childcare, and positive, healthy relationships with their children, as

well as cooperative co-parenting between custodial and non-custodial parents. Such

programs should be available across income levels and should be crafted to ensure

safety and advance gender equality. We look forward to working with Congress to

achieve these goals.

Thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony.

fPittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15220

July 11, 2001

Allison Giles, Chief of Staff

Committee on Ways and Means

U.S. House of Representatives

1102 Longworth House Office Building

Washington, DC 20515

Subject: Public Hearing on Child Support and Related Issues

Dear Committee on Ways and Means:

Thank you for allowing me to express my strong and urgent support in favor of

changes to legislation that eliminates gender bias and corruption in Family Law

121

matters relating to Child Support Guidelines and rightfully making Presumptive 50/

50 Joint Custody the rule and the law.

I am a father of two daughters who are 9 and 4 years old. I have been blessed

to obtain 50/50 joint custody from the time the oldest was 5 years and the youngest

was 7 months old. I could tell you much about the difficulties and hardship I was

confronted within the family court system in the related divorce, custody and support process but I’d rather thank God for allowing my parent rights to look after

the girls and the good success that both their mother and I see in them. It was an

initial challenge to co-parent but it became easier in time for me because I believed

we both got a chance to know that each of us tremendously loved our children.

Therefore, I must take this opportunity to speak in support of other fathers who are

denied their rights and access to parenting their very own children. I am going to

assume that most people are not aware of the dangers facing children who live

apart from their fathers. It is my hopes and prayers that there is more than sufficient evidence available to you to now know the truth and that you will do the right

thing in making Presumptive 50/50 Joint Custody the law and practice as well as

the stopping the unconstitutional extortion of monies from responsible law abiding

citizens through gender biased child support guidelines and systems.

The Case for Presumptive 50/50 Joint Custody

We have heard much over the years of so-called deadbeat dads and we now understand the myths surrounding this stereotype have been shattered. Now we must

raise awareness of the tragic problem in the area of emotional child support—name- ly, the phenomenon termed ‘‘DEADBOLTED DADS’’ which was coined by Gail

Sheehy in a 1998 New York Times article and refers to dads who are locked out

of their children’s lives with no way of getting back in after divorce or family breakup. Deadbolting can also happen to non-custodial moms.

Sociology Professor David Popenoe wrote in ‘‘Life Without Father’’ if present

trends continue, the percentage of American children living apart from their biological father would reach 50 percent in the next century.

I believe we are well ahead of that disastrous pace when considering the April

18, 2001 published article ‘‘Unwed Mothers Set A Record for Births’’ by The Washington Times. The article states ‘‘a record 1.3 million babies were born out of wedlock in 1999 marking the first time that a full one-third of all U.S. births were to

unwed mothers, the federal government said.’’ If there are custody disputes the facts

are that 80 percent or more of the time, the mother is routinely given sole custody

in violation of the inalienable human rights of the child to also enjoy the love and

nurturing relationship with their father.

Couple this with the fact that 50 percent of the 2.6 million children born in wedlock or about another 1.3 million, through divorce, will find themselves in the same

victimized role of the children born out of wedlock and subjected to the same 80 percent sole custody mother violation of the child’s basic human rights to know the love

and nurturing of their father. Two thirds of these 1999 born babies may find their

lives void of the love and security of their father if we do not act now.

Also, when we consider that this does not include children born before this 1999

report and are nevertheless, victims in the same proportions, the numbers are staggering and in at least the 15 to 20 million children range.

This is a problem that Americans care about ‘‘according to a 1996 Gallup Poll,

79.1 percent of Americans feel the most significant family or social problem facing

America is the physical absence of the father from the home. This number is up

from 69.9 percent in 1992.’’ (MSNBC website: ‘‘Labor Day: where are the fathers’’, 1999).

When there is an absence of 50/50 joint custody, extended families are cut off, too.

Loving grandmothers, grandfathers, sisters, brothers, aunts, uncles and cousins all

suffer when a child is unnecessarily kept away. A whole heritage is lost to these

children.

We must acknowledge the truth that fathers love our children just as much as

mothers do. We have forgotten this simple truth because we are bombarded with

negative images and stereotypes of fatherhood such as runaway dads, absentee dads

and deadbeat dads when the reality is that dads are deadbolted, and in most cases

broken-hearted over the loss of their beloved children. Furthermore, the children are

missing their dads, too because they love their dads as much as they love their

moms.

Why is if so important to immediately reunite children in the homes of their fathers which the presumption of 50/50 joint custody will facilitate? Consider this:

Children of fatherless homes account for:

• 63% of youth suicides

• 71% of pregnant teenagers

122

• 90% of homeless and runaway children

• 70% of juveniles in state-operated institutions

• 85% of children that exhibit behavioral disorders

• 80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger

• 71% of all high school dropouts

• 75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers

• 85% of all youths sitting in prison

Many children who are victims of crimes are raised in a fatherless home and the

perpetrators who commit these crimes are themselves raised majority of the time

in a fatherless home.

These horrible statistics are even twice as worse for African Americans who in

the same year 1999 have twice as many children born out of wedlock at almost 70

percent. There is a direct correlation between: the number of African American children born out of wedlock, the number of African American sole custody mothers, the

number of fatherless African American fatherless homes, the disproportionately

high number of African Americans in jail and the criminal justice system, the disproportionately high number of African Americans in poverty.

In regards to child abuse, The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

states that there were more than 1 million documented child abuse cases in 1990.

In 1983, it found that 60% of perpetrators were women with sole custody. 50/50

Joint Custody can significantly reduce stress associated with sole custody, and reduce the isolation of children in abusive situations by allowing both parents to monitor the children’s health and welfare and to protect them.

In regards to poverty, The National Fatherhood Institute reports that 18 million

children live in single parent homes. Nearly 75% of American children living in single parent families will experience poverty before they turn 11. Only 20% in two

parent families will experience poverty. (Melinda Sacks, Fatherhood in the 90’s: Kids of absent fathers more at risk, San Jose Mercury News (10/29/95)). Also, the

feminization of poverty is linked to the feminization of custody, as well as linked

to lower earnings for women. Greater opportunity for education and jobs through

shared parenting can help break the cycle. (David Levy, ED., The Best Parent is

Both Parents (1993)).

In regards to kidnapping, family abductions were 163,200 compared to non-family

abductions of 200–300. The parental abductions were attributed to the parents’ disenchantment with the legal system. (David Levy, ED., The Best Parent is Both Parents (1993)), citing a report from the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile

Justice (May 1990).

How did we wind up in this current destructive position? The current family law

court system has done an injustice to all of our constitutional rights as mothers, fathers, children, legislators and citizens. Many attorneys, not all, engage in unethical

practices that result in significant and usually unnecessary litigation to extort

money from both mother and fathers. But the fees for the fathers are usually incurred at an even higher level than the fees incurred by the mother, as much as

6 times more or higher. The public is not aware of the excessive litigation that occurs and how difficult it is for fathers to keep going back to court again and again

to get some form of custody. Dads become emotionally and financially drained. They

are forced to spend thousands of dollars just to be able to see their children. This

is tragic.

Many of these unethical attorneys do not represent the interest of their client the

father by withholding information pertaining to options and rights that they have

full knowledge of in order to generate more billable hours at the expense of the children and their fathers.

These attorneys are sometime aided by Domestic Relation Officers who are biased

against fathers and routinely issue support orders without the establishment of custody orders that must be appealed if the father is knowledgeable and financially

able.

Sometimes we have judges who will not stand for such injustices and biases, may

they be blessed forever, and will issue the right and honorable court order of 50/

50 joint custody. But most of the time this may not happen due to their heavy caseloads and undue pressure from attorneys who may have various associations and

relationships with the judges.

We have the chance today to turn this cycle of disaster into a cycle of opportunity

for love, growth, safety, and stability for our children and all the citizens they affect

in our nation. We can take a giant step forward in the best interest of our children’s

health and welfare by:

1. Passing legislation on Presumptive 50/50 Joint Custody. This will minimize

and ultimately eliminate the impact of unethical attorneys, prevent and elimiVerDate 11-MAY-2000 18:14 Nov 08, 2001 Jkt 074742 PO 00000 Frm 00126 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\B742.XXX pfrm04 PsN: B742
123

nate the premature and biased actions of Domestic Relation Officers, remove

undue pressures from judges, lighten the judge’s caseload for attention to the

more serious cases of custody that are the exception to parents who have the

law abiding character and ability to receive the responsibility of Presumptive

50/50 Joint Custody or any other agreement between the parents that they believe is in the best interest of the children through a parenting plan.

2. Committing to working with the federal government on a Uniform Parental

Rights and Enforcement Act. This will enable consistent presumptive joint 50/

50 laws to be enforceable across all of these United States of America. We will

eliminate the complications, delays, risk to the children, and costly expenses to

the parents and taxpayers due to the separate custody laws of each state. American children are American children. They have an inalienable right to give and

receive love from both of their parents regardless of which United States of

America they have been unlawfully transported to.

3. Committing to special efforts to reverse the cycle of fatherless homes in African American communities where our children in these United States of

America suffer the greatest disproportionate share of death and destruction in

the life issues of health, economics, education, self esteem and safety. Presumptive 50/50 Joint Custody represents an excellent tool to proactively educate African American fathers of the joy and benefits accrued to their children when

they step up and accept a 50/50 joint custody role, free of prejudices and biases

faced in the current family law system.

In summary, the issue of Presumptive 50/50 Joint Custody is not about women

versus men or moms versus dads. The issue is about the physical, emotional, spiritual and financial health and well being of our children. Children need both parents. We need fair and equal treatment in the courts for all men and women, and

recognition of the human rights of children to know, love and share the lives of both

parents. Unnecessary and unjust intervention by the courts into the private realm

of family life and parenting must stop. We must pass Presumptive 50/50 Joint Custody legislation.

Gender Biases in Pennsylvania Child Support Guidelines

I am a very concerned citizen and feel my comments are very important to modifying Pennsylvania’s Support Rules of Court in particular and the erroneous national support guideline model in general. With all due respect and a pursuit of

what is good, right and justifiably fair, I humbly submit my comments on the ‘‘anonymous’’ Committee that implemented the Pennsylvania Support Rules as an example of the national child support guideline model flaws and biases as follows:

Rule 1910.16–1 Amount of Support. Support Guidelines

Commentary on Rule 1910.16–1

(a) The support of a spouse or child is a priority obligation, however, the expectancy of a party to adjust her or his expenditures to meet this obligation can force

a good hardworking honest citizen into financial ruin.

It is grossly unfair when the party who was abandoned and did not initiate the

breakup of a family finds herself or himself, suddenly in a support hearing, before

any custody ruling or action has been determined, and gets hit with a devastating

support judgment, effective immediately, with no chance to adjust other expenditures, simply because you earn more money than the other spouse. It is a cruel and

unusual punishment.

In the case where a spouse has abandoned the other spouse and files for support

where there has been no ‘‘evidence of abuse’’ (more than the filing of a Protection

From Abuse—PFA which requires only an accusation and no facts) but merely because this spouse has decided to selfishly pursue their own desires at the expense

of the abandoned spouse and even using the children as a way to finance this breakaway, does not represent a stable person with the best interest of the children, and

therefore, should not be awarded any support until a custody hearing and ruling

has been completed.

In fact, everyone should have to prove ‘‘just cause’’ of why the children should not

remain under the custody of the spouse who has been abandoned in a presumed stable environment.

Therefore, the burden of adjusting of expenditures should justifiably be shifted

more heavily to the party who has made the decision to abandon the family unit,

not on who earns more money.

In fact, the one earning more money will tend to have the expenditures that are

more fixed in nature and more difficult to adjust, i.e. mortgage, auto loans, education and consumer loans, etc.

124

The priority of support should be for maintaining the children in their stable living environment. When a person decides to leave a marriage because they ‘‘feel like’’ they need to pursue other interest, they should not be entitled to remove income

from the marital household that is available for the children and remaining spouse,

regardless of whether the remaining spouse is the man or woman, higher income earner or lower income earner. Further, when such a person decides to leave a marriage because they ‘‘feel like

it’’ they are entitled to do so with their share of the marital property because no

one can make them stay, but this person should not be entitled to spousal support

especially when they have a means to provide for their own living and has chosen

their own independence. They deserve to be left independent with the fruits of their

own labor.

There is no good basis for making such a spousal support award and this practice

should cease.

Rule 1910.16–2 Support Guidelines (Grids) Calculation of Net Income

Commentary on Rule 1910.16–2

(d) Reduced or Fluctuating Income

(4) Income Potential. The concept of appropriate employment in consideration of

a party’s earning capacity requires more definition. We should be able to construct

a schedule of earning capacity according to the age, education, training, and market

value of a parent’s skill set.

This should be the starting point of earning capacity assessment in determining

support. This will help provide a fair and firm guidance to parents to know their

responsibility and assessed contribution to support based upon the skills and talent

that they possess regardless of whether or not they choose to obtain it.

For example, if a person has a bachelor degree in Computer Science and training

in a curriculum such as Computer Analyst, and has had these skills for 10 years

that would translate into a Senior Analyst with an average market value of $50,000

but the party has chosen not to capitalize on the investment of the education and

training and has decided to instead take employment as a data entry clerk with a salary of $25,000. This party should be assessed with the earning capacity of $50,000.

This will establish an environment where both parties will know to diligently pursue their maximum earning capacity, thereby maximizing the resources available

for supporting the best interest of the children.

The courts have consistently and rightfully stated that it must be both parties

equal responsibility to obtain their earning capacity in the support of their children.

The information on employment and earnings for the composition of such a schedule to be used as a guide should be available from existing wage and salary surveys.

I believe this will go a long way in confirming our seriousness in the best contribution of one’s skills and abilities to the benefit of our children, family, and ultimately as a Pennsylvanian example of our great United States of America.

We have an opportunity to encourage all parties to strive to gain the intrinsic reward of fulfilling one’s potential. People should have a better sense of what’s expected of them as a responsible wage earner parent.

Commentary on Rule 1910.16–2 Support Guidelines

(e) Net Income Affecting Application of Child Support Guidelines

(2) High Income Child Support Cases.

After divorce and established earnings, if one spouse through hard work and risk

taking is blessed with significant earnings, why should one be required to make any

increased child or spouse support payments to a spouse who takes no risk and in

all probability has another co-habitant who also gains the benefit of support meant

for the children?

To the parent(s) who are committed to the personal nurturing and rightful upbringing of their children, the intervening non-parent, the co-habitant who has no

responsibility of child support should not have any access to the provisions meant

for the children.

This is true in all income cases and not just limited to high-income cases. This

is a real big problem that I believe is at the core of much violence and death that

we see and hear about in cases of troubled families.

Although I do not agree with the actions, I can understand why a person can be

so enraged to commit violence and murder when they see someone else living in a

house, eating food, driving cars, living a better life because of the blood and sweat

of a supporting spouse’s labor.

It is wrong, unnatural, and down right wicked for a co-habitant to be excused

from the support equation. The co-habitant had a choice of whether or not to enter

125

the relationship, and should have to pay the cost like everyone else. We must address this issue.

I would suggest that we consider a standard and guideline of support for a cohabitant, being subjected to the same test of earning capacity as everyone else.

Just as it is stated that in the comments of the recommendations in multiple families, and extending beyond just the children of a second family, but to the second

adult, the co-habitant;, is only entitled to the standard of living established by the

parent and the co-habitant, and not the standard of living that may have existed

earlier in the first family ‘‘because of the support payment monies made by the first

family parent of the children’’.

The co-habitant is responsible for choosing to enter such a relationship and must

also be held accountable for support and not allowed as a parasite to consume resources contributed for the children. There must be no double standard.

Rule 1910.16–4 Support Guidelines. (Deviation) Calculation of Support Obligation. Formula

Commentary on Rule 1910.16–4

(b) Shared Custody—When both parents are equally raising their child(ren), it is

more than just spending time. It is an erroneous and biased disposition not to be

sensitive and see both parties in the role of obligor and obligee, regardless of who

earns the higher income.

Otherwise, the party with the higher net income is unjustifiably translated into

the non-custodial parent penalties, and therefore, never perceived in an obligee role

and also justifiably appropriate to be provided favorable consideration as any other

custodial parent(s) who is spending their appropriate share of support on the children within their household that they are maintaining even though they do not receive one penny from anyone.

It would be coldly biased, incomplete and unjust to ignore these facts and not give

obligee consideration and benefit to both parents.

(f) Further, evidence of the need to be implicitly as well as explicitly fair in the

treatment of both custodial parents, as both obligor and obligee, in equally shared

custody, is the biased language and treatment that follows as a result of language

in this section of Rule 1910.16–4 (f): ‘‘utilize the guidelines which result in the

greatest benefit to the obligee.’’

We must be careful to always be fair and balanced to both parents who are equally and successfully raising their children.

Rule 1910.16–5 Support Guidelines. (Operation) Deviation

Commentary on Rule 1910.16–5

(c) No deviation from the support obligation shall be made for the amount of time

that each parent spends with the child or children is blind, cruel, and out of touch

in today’s environment, thirty years after the equal rights amendment, where both

parents have equal access to opportunity in the workplace and choices of career.

Except in cases where one spouse abandons the other spouse and child or children, ‘‘no deviation’’ in this ruling makes too great of a financial incentive for a support recipient, usually the woman, to use the children as pawns for purely money,

and that is the plain and simple truth.

We need to be more compassionate to the love, effort, and resources both parents

are in fact expending to make our children stable, healthy, assets to our society.

I believe there is a direct correlation between the greed created by these support

incentives and the extremely high rate of divorce and family breakdown.

I appeal to your sense of wisdom, justice and compassion, to not let our children

be used as pawns to gain financial advantage. No matter how it is disguised, we

must end this practice of wrongfully giving preferential treatment to one sex gender

over another.

I know this is a sensitive issue but we as fair minded Americans must as always

have the courage to do the right thing.

Especially in the case of equally shared custody, which should be the presumption

upon parents separating, it is right in the common sensed use of the offset method

for split or divided custody, which involves determining what each parent owes

when the other parent is the primary custodian and then subtracting the difference.

It is also right in the common sensed use of dividing this difference in half.

The only factor that should enable consideration to deviate from dividing this difference in half is where the parent of lesser income is below the poverty line income

and the parent with more income will not be pulled down to poverty line income.

Otherwise, the merit of the Committee argument is loss because where the Committee presumable in honesty and sincerity erred is in the example where one parVerDate 11-MAY-2000 18:14 Nov 08, 2001 Jkt 074742 PO 00000 Frm 00129 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\B742.XXX pfrm04 PsN: B742
126

ty’s net income is $4,300 and the other party’s net income is $2,900, resulting in a net support payment of $181, the Committee ignored the fact that a total of

$2,900 + $181 = $3,181 net available income is well above poverty and more than

sufficient for any responsible and prudent person to maintain a good and healthy

household, above a poverty level of living.

To not recognize this, with all due respect, but in truth, it is biased, greedy, and

Un-American as it denies a citizen the right to life, liberty, and happiness through

wrongfully seizing the income earned through capitalizing on one’s labor and making their own best choices of use for the children.

Also, it must be explicitly and implicitly recognized that in shared custody, both

parents are the custodial parent half the time and that each have fixed expenses

relating to the children.

Therefore, without being grossly biased against the higher wage earner, who is

usually the man, we must not fall prey to the flawed theory that ‘‘these costs (of

either parent), merely duplicate the costs already being incurred by the custodial

parent, as both parents are the custodial parent and neither is entitled to preferential treatment at the expense of the other parent.

In summary:

I have given you my best thinking and heartfelt compassion on these issues. I believe that such crucial issues affecting so many citizens should be well publicized

and distributed, possibly moved to referendum for public opinion and vote.

My heart and hope are in pursuit of removing financial incentive from either of

the parent altogether. However, the current guidelines greatly missed the mark on

several issues as I have tried to communicate.

We need a system built on compassion, commitment, and fairness to allow both

parents to raise our children in an environment of love and experience our Constitutional Rights of Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness.

I appeal to your sense of goodness, righteousness, and fairness as a fellow human

being and valued American citizen, to do the right thing, and help us to restore the

mental, physical, financial, and intellectual well being of our children, through just

and fair guidelines, void of gender biases.

Thank you in advance for any assistance you can provide in legislation to eliminate all biased financial incentives from either parent and focus on the best interest

and well being of the children and the love and care they are should have from both

parents.

Sincerely,

f James R. Overton

Statement of Paul W., and Wendy G. Peterson, Cary, North Carolina

ANOTHER SIDE TO THE CHILD SUPPORT ISSUE:

I believe that the current child support laws need to be drastically changed so

that a father’s second family DOES NOT SUFFER. My husband and I have been

paying child support to his ex-wife for 12 years. The child support check has always

been the first check that is written each and every pay day. We have 2 children

of our own, ages 7 and 3. The term ‘Child Support’ is a joke to me. My step child

is being supported at the expense of my own children. If I just had a penny for every

time my husband or I have said something like, ‘‘Someday when child support is

over, we will be able to afford. . . .’’ My children have heard the phrase, too. We have

felt as though our life and family is on hold. In 3 years we will—thank God—be

done paying for child support. Here’s a list of some of the things we will be able

to provide for our children once we are done paying child support that we currently

have not been able to:

• Proper (consistent) dental & eye care (This has been a hard one since we are

currently paying for my step child’s braces.)

• Extra activities like piano lessons, sports, arts & crafts, pottery lessons, swimming lessons & summer camps to name a few

• Cable or Satellite TV

• A membership to the YMCA or other swim/exercise club

• More Clothes & Toys that don’t come from yard-sales and thrift shops

• Yearly vacations

• Cars that are newer than 8 years old and that would require collision insurance

• A college fund

127

I do however, consider us very blessed! We are blessed because:

• None of us has required surgery or medical attention that insurance won’t

cover.

• My younger son won’t have any adult teeth until after child-support is over.

• My children seem to have good vision at this time.

• My children won’t need braces until after child support is over.

• My son’s are still young enough to be entertained with simple things.

• We are able to get public TV with a roof antenna.

• My children enjoy the lakes as much as public pools.

• My children love getting toys from yard-sales.

• We live in a prosperous enough country that people will sell nice clothes for a

quarter.

• My husband knows enough about cars to keep our old ones going.

• Public school is FREE—What a blessing that truly is!

WHAT ABOUT THE FAMILIES THAT ARE NOT SO BLESSED? I just can’t

imagine having teenagers and paying child support, too. I can’t imagine having a

child in desperate need of constant medical attention. Yes, our family is blessed.

I am so sick of the term ‘Dead-Beat Dads’. It seems to me that fathers are guilty

before proven innocent or worthy. I feel so bad for all the young fathers. My husband has a good job, and it is still hard for us. What about these dads making minimum wage? To tell them they have an 18 year sentence to pay child support is like

a living hell.

I DISAGREE WITH:

• Basing child support on some crazy figures of what it costs to raise a child. We

are not even going to get close to any of those figures for our children! In fact,

the child support we pay does not all go to the child we are supporting. We are

simply subsidizing the mother’s second husband’s income. We do not spend the

same amount on both our children together.

• Figuring a portion of child support is for housing. The mother has got to pay

for that anyway.

• The notion that children ought to have the same standard of living as they did

before the divorce. Statistics show that 2⁄3 to 3⁄4 of divorces are initiated by

woman. When a mom walks out of a marriage, she walks out of that standard

of living.

• Seizing bank accounts, taking money from fathers paychecks and making life

a living hell for fathers and especially the second family involved. (Statistics

show that 80% of divorced men remarry, and most do within 3 years.)

What is this nonsense? I am so glad we are not in the ‘‘system’’. This reminds

me of the bible verse ‘‘Do not provoke your children to wrath.’’ Is the penalty for

not paying child support so steep that it is causing some young fathers to look to

other means of illegal income? I am not trying to justify their wrongful actions, but

it just seems to me that you’d have more cooperation if you gave these dad’s a

chance to do things right on their own. No one has to tell my husband to pay support, he just does it.

• Any court, state or private agency making a profit on child support! This would

make any person distrust the incentives behind collection.

• Allowing zero accountability on behalf of the mother. Not only is this a breeding

ground for resentment on behalf of the father, but it can be a serious DANGER

to the child. A mother can take the money and buy whatever she wants with

it and deprive her children of the things they need. Children having mothers

with addictions are especially at risk. Tax free money that does not need to be

accounted for or is easy drug money. Statistics show that 80% of the states report that parental substance abuse within poverty are the greatest child welfare

problems. In some cities, more than 75% of welfare cases are linked to alcohol

and drugs.

• Allowing no tax deduction for the parent who pays support. Why should the father’s second family have to pay taxes on income that benefits another family?

• Manipulating the child support system for the benefit of the custodial parents

on welfare (and therefore, the government) when in fact 50–60% of all custodial

parents receiving support are NOT ON WELFARE!

I AGREE WITH:

• Making it harder for people to get divorced, and premarital counseling.I think

this alone could solve a lot of problems in our society.

128

CHILD SUPPORT GUIDELINES:

In spite of the fact that child support figures are too high, North Carolina has

one of the best models for figuring Child Support. I believe all states should be consistent in figuring support, and I believe NC’s model would be a good one for the

nation to adopt. Non-custodial parents living in states that use a flat percentage to

figure child support have my deepest sympathy. But even within my own state, the

agencies are not consistent with the way child support is figured. This must not be

so!!

TRUE STORY:

A Christian friend of mine is doing everything in her power to hold her marriage

together. Because of the husband’s past, I am convinced he is cheating on her and

doing drugs. He has moved into the basement of their house, and is living quite

apart from her. She wants it to work out so bad, that she is allowing him to do

this. I truly believe that he is content to remain in the marriage and in the basement to avoid having to make child support payments.

CONCLUSION:

Child support payments need to be FAIR. There will always be fathers who will

do everything in their power to avoid payments. But even law abiding fathers need

to feel as though the support is fair. Resentment can show up at bad times, and

will ultimately affect the child’s sense of security. When a man and woman are married, they make decisions together on how money should be spent on the children.

Divorced dads are deprived of that right. After a stressful divorce, they are forced

to turn over all decisions about their children to the mother. Divorced dads don’t

want money that is meant for their children to be thrown into a melting pot of the

mother’s needs and wants for herself and the children. How much money does the

mother REALLY need for the children, and how can we know? The custodial parent

should be required to fill out paper work accounting for where the money is going,

and fathers should be entitled to that information. This would ensure that the

money is going directly to the child being supported, and therefore divorced dads

around the country would be more apt to pay. It would also help to ensure that the

fathers’ other children would not be deprived of the things they need at the expense

of their half siblings.

fProtecting Marriage, Inc.

Wilmington, Delaware 19803

July 5, 2001

Hon. Wally Herger, R–CA

House Ways and Means Committee

Subcommittee on Human Resources

Rayburn House Office Building

Washington, DC 20015

Dear Rep. Herger:

This letter is supplemental testimony to your June 28th hearing on the Child

Support bill, H.R. 1488. I called the subcommittee today and received instructions

on how to submit from a Macintosh computer and was instructed to email my information as an attachment to Ms. Kitchin. We were also paying attention to your

hearing on May 22nd as I am well known to many witnesses—Wade Horn, Robert

Rector, Mike McManus—on the divorce issue. However, because we expose significant academic research data that confronts some of what you have heard, I, personally, am unfortunately quite controversial. For quick reference, I am in the Heritage

Foundation’s Directory of Public Policy Experts. You also could confer with law professor Katherine Spaht, the author of Louisiana’s Covenant Marriage law, who supports what I reveal on this issue.

In 1996, I received a call from a reporter in Bowling Green, OH who informed

me that we should be paying attention to the Welfare Reform bill, and I asked why.

Because, she said, in it was funding to ‘‘non-custodial parents’’ which we know is

code for ‘Fathers’, and the fact brought forth continually in all research studies is

that it is Mothers or Wives who end up losing disproportionate financial benefits

after divorce and are recipients of most family responsibilities. The fact is that every

year in the United States (see the Census or American Demographics) among unmarried men [never married, widowed, or divorced] the group with the highest median income is divorced men/fathers. As a United Nations report of three years ago

129

stated, ‘‘there is no country in the world that treats its women as well as its men.’’ Wives and mothers in an unaddressed divorce which they cannot by law defend

against, are a Human Resource, Congressman Herger, and this committee must

fairly address that issue.

Your staff needs to obtain the 1994 Journal of Socio-Economics and go to the

study titled ‘‘Crime and Unemployment’’ where a stunning and unanticipated finding emerged in a 44 year tabulation of all U.S. county data: ‘‘the most powerful

predictor of Homicide rates in the United States are the divorce rates.’’ The Drexel

University researchers used the top rated variables (women in the workforce, percentage of Roman Catholic families, etc.) and the coefficients are huge in the results.

When I pointed out to Wade Horn that this finding was not showing that

Fatherlessness, per se, is prompting the homicide increase, but rather that high di- vorce occurrences were, he was displeased. And to be divorced, one must first be

married. In order for marriage again to be attractive to both men and women, then

the exigencies, and unbalanced ordered losses, from mandatory no-fault divorce law

need be changed. Professor Spaht is on record as stating that we are not going to

succeed with requiring marriage prep courses or marriage mentoring until this

country corrects our disastrous divorce statutes, too. She feels that after 30 years

of failing to change state divorce laws due to the power of special interests of lawyers and therapists, in particular, to stop such correction, we shall have to address

exposing that problem. In 1997, we submitted a bill proposal to Senator Sessions

when his committee was working on the Youth Violence bill (S. 10) which never

passed. Robert Rector asked me for a copy of the Drexel study two years ago. When

an educational organization like Protecting Marriage, Inc. and its leaders are showing hard data that may slow the flow of federal funds to the wrong entities, these

policy analysts are quite unpopular and too often dismissed or libeled. We urge your

Subcommittee to take a look again at where you may direct support; the fate of

America’s children cannot continually be misused as it has been since 1970. Can it?

We all are sincerely active in wanting to end the destruction of children’s futures;

and every married Mother promotes her husband as a firm and loving Father to

their children.

There is one last point that we must address. There is much research that shows

that mandated joint physical custody does not produce optimal results for children.

Despite political pressure, it is a fact and not a surprising one. Stability for anyone

rests on being securely in one place and with a parent who does not betray . . . either

parent of either gender, who does not betray the marriage and family, but visitation

of one’s children should be assured in our laws. To declare that TANF funds be

spent on ‘‘strengthening marriage’’ when top studies (USC in 1998 and Univ. of OK

in 1995) show that no-fault divorce laws independent of other factors were the cause

of our divorces exploding in number, then your subcommittee should shift its focus

slightly from marriage prep to genuine marriage preservation by offering rewards

for enacting divorce statute disincentives. Email to our office tells that Congress

wants solutions and we have endeavored to provide some in this testimony. We are

at your service, via frequent trips to Washington, and providing studies identified

here. Your personal profile on marriage and family is enviable and that leadership

focus is important, Representative Herger.

Very sincerely,

Phyllis H. Witcher

f President

Society of Just Men

Columbia, South Carolina 29209–1019

Ms. Allison Giles

Chief of Staff

Committee on Ways and Means

U.S. House of Representatives

1102 Longworth House Office Building

Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Ms. Giles:

Please accept this correspondence as my submittal for the approaching hearing

dealing with Child Support and Fatherhood Proposals.

I am the Founder of the Society of Just Men. Our organization was brought into

being because of the rampant fraud, deceit and even criminal conduct found in the

130

family courts of this country. Our family court systems are running over with unethical practices by matrimonial lawyers who continue to work for the total destruction

of the American marriage and the financial depletion of the assets of any family

that finds itself in the clutches of these corrupt judicial systems during great periods of emotional stress.

While the issues in your hearing revolve around child support, there are other

issues that go deeper into the problems between fathers and mothers caught-up in

the child support system. An observation is that the U.S. Bankruptcy Court is a

court of law and equity. It helps individuals, families and businesses in the preservation of their assets and lives. The family courts of the states are also courts of

law and equity, and they are charged with helping families with their lives and assets during the same kind of emotional and financial stress as the bankruptcy court.

The real problem seems to be that the family courts are designed primarily for

lawyers who financially destroy every family in their courts.

In our family courts, the attorneys and their hand-picked judges literally ravage

the assets of the American family. They engage in the most heinous legal practices

and they use these tools to take all assets away from the father and mother. Then,

they ask the court to imprison the father for not paying. Here in South Carolina,

matrimonial lawyers flood the courts with unethical types of practice and the judges

accept them on the tacit understanding that the more legal pleading, the more hearings, the more wallpaper, the more job security for the jurists. Before you make any

critical decisions burdening the fathers of the country any more, we in the SJM feel

you should lessen the financial burden on both mother and father by giving them

justice in the family courts. There are many practices you should consider. If you

take a look at these unethical practices, you will see why many men cannot afford

a lawyer for a change in child support amounts. If you examine these unethical

practices, you will see why some men are simply beaten down financially and destroyed spiritually. A few are listed as follows:

1. GAMING.—This is one of the oldest types of unethical practices by divorce

lawyers. Gaming is associated with any kind of effort on the part of the lawyer

to create a war-like atmosphere between the parties. To effectively game, you

have to have the cooperation of the other attorney. Gaming can mean creating

of useless hearings, useless meetings, unnecessary investigations, unnecessary

motions, etc. It is associated with Sharp Practice and Wallpapering.

2. SHARP PRACTICE.—This is a form of fraud upon the court. It is usually

associated with making false representations to the opposing attorney and to

the court. For example, the gross misrepresentation of the appraisal value of

a chattel in a divorce. The withholding of critical evidence from the court is another example of sharp practice.

3. CONTROLLING THE CASE.—This is a very common form of unethical

practice here in South Carolina. If the lawyers cannot ‘‘control’’ the case, it

could become settled too quickly and they might lose money. One example is

where your attorney will call your wife’s attorney and secretly notify him that

a private investigator is on the way to gather evidence as to the adultery of his

client. After all, if adultery were quickly established, the case would have to be

settled and the lawyers would not make any huge fees. This is very common

in South Carolina and other states.

4. WALLPAPERING.—This is the most common type of abuse in the divorce

courts. If a client calls his lawyer for a simple question, he gets back a four page

letter confirming the telephone conversation. Long and totally unnecessary letters, motions, memoranda and exhibits are sent back and forth between the

lawyers to churn the account. If a stock broker engaged in this type of conduct,

he would lose his license. The lawyers also create new ways to send wallpaper.

For example, when I recently received my daughter’s visitation schedule for this

summer, it came as a legal document with a ‘‘Certificate of Service’’ attached.

This is a legal document used when there is a pending action, one does not attach such documents to ordinary correspondence. Yet, in South Carolina, the

lawyers will invent an excuse to create this wallpaper for opposing counsel to

read—and they both bill for it. The attorneys will take evidence from the clients’ files and send it back and forth. They will file motions with the court to

which are attached meaningless exhibits. This is one of the most heinous practices and it is common in South Carolina. When a lawyer files a simple motion

of 2–3 pages, he will attach 40–50 pages of ‘‘exhibits.’’ Often they will attach

these exhibits in several documents throughout the course of a trial. The recent

rage among lawyers is to use the FAX machine for these useless transfers of

documents. If you do this in federal court, you risk sanctions by the judge. If

131

you do this in the South Carolina family courts, the judges all feel this gives

them job security.

5. EXCESSIVE MOTIONS.—This is a common abuse in South Carolina and

other states. The matrimonial lawyers will make a motion under just about any

pretense. When they make a motion for a continuance based on their personal

problems, the clients must pay for the time and expense.

6. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST.—One of the most horrendous breaches of ethics I discovered in the South Carolina family courts is the ongoing conflict of

interest situations between the lawyer, lawyers acting as guardians, lawyers

acting as mediators, and judges. In my own divorce, I discovered that my lawyer, my wife’s lawyer, my children’s guardian were all members of the same

church. Furthermore, the guardian ad litem for my children was not only a good

friend of my wife’s lawyer, but was—in fact—almost like a sister to him. They

had an extremely close relationship. And, the other serious problem is that

these lawyers, guardians and mediators will all have pending cases with each

other. This is especially true in small communities. As many of my friends and

members have often said, ‘‘They’re all in cahoots!’’ And its true. They all are

members of the Family Law Sections of the bar associations. They are a cartel,

a gang, a bunch of hoodlums who need to be reformed if not eliminated. Many

of the judges have very close relationships with the lawyers, guardians and mediators. And, the women guardians always give the kids to the mother.

7. PERJURY AND SUBORDINATION OF PERJURY.—As a retired member of the South Carolina Bar Association, one of the most depressing things

I have discovered is how often lawyers have their clients come into family court

under a cloud of perjury. Since the lawyer is usually the one who helps fabricate

the perjury, the lawyer is guilty of subordination of perjury. For example, in my

own divorce my wife failed to inform the court that she has $6,000.00 in a slush

fund with her lawyer, and she further failed to reveal $4,200.00 month in salary. The court, based on her sworn affidavit that she was penniless and only had $600.00 to her name, and that she needed attorneys suit fees, gave her

$2,500.00 per month temporary support and order that I advance $7,000 to her

lawyer for suit fees. You can see this gave her lawyer $13,000 in funds with

which he could operate and my lawyer only $7,000.00. But the important part

of this illustration is when I refused to pay the amounts based on her fraud

and deceit, the court threatened to hold me in contempt of court for non-compliance with his order. This is in the face of the fact that I filed a timely motion

for reconsideration based on fraud and perjury. What I am saying is this: in

South Carolina men are treated with great prejudice. We still have a statute on

the books that states ‘‘The woman is the favored suitor.’’ To take the case further, when I filed a complaint with the S.C. Bar Association about the fraud

and perjury, the S.C. Attorney General dismissed my complaint against the lawyers and prosecuted me for the filing of a ‘‘non-meritorious complaint.’’ The

members of the Bar reviewing the case dismissed the case against me as nonmeritorious. This effectively quashed both complaints. Such is justice in South

Carolina as to men seeking equity in child support and divorces.

8. CHILD SUPPORT.—In South Carolina, the general rule of law is that the

man is totally at fault, totally liable, that he should be made to pay all child

support, and that the woman is still the ‘‘favored suitor.’’ When a woman is able

to work and contribute to the support of children, the courts very rarely hold

her feet to the fire.

9. HEARSAY AS TO AMOUNTS OF CHILD SUPPORT.—In South Carolina,

the judges now use a computer software system designed by a divorce lawyer

with an undergraduate degree in human behavior. He did this with the assistance of a local CPA. Neither of them is an economist. We have never had a team

of economists look at the issue of child support and the true and hard costs of

raising a child. Nor has anyone ever looked at contributions the women could

make if given the chance or order by the court to do so. The MAN always pays,

the Man always is threatened with contempt, and the MAN is always the parent who serves time in jail.

I can go on and on with examples, but that would make me look like a

wallpapering divorce lawyer. I have offered you the above problems to show you that

you need to deal with these matters before you start imposing any unrealistic laws

on the fathers of this country.

At this time in our history, a poor man cannot afford a lawyer to make a slight

modification in his child support payments. There is no means other than to be

132

forced to go to an unethical and sleazy matrimonial lawyer for relief. Our poor people have been raked over the coals of the camp fires of these lawyers and it has

to come to a halt. The Society of Just Men is proposing one possible solution:

CREATION OF A DOMESTIC RELATIONS AGENCY.

This agency would work at the county, bi-county or tri-county level depending on

population needs. It would be staffed by trained human services people such as psychologists, social workers, law enforcement officers, marital counselors and debt

counselors. It would help our poor people so much. Instead of paying incompetent

and unethical lawyers $300.00 to ravage their assets, they would pay a nominal fee

for assistance. The agency could be self-supporting and it could also receive grants

and gifts. Its prime duties would be:

(1) preservation of the children’s marriage;

(2) preservation of the family’s assets;

(3) preservation of the relationship between the father and mother;

(4) giving medical and psychological assistance (when it is evident mental

illnesses, e.g., borderline personalities, postpartum depression, anxiety, alcohol

and drug abuse, are present. If I never do anything else in my lifetime, I feel

my idea for this agency will be worth a lifetime of effort in bringing in into fruition. This is a noble cause and it is one we all should pursue. This domestic

relations agency would be the answer to many problems we currently have with

giving help to poor people in the throes of divorce or child custody situations.)

And, if the agency could not handle any narrow question, the parents would have

the right to pursue the issues with a lawyer before a family court judge—but with

narrowly confined issues and at minimal expense. The agency would have the power

to grant divorces under a judge’s signature, and it would have the power to grant

child custody and support. It would also handle all child support payments. Joint

custody would always be granted except in the most extraordinary circumstances.

Liberal visitation would be required even when a parent moved out-of-state. And the

moving parents would be held to high degrees of financial liability as to the creation

of a separation of father, mother and children for frivolous reasons. Electronic communication would be encourage, especially by telephone and email and video communication by computer on the Internet.

Recently, a secretary with very limited means asked me for a recommendation as

to a divorce lawyer. I sent her to a woman lawyer whom I had discovered is a member of the National Organization of Women. I had hoped this member of the Family

Law Section of the South Carolina Bar Association would help her with her rather

simple divorce and custody action and at a reasonable cost. The final bill for attorneys fees was $20,000.00. Not only am I shocked, but I am hurt that this N.O.W.

lawyer allowed this to happen. I certainly will never refer a case to her again. So

much for ethics between women lawyers and their women clients in South Carolina.

One local law firm acquired a $100,000.00 home as the total and final divorce settlement for a woman in this state. The lawyers’ bill was $140,000.00. The S.C. Supreme Court called the amount excessive but did nothing to the lawyers. The same

firm represented a woman who suddenly died leaving two babies without a mother.

The lawyers sued the babies for their legal fees. The S.C. Supreme Court called

their conduct ‘‘egregious,’’ but did nothing to discipline the lawyers. This is the problem: corruption from the highest court in each state, corruption in the offices of the

attorney generals, and corruption in the leadership of the bar associations. All of

this has been done over the years with the blessings and financial aid of our U.S.

Congress.

The DOMESTIC RELATIONS AGENCY is my invention, but it could also be a

tremendous gift of Congress to the American people. It could be overseen by a federal agency that could control funding and self-funding throughout the states and

territories. Such an agency would open a new frontier of marital relations, equity

in child support and enforcement, and in preserving our citizens’ marriages, assets,

and their emotional and spiritual well-being—and without lawyer involvement at

the lower levels. Most importantly, it could be an agency which would recognize and

uphold the idea that it’s the childrens’ marriage too, not the lawyers’ marriage to

be plundered viz-a-viz crime, fraud and deceit.

My remarks are never addressed towards the honest and ethical members of the

bar associations and judiciaries. There are many lawyers and judges who feel just

as I do about the fraud and crime in our family courts, and the need to do something about this organized mob of hooligans in black robes and pinstriped suits.

They ravage our men and women and children as ‘‘matrimonial’’ lawyers in their

‘‘family’’ courts. It must stop! And, Congress should stop sending any kind of financial aid to them.

133

In conclusion, I do not feel you can accomplish anything until such time as you

deal with the above abuses in our courts. After all, do any of you want to add fuel

to this fire of crime, fraud, deceit, perjury, subordination of perjury, misrepresentation and corruption? Can any of you truthfully state that you want to ignore the

above abuses and simply work around them and add more to the burden of fathers

in this country? Do you want to further burden our fathers with any kind of law

in such a corrupt system?

If you are interested, you can learn more about the Society of Just Men at our

new website: http://socjustmen.tripod.com. We are Christian men who are family-oriented men who fight for a better domestic relations system in our states. We not

only seek to help our men, but we also seek to help our women, our children and

grandchildren.

Respectfully submitted,

William Whitley Hodges, J.D.

Founder and Chairman

Æ