Deadbeat states

[flashl]

Mothers Skimp as States Take Child Support

The collection of child support from absent fathers is failing to help many of the poorest families, in part because the government uses fathers’ payments largely to recoup welfare costs rather than passing on the money to mothers and children.

Close to half the states pass along none of collected child support to families on welfare, while most others pay only $50 a month to a custodial parent, usually the mother, even though the father may be paying hundreds of dollars each month.

Critics say using child support to repay welfare costs harms children instead of helping them, contradicting the national goal of strengthening families, and is a flaw in the generally lauded national campaign to increase collections.

Read More ...

Who is worse the deadbeat dad or the deadbeat state?

[Gormy Cuss]

1. As someone who has experience in this area both as

a child in an AFDC family and as an adult researcher, here's my perspective. When I was a child I remember my father being furious that he had to send his support checks to the state rather than drop them by each week on his payday. As a child, that weekly contact with him was comforting and when he no longer had to stop by that regularly, he didn't. The net result was that his children saw him far less frequently. From a welfare agency perspective, this was at a time when child support enforcement was spotty and families like ours would have realized too much benefit from the extra money had he been allowed to continue paying my mother directly. In other words, no way should our family live any better than any other family of the same size on AFDC. My mother's check stub showed her eligible grant adjusted to account for the child support received, but that was the only recognition that it even existed.

As an adult working in public policy, I understand that without the mandate to reimburse the government for welfare the child support enforcement system would not have been established and custodial parents would have to rely on the courts (unlikely since many lacked the resources to hire an attorney.) That also was one of the worst limitations because the goal was recouping government costs, not increase child support payments. Working parents who aren't on assistance tend to have little luck getting the state to work with them on child support arrearage.

From my professional experience I also know the simple reality that many nonsupporting fathers of low-income children are themselves very low income and low skilled or have other barriers to full employment at a wage capable of supporting their children. You can't get blood from a stone. To the extent that these parents will never be able to support their children, funneling all of the funds that they do send for support back into the welfare system creates a disincentive. Why bother if your child doesn't even see that you are stepping up as best you can?

I think a movement away from using child support enforcement solely as a revenue tool is a good one. Even if only $50 or $100 per child is allowed as a straight pass-through, it's better than having the funds just disappear into the state vortex.

[jody]

4. Thanks for sharing your experience and insight. n/t

[Warpy]

2. They don't give a shit about children

because they're terrified the mothers are going to get some good out of that money, too.

Using child garnished child support payments to "repay" welfare is obscene.

The GOPs who came up with that one need the lowest circle of hell, or a thousand rebirths as children abandoned by their fathers.

[Breeze54]

3. There are deadbeat Mom's & Dad's and * cut the Child Support Enforcement budget!

http://www.clasp.org/publications/012606_childsupportcuts.pdf">Cuts to Child Support Enforcement in Budget Bill Will Cost Families $8.4 Billion or More in Uncollected Child Support

snip-->

CBO estimates that the cut in federal funding from the elimination of the federal incentive match
will cost families $8.4 billion in child support in the form of payments owed to children by their
non-custodial parents that will go uncollected. And this estimate—which finds that children will
lose more from this cut than the federal government will save—assumes that states replace half of
the spending reduction. If states fail to do so, children will lose twice as much: $17 billion in
uncollected support over the next ten years (CLASP estimate).

------

The WAR on Families by the GOP is in full swing! :grr:

And the states have been taking the majority of the payments for years.

[murray hill farm]

5. Right to Life, eh??????????????

And now that all of you babies are born, well...now starve or pray for food and shelter or whatever.

[Breeze54]

6. No, that's what they, GOP says, but they don't live it at all.

They are liars, as we all know or should know by now.

[flashl]

7. How can we solve what appears to be a tsunami of distress for families?

DU Post - Bush Cuts Food Program for Women and Children

Where is the reconciliation with reports of "economic growth" and Rising Hunger: The muddle in America?