Enforcement of child support often results in custodial parents and noncustodial parentsbeing in an adversarial relationship. From the perspective of the noncustodial parent it is often seenas an unbalanced relationship because the custodial parent is backed by the Child SupportEnforcement (CSE) agency and in many cases the "Welfare" agency as well. Although the CSEagency views itself as working for the state on behalf of dependent children, the custodial parent ineffect receives the benefits of federal/state intervention because the child is in her or his care. Thissituation is even more pronounced in the case of low-income custodial parents and children becausethey have a link to public welfare agencies. Thus, the custodial parent has access to a network offederal and state resources that are not available to the noncustodial parent. During the last several years Members of Congress and others have acknowledged that the"best interests of the child" are generally served when both parents are part of the equation. Theyhave commented that many low-income noncustodial parents have low levels of education, poorwork histories, and significant barriers to work. They have debated child support issues in terms of"dead broke" rather than "deadbeat" noncustodial parents and have remarked that responsibleparenthood involves both financial and emotional relationships with one's children. Some contendthat public policies are needed to support the father's role as nurturer, disciplinarian, mentor andmoral instructor. (1) Thisnew federal/state governmental perspective is seen in the CSE agency's funding of access andvisitation programs for noncustodial parents and in pending welfare reauthorization legislation( H.R. 240 and S. 667 , 109th Congress) that would provide funding formarriage promotion and responsible fatherhood programs. The pending welfare reauthorization legislation (mentioned above) contains incentives forstates to send more of the child support collected on behalf of custodial parents to the family itself,additional CSE enforcement tools, funding for programs designed to promote marriage amonglow-income persons as a way to improve the economic well-being and development of children, andfunding for programs designed to help noncustodial fathers meet both their financial and emotionalresponsibilities to their children. Supporters of the welfare reauthorization legislation claim that itspassage will result in more noncustodial parents paying child support. They contend thatnoncustodial parents who can afford to pay child support but who do not want to pay will not be ableto escape their duty because of the strong enforcement apparatus, and that noncustodial parents whocannot afford to pay will be offered services that may improve their financial ability to pay as wellas their willingness to pay. The reader should note that this new more forgiving attitude toward noncustodial parents hasbrought with it a wariness among custodial parents. Some mothers contend that an emphasis on theimportance of fathers may lead to undervaluing single-parent families maintained by mothers -- thatservices for fathers may be at the expense of services for mothers -- and that the "pro-fatherhood"discourse might give fathers' rights groups additional leverage in challenging child support, childcustody, and visitation arrangements. Although noncustodial parents often find themselves at loggerheads with custodial parentsand the CSE system with respect to paternity and child support, the situation is usually morecomplicated than deadbeat dad vs. dependent mom. Sometimes a noncustodial parent is really notthe father and sometimes noncustodial parents who are trying to meet their financial obligation totheir children have been burdened with a child support order that is too high. In these situations,some maintain that legal services providers should do more to help alleviate the problem. Supportersof this approach maintain that providing legal services to noncustodial parents may result in childsupport payments becoming a more reliable source of income for custodial parents becausenoncustodial parents would have had greater access to the legal system and be more satisfied that"they had their day in court" and thereby be more amenable to fulfilling their child supportobligations. The LSC is a private, non-profit, federally funded corporation that was established byCongress in 1974. Part of the LSC's mission is to provide high quality legal assistance to those whootherwise would be unable to afford adequate legal representation and to assist in improvingopportunities for such persons. The LSC is funded through congressional appropriations. The LSCdoes not provide legal services directly, but rather it provides grants to independent local legalservices programs selected through a competitive process. The primary responsibility of the LSCis to manage and oversee the congressionally appropriated federal funds that it distributes in the formof grants to local legal services providers that in turn provide civil legal assistance to low-incomeclients in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and five U.S. territories. In FY2004, the LSCdistributed $316.6 million of its $335.3 million appropriation in the form of grants to 143 local legalservices programs. The remaining funds were allocated for management and administration,information technology, and its Office of the Inspector General. LSC funding accounts for about half of all funding in the United States for civil legal servicesfor the poor. In 2004, there were approximately 45 million persons who were potentially eligiblefor LSC-funded services, (2) but according to LSC surveys only about 20% of those eligible for and in need of services actuallyreceived services. Although low-income noncustodial parents who owe child support are among thepersons eligible for LSC-funded services, they aren't among the groups that have traditionally beenhelped by legal services programs and therefore may have a hard time accessing services that arealready in short supply. The Child Support Enforcement (CSE) program (Title IV-D of the Social Security Act) wasenacted in January 1975 ( P.L. 93-647 ). The CSE program is a federal/state program that promotesself-sufficiency of families in which one of the biological parents is living outside of the home byensuring that noncustodial parents meet their financial responsibility to their children. The CSEprogram provides seven major services on behalf of children: (1) parent location, (2) paternityestablishment, (3) establishment of child support orders, (4) review and modification of child supportorders, (5) collection of child support payments, (6) distribution of child support payments, and (7)establishment and enforcement of medical child support. All 50 states, the District of Columbia,Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands operate CSE programs and are entitled to federalmatching funds. While the federal government plays an important role in setting program standardsand policy, evaluating state performance, and providing technical assistance and training, states areresponsible for administering the CSE program (directly or through local CSE agencies and familyor domestic courts). Given that the main purpose of the CSE program is to act in the best interest of the child toobtain any financial support that a child is due, it usually is the case that the state and localgovernment along with the custodial parent are in an adversarial relationship with the noncustodialparent. In many instances the CSE agency collects owed child support via income withholding andno problems occur. In other cases, especially cases in which the parents were never married,paternity and a child support order must be established before the CSE agency can obtain childsupport on behalf of the custodial parent. In such cases, paternity may be contested and the financialability of the noncustodial parent to pay a specific amount of child support may be questioned. This section discusses some of the problems that noncustodial parents maintain that theyencounter; namely: (1) false allegations of fatherhood, (2) child support obligations that are unfairand unreasonable, (3) high arrearages that are financially beyond their capability to pay, (4)incarceration because of unreasonable child support demands, (5) loss of the means to theirlivelihood (e.g., driver's license, professional license, passport) because they fall behind in meetingtheir child support obligation, (6) poor relationships with their children, and (7) tenuous connectionto their families and with their community after serving time in jail or prison. Some noncustodial fathers and alleged fathers contend that the paternity establishmentprocess in recent years has focused on efficiency, at the expense of the father's right to due processand his right to representation. They argue that in some instances alleged fathers are not fullyinformed about the consequences of voluntarily acknowledging paternity and do not fully understandthe implication of their statement before they are encouraged to legally acknowledge paternity. Some noncustodial fathers argue that they were deceived into believing that if they voluntarilyacknowledged paternity, any child support they paid would be helping their child. They contend thatthis is not so if the child's mother is receiving benefits under the Temporary Assistance for NeedyFamilies (TANF) block grant program because instead of directly benefitting their children, theirchild support payments are used to pay the state back for cash welfare payments that the family isreceiving or received in the past. (3) There is widespread agreement by the CSE and legal services communities that thedue-process rights of noncustodial parents should not be overlooked even if doing so could beinterpreted as being in the best interest of the child. Advocates for noncustodial parents maintainthat if there is a question about a child's paternity it should be addressed by blood or DNA tests (insome cases even if the parents were married). Although blood or genetic testing is the standardprocedure in contested paternity cases, many people view such tests as an affront to their integrityand an indication of a lack of trust. This situation is exacerbated in the case of an older child. According to some focus group discussants, for many couples, once one of the partners or allegedpartners indicates that a paternity test is needed, any future chance for cooperative parenting isgreatly diminished because of lingering animosity over the father not stepping forward and meetinghis financial responsibility or the mother not being honest about her fidelity or use of birthcontrol. (4) Federal law requires states to have procedures which create a rebuttable or, at the option ofthe state, conclusive presumption of paternity upon genetic testing results indicating a thresholdprobability that the alleged father is the actual father of the child. Most states have a rebuttablepresumption paternity threshold that ranges from 95%-99.9%. This means that in some states bloodtest results that indicate a 98% or greater probability of paternity are not rebuttable, which raises thepossibility that 2% of the putative fathers tested may be wrongly assigned paternity, and therebywrongly burdened with an 18-year financial obligation. For additional information on issues related to child support and paternity establishment, see CRS Report RL31467(pdf) , Paternity Establishment: Child Support and Beyond . If a noncustodial parent gets a notice or a summons about child support or paternityestablishment but does not appear in court at the stipulated date and time, the court can enter a childsupport order against the noncustodial parent by default. If the noncustodial parent does not showup to tell his or her side of the story, the court can decide that the evidence against that person mustbe true. Thus, a "no-show" by the noncustodial parent may result in the establishment of paternityand the establishment of a child support order, effective whether or not the noncustodial parentactually has a job or an income source. Further, if the noncustodial parent is not in court to provideinformation about his or her job/income, the court may base the child support order on informationprovided by the custodial parent or the CSE agency, even if this information is incorrect. Moreover,if the noncustodial parent is not in court to present his or her evidence, the court or CSE agency mayimpute the noncustodial parent's income (which may be based on incorrect assumptions). Some observers argue that the practice of using default judgments (i.e., judgments made inthe absence of the alleged father) has adversely affected many putative fathers who claim they arenot the father of the child in question but, for whatever reason, did not show up in court to deny theallegations. Many analysts and observers maintain that the standards governing default judgmentsshould balance the rights of the putative father to proper notice and the opportunity to be heardbefore paternity is established and a child support order is set, against the right of the child to obtaina determination of paternity and support (on a timely basis) from a father who knowingly fails toappear in court. (5) Child support arrearages can be accumulated in several ways, depending upon the guidelinesestablished by the state. The first and most prevalent way is through nonpayment of child support. For each month that a noncustodial parent fails to meet the full child support obligation, the unpaidsupport is added to the amount the noncustodial parent owes (i.e., this is generally referred to aspast-due payments or arrearages). A second way that arrearages mount occurs because in manystates and localities child support orders remain payable and in effect even when the noncustodialparent is unemployed or incarcerated; further, in all states, arrearages remain due (for various timeperiods) even after the child reaches the age of majority. Another way that arrearages accumulateoccurs because in addition to current support, some states choose to establish retroactive supportwhen setting new orders. Depending on the state's policy, these retroactive arrearages may extendfrom two to six years prior, or they may be unlimited in their scope, extending back all the way tothe time of the child's birth. Arrearages can also be incurred for costs and fees; particularly attorneyfees, court filing fees, fees for blood tests associated with the determination of paternity, and thecosts associated with the child's birth. Finally, some states charge interest on arrearages therebyincreasing the amount owed. (6) Arrearages are enforced and pursued, usually through income tax intercepts and attachmentof property to encourage parents to meet their obligations regularly and on time and to send themessage that there are serious consequences for nonpayment of child support. In FY2004, $130.3 billion in child support obligations ($28.0 billion in current support and$102.4 billion in past-due support) was owed to families receiving CSE services, but only $23.2billion was paid ($16.5 billion current, $6.7 billion past-due). This meant that the CSE program onlycollected 18% of the child support obligations for which it had responsibility. If current collectionsare examined separately, the data indicate that the CSE program collected 59% of all currentcollections in FY2004. If collections on past-due support (i.e., arrearages) are examined separately, the data show that the CSE program collected less than 7% of arrearage payments in FY2004. Inother words, the total amount of arrearages reported in FY2004 for all previous fiscal years was$102.4 billion; but only $6.7 billion was collected in FY2004. Although only a relatively smallpercentage of arrearage payments were collected in FY2004, about 60% of obligors continued tomake payments on their child support arrearages. The CSE FY2003 Preliminary Data report states: In 1999, 53% of the child support cases had arrearagesowed. In 2003, the proportion was up to 68%. We obtained collections in 60% of these cases, so weknow that child support professionals are working hard on them and that obligors are trying to workon their debts. But we collected an average of $600 per arrearage case, while the average amountof arrears per arrearage case is $9,000. So, even though we're collecting significant amounts ofarrears, we don't seem to be making a dent in the problem, and the overall debt continues togrow. (7) In many cases, arrearages are quite high and often deter noncustodial parents from payingany child support. In fact, when noncustodial parents perceive that the system is unfair or that thedebt is too great to be overcome, the likelihood that they will pay any support decreases. (Foradditional information on child support arrearages, see CRS Report RL31167, Child SupportEnforcement and Low-Income Fathers: Arrearages, Current Support, and Compliance .) Many noncustodial parents believe that if they fall behind in their child support payments ata time when they are legitimately unable to make the payments, the amount they owe can later bereduced or discounted by the court when an explanation for nonpayment is given. However, this isnot the case. If the noncustodial parent waits to explain his or her changed financial circumstances,the court will not be able to retroactively reduce the back payments (i.e., arrearages) that thenoncustodial parent owes. (8) Under the CSE program, states are given significant latitude regarding modifications andreviews of child support orders. Federal law requires that states give both parents the opportunityto request a review of their child support order at least once every three years, and states are requiredto notify the parents of this right. States can also request reviews for modification or shorten thetime period between reviews, but they are not required to review orders on a regular basis. (9) In order to prevent child support arrearages, especially for noncustodial parents who areunemployed or in jail, advocates have recommended that child support modification laws be changedso that they are more sensitive to periods of incarceration, unemployment, or injury/illness duringwhich the noncustodial parent's ability to pay child support decreases. There is near unanimous agreement among federal and state policymakers that denial ofvisitation rights should not be considered a reason for stopping child support payments. Historically,Congress has treated visitation and child support as legally separate issues, with only child supportenforcement activities under the purview of the federal government. However, in recent years,Congress has moderated its position against using federal CSE funds to promote enforcement ofvisitation rights. Many noncustodial parents argue that it is unfair to look at the child support issue only fromthe viewpoint of the custodial parent. Traditionally, they argue, courts have sided with mothers inawarding custody, and have paid insufficient attention to enforcing visitation rights of fathers. Asa result, they say, mothers have had the rewards and obligations connected with rearing children,while fathers have sometimes had no share in the rewards, but have the continuing obligation to paysupport. To be fair, they argue, federal laws and procedures should be reformed not only withrespect to enforcement of the child support obligation, but also with respect to visitation and custodyrights. Some advocates of increasing parental responsibility argue that it is now time for the federalgovernment to focus more attention on the "non-financial" benefits associated with preserving theconnection between noncustodial parents and their children. Many policymakers and analystsmaintain that a distinction must be made between men who are "dead broke" and those who are"deadbeats." They argue that the federal government should help dead broke noncustodial parentsmeet both their financial and emotional obligations to their children and vigorously enforce CSElaws against deadbeat parents. (10) All states have laws that enable them to bring charges of criminal nonsupport or civil orcriminal contempt of court against noncustodial parents who fail to pay child support. The crimeof nonsupport has been on the books in most states for many years. (11) There are two schools ofthought with regard to criminal nonsupport laws: One view holds that criminal nonsupport shouldbe used as a last resort, only after civil remedies fail. The other school of thought maintains thatnonpayment of child support is a serious offense often with dire consequences for the custodialparent and child; thus criminal nonsupport laws should be used whenever appropriate. The use ofarrests in criminal nonsupport cases and the outcome of those arrests varies widely by jurisdiction,making it difficult to document the magnitude of the practice. (12) Civil contempt charges are made when a noncustodial parent does not comply with a judge'sorder to pay child support. Payment of the child support debt results in compliance with the order,and freedom from jail. Although the time spent in jail for civil contempt is particularly hard to track,it represents a significant, if not routine, means by which low-income noncustodial parents land injail. (13) For noncustodial parents who miss several days of low-pay work in jobs where they can beeasily replaced by an employer, the consequences of even a short time in jail can be devastating. Needless to say for noncustodial parents who serve longer sentences based on a criminal convictionof nonpayment of child support, the consequences of a criminal record can often be veryfar-reaching. (See Issues Related to Incarcerated and Newly Released Noncustodial Parents below.) It also should be noted that with the enactment of the Child Support Recovery Act of 1992( P.L. 102-521 ), nonsupport is now also a federal crime. Building on the 1992 legislation, P.L.105-187 , the Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act of 1998, established two new federal criminaloffenses (subject to a two-year maximum prison term) with respect to noncustodial parents whorepeatedly fail to financially support children who reside with custodial parents in another state orwho flee across state lines to avoid supporting them. According to a 2003 study by the Center on Law and Social Policy (CLASP) and CommunityLegal Services, Inc. of Philadelphia, (14) about 1.5 million children have parents who are currentlyincarcerated and more than 10 million children in the United States have parents who wereimprisoned at some point in the children's lives. The study stated that approximately 400,000mothers and fathers finish serving prison or jail sentences each year and return home to try toreestablish family ties. Most of these ex-offender parents lived with or had regular contact with theirchildren before going to prison. The study indicates that about 25% of inmates have open childsupport cases. Incarcerated noncustodial parents generally owe between $225 to $313 per month inchild support; and on average they go into prison owing about $10,000 in child support arrearagesand leave prison owing more then $23,000 in arrearage payments. (15) More than half of thesearrearages are owed to the state to repay welfare costs. Ex-offenders re-entering communities face a host of problems, such as employment barriersstemming from their criminal records (sometimes for many years after completing their jail time orprison sentences), denial of federally subsidized housing because of criminal records, denial offederal grants and student loans because of a conviction for possession or sale of controlledsubstances (even if the conviction occurred when the person was a minor), and denial of welfarebenefits if the person has a criminal record. Also, unrealistically high child support orders orarrearages may discourage ex-offenders from finding a regular job vulnerable to income withholding,tempting them to find jobs in the underground economy and thereby lessening their chances ofsuccessfully establishing ties with their families and communities. (In some cases, incarceration isconsidered "voluntary unemployment," which does not justify reduction of the child support order,thereby resulting in high arrearages.) Moreover, in some cases, dissolution of parental rights resultsfrom criminal convictions (even those unrelated to the parent's ability to care for the child). According to a report by the Center for Family Policy and Practice, (16) a felony conviction orincarceration was grounds for termination of parental rights in 42 states, and "failure to maintaincontact" was grounds for termination of parental rights in 36 states. Finally, in the case ofimmigrants with children who are U.S. citizens, criminal convictions may result in deportation ofthe immigrant parent. (17) President Bush in his 2004 State of the Union Address announced a new plan to bring localand faith-based groups together with federal agencies to help recently released prisoners make asuccessful transition back to society -- reducing the chance that they would be arrested again. Thisfour-year, $300 million initiative would have provided transitional housing, basic job training, andmentoring. (18) Althoughthis proposal has not yet been authorized, there is a federal program that provides mentoring servicesfor children of prisoners. (19) Low-income noncustodial parents who owe child support have very few places to turn forassistance or support. However, one potential source of aid for noncustodial parents who owe childsupport is legal services. As mentioned earlier, the Legal Services Corporation (LSC) is a private, non-profit, federallyfunded corporation established in 1974 by Congress. Part of the LSC's mission is to provide highquality legal assistance to those who otherwise would be unable to afford adequate legalrepresentation and to assist in improving opportunities for such persons. The LSC-funded programs do not handle criminal cases, nor do they accept fee-generatingcases that private attorneys are willing to accept on a contingency basis. In addition, in 1996 a seriesof new limitations were placed upon activities in which LSC-funded programs may engage on behalfof their clients, even with non-LSC funds. Among them are prohibitions on class actions, challengesto welfare reform, collection of attorneys' fees, rule making, lobbying, litigation on behalf ofprisoners, representation in drug-related public housing evictions, and representation of certaincategories of aliens. The legal services delivery system is based on several principles: local priorities, nationalaccountability, competition for grants, and a strong public-private partnership. Local programs areindependent entities, governed by Boards of Directors drawn from the local bar and clientcommunity. All legal services programs must comply with laws enacted by Congress and theimplementing regulations promulgated by the LSC. LSC funding accounts for about half of all funding in the United States for civil legal servicesfor the poor. (20) TheLSC does not provide legal services directly, but rather it provides grants to independent local legalservices programs selected through a competitive process. In FY2004, the LSC distributed $316.6million of its $335.3 million appropriation in the form of grants to 143 local legal services programs. The remaining funds were allocated for management and administration ($13.2 million),information technology ($2.9 million), and the LSC Office of the Inspector General ($2.6 million). In FY2004, there were approximately 45 million persons who were potentially eligible forLSC-funded services. Data from the LSC suggest that only about 20% of persons eligible forLSC-funded services actually had access to those services when they needed them (based ongeographic boundaries, service areas, funding, local priorities, etc.). (21) According to the LSC's2003-2004 Annual Report: Despite LSC's current congressional support, the unmetlegal needs of America's poor remain staggering. To qualify for LSC-funded assistance, anindividual's annual income cannot exceed $11,638; a family of four's cannot exceed $23,563. Yetcurrent federal funding is clearly inadequate to serve the civil legal needs of the more than 45.2million poor Americans eligible for LSC-funded legal assistance. Millions of eligible clients areforestalled from pursuing justice every year. Still millions more -- whose incomes are just above thefederal poverty threshold but who nonetheless cannot afford adequate legal representation -- areeffectively denied access to the U.S. civil justice system as well. (22) LSC grantees close about 1 million cases annually in addition to handling another 4 million legalservice "matters" (such as helping self-represented (i.e., pro se ) litigants obtain the information theyneed to pursue their lawsuit, disseminating legal services materials in communities, referring clientsto appropriate services, providing mediation assistance, staffing courthouse help desks, etc.). During 2004, legal services attorneys closed 901,067 cases. Family issues such as childsupport, divorce, separation, and domestic violence were the substance of about 40% of caseshandled by legal services offices; housing issues, including eviction cases, homeownership problems,and public housing assistance comprised about 25% of cases; income maintenance issues, includingbenefit claims for veterans and senior citizens, and Medicaid and Social Security disability claimsrepresented another 15% of cases; and consumer, finance (including bankruptcy and debt reliefassistance), and individual rights issues comprised about 20% of cases. Most of the cases handledby legal services providers are resolved through advice and referral. Only about 14% of cases wereresolved in court, primarily because they involved family law issues (e.g., protective orders, childsupport, etc.) in which court action was required by state law. As noted above, the LSC does not provide legal services directly. Rather, it funds local legalservices providers, which are referred to by the LSC as "grantees." Grantees may include non-profitorganizations that have as a purpose the provision of legal assistance to eligible clients, privateattorneys, groups of private attorneys or law firms, state or local governments, and certain sub-stateregional planning and coordination agencies. Each local legal services program is headed by its ownboard of directors, of whom about 60% are lawyers admitted to a state bar and one-third are eligibleclients. Each local program must spend an amount equal to at least 12.5% of its basic grant toencourage participation by private attorneys in the delivery of legal services to low-income clients. Local programs establish their own eligibility criteria, which may not exceed 125% of the federalpoverty guidelines. Local programs hire staff, contract with local attorneys, and develop pro bonoprograms for the direct delivery of legal assistance to eligible clients. These local programs providelegal assistance to individuals based on locally determined priorities that meet local communityconditions and needs. Thus, to a certain extent, it is up to noncustodial parents to advocate on their own behalf andto make the communities in which they live aware of the problems that they face with regard tocountering unjustified allegations of paternity, obtaining fair child support orders, meeting their childsupport obligations, getting child supports orders modified when they have a change in financialcircumstances, seeking custody or visitation rights, and re-establishing family and community ties. With only an estimated 20% of eligible recipients receiving legal services (when they need suchservices), low-income noncustodial parents must compete to be included as customers in a programthat does not have the resources to serve all who are eligible for its services. Legal assistance is generally advisable in matters as serious and complex as paternityestablishment and child support. The outcome of such cases may result in significant redistributionof income from the noncustodial parent to the custodial parent and child for many years. However,most low-income noncustodial parents cannot afford to hire an attorney to help deal with thesecomplicated matters. For millions of Americans, legal services represent their only way to access the justicesystem. Legal services' clients are very diverse, encompassing all races, ethnic groups, and ages. They include families receiving public assistance, the working poor, veterans, family farmers,persons with disabilities, victims of domestic violence, and victims of natural disasters. Many ofthese persons were formerly middle class, and became poor because of age, unemployment, illness,or the breakup of a family. LSC-funded programs are intended to provide individuals with the legalinformation they need to help themselves and instruct clients on both their rights and responsibilitiesunder the law. LSC's help is intended to assist families to maintain their incomes, homes, healthbenefits, and ties to their children and their communities. (23) According to the LSC, about 70% of their clients are women,most with children, and another 10% are senior citizens. (24) Legal services providers have the ability to help noncustodial parents in a number of ways. They can provide information on the benefits and responsibilities of fatherhood before an allegedfather voluntarily acknowledges paternity. They can counsel alleged fathers to contest paternity ifthe man does not believe that the child is his. They can warn noncustodial parents of the negativeconsequences that often result from default judgments. They can advise noncustodial parents of thebenefits of appearing in court at the appointed date and time to present their side of the story inpaternity and child support cases. They can represent noncustodial parents in court, presentingevidence that counters the awarding of unreasonably high child support orders. They candisseminate information encouraging noncustodial parents to seek a modification of the child supportorder if their financial circumstances change because of a loss of a job, illness/disability, jail orprison sentence, or additional dependents. They can represent such persons in the modificationhearing. They can advocate on their client's behalf to get driver's licenses, professional licenses, orpassports reinstated. They can advise noncustodial parents of their rights regarding child custodyand visitation. They can petition the court for custody or visitation rights on the noncustodialparent's behalf. They can refer noncustodial parents to appropriate resources to help them meet theiremotional and financial responsibilities to their children. They can help noncustodial parents getarrest or conviction records expunged. The LSC has invested about $3 million over the last couple of years from its informationtechnology budget to provide that every state has a comprehensive legal services internet websitewhere clients can access important legal materials. Other information technology grants havesupported the creation of websites specifically designed to assist self-represented litigants by offeringdownloadable self-help materials, referrals to legal and social services providers, and other usefullinks. (25) Recent efforts on the part of legal services programs to coordinate and improve clientoutreach and community legal education provide one way for noncustodial parents to gain assistancein resolving many of their child support issues. Just as divorce, paternity issues, child custody,visitation, eviction, etc., are important issues for mothers who historically have received help fromlegal services, they also are pivotal for fathers as well.

Summary: Enforcement of child support often results in custodial parents and noncustodial parentsbeing in an adversarial relationship. Noncustodial parents often view it as an unbalancedrelationship, because custodial parents have access to a network of federal and state resources (e.g.,the Child Support Enforcement (CSE) agency and the welfare agency) that are not available to thenoncustodial parent. Pending welfare reauthorization legislation ( H.R. 240 and S. 667 )includes incentives for states to send more of the child support collected on behalf of custodialparents to the family itself, additional CSE enforcement tools, funding for marriage promotionprograms for low-income persons, and funding for programs designed to help noncustodial fathersmeet both their financial and emotional responsibilities to their children. Supporters of the welfarereauthorization legislation claim that its passage will result in more noncustodial parents paying childsupport. They contend that noncustodial parents who can afford to, but do not, pay child support willnot be able to escape their duty because of the strong enforcement apparatus, and that noncustodialparents who cannot afford to pay will be offered services that may improve their financial ability topay, as well as their willingness to pay. In situations in which noncustodial parents find themselves at loggerheads with custodialparents and the CSE system with respect to paternity and child support, some have encouraged legalservices providers to play a more "balanced" role. They maintain that providing legal services tononcustodial parents could result in child support payments becoming a more reliable source ofincome for custodial parents if noncustodial parents were provided better access to the legal systemand were satisfied that "they had their day in court" and thereby more amenable to paying childsupport. This report describes some of the child support issues faced by noncustodial parents anddiscusses areas in which legal services providers funded by the Legal Services Corporation (LSC)are authorized to support poor noncustodial parents. The LSC is a private, non-profit, federally funded corporation established by Congress toprovide financial support for civil legal assistance for persons unable to afford legal help. InFY2004, the LSC distributed $316.6 million of its $335.3 million appropriation in the form of grantsto 143 local legal services programs. Local programs provide legal assistance to individuals basedon locally determined priorities that meet local community conditions and needs. Thus, to a certainextent, it is necessary for noncustodial parents to advocate on their own behalf, that is, to make thecommunities in which they live aware of the problems that they face with regard to counteringunjustified allegations of paternity, obtaining fair child support orders, meeting their child supportobligations, getting child support orders modified when they have a change in financialcircumstances, seeking custody or visitation rights, and re-establishing family and community tiesafter incarceration. With only an estimated 20% of eligible clients receiving legal services (whenthey need such services), low-income noncustodial parents must now compete to be included asclients in a program that does not have the resources to serve all who are eligible for its services. This report will not be updated.