Recession Caused First-Ever Decline In Child Support Payments: GAO

WASHINGTON -- Total funds collected for U.S. child-support programs failed to increase during fiscal year 2009 for the first time since Congress created an enforcement arm for such collections in 1975, according to a study released this week by the Government Accountability Office.

Overall collections declined by 2.1 percent from the previous fiscal year, including the first-ever drop in collections automatically withheld from wages, long the primary source of child-support payments. The enforcement program, administered at the state level and overseen by the federal Department of Health and Human Services, collected about $26 billion in child support payments during fiscal 2009 on behalf of some 17 million children, almost one-quarter of the nation's kids. The average amount of child support collected per case dropped 3 percent to $1,670, the first decline since 1994.

The amount of child-support funding collected from unemployment checks, however, nearly tripled during fiscal 2009. It's a measure of the depths of the recession, but also of how much deeper it could have been, analysts say, without government efforts to mitigate the economic crisis.

"I think it's clear that the decline in collections isn't due to a failing on the part of child-support enforcement administrators, but due to the economy," said Elizabeth Lower-Basch, a senior policy analyst at the Center for Law and Social Policy, an advocacy group for lower-income Americans. "It would have been a bigger drop without the extended unemployment insurance benefits, which helped many noncustodial parents meet their obligations."

Nearly 9.3 million Americans are currently receiving either state or federal unemployment checks as of this week, according to the Labor Department. Federal extensions of jobless benefits can provide up to 73 weeks of aid beyond the standard 26 weeks provided by states.

The federal government spent $120 billion on unemployment benefits in 2009, and almost half of all families with one unemployed member received benefits that year, with the aid providing for an average boost of $6,000 to each family's income.

That spending prevented a record surge in the poverty rate last year, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

States use several enforcement tools to ensure that noncustodial parents continue to provide financial support for their children, including withholding collections automatically from the parent's wages, unemployment benefits and state and federal tax refunds, depending on the situation.

Comments

[Cale Wheeler]

09:44 PM on 02/08/2011

Get a vasectomy men -- its cheaper; if you have good insurance your 100k mistake turned into $35 bucks copay!!

[Teresa Wells]

10:23 PM on 03/30/2011

Some people are very selfish

[AustinG]

04:08 PM on 02/07/2011

While I think that a parent that runs out on their kids and spouse should certainly have to pay chld support a couple of things strike me here. First is the notion that if abortion is her choice how does one reconsile that to the man having to pay based on that choice if there is equality. One of many reasons why I hate the "choice" argument. It can easily be used by the irresponsible to justify acting irresponsibly.

The other is that $1,600 for the average case? That is a pittance. It is around $30 per week or $4.50 per day. I guess that is more an indication of who the single fathers are and how much they make. It certainly couldn't be anything in regards to how much it costs to raise a child.

[Cboscari]

04:37 PM on 02/09/2011

I think you are confusing that figure with the annual child support total- not the CASE total the article cites. I imagine a case might be opened up after a few months of missed payment, maybe even only one month.

[kemcha]

01:22 PM on 02/06/2011

Way I see it? If a parent doesn't have a job or has exhausted unemployment benefits, there's no way they can afford their child support payments. You cannot squeeze ketchup out of an empty bottle, people.

[kemcha]

01:20 PM on 02/06/2011

While I honestly feel bad for those parents who are missing their child support payments, everyone should have seen this coming for a very long time.

When the 2007/2008 stock market crash happened, it would just be only a matter of time before the domino effect, which filtered through the Federal government, down through state and local government and now it's starting to affect charities and now child support payments. It's a deteriorating effect that's going to continue its domino-like effect until it affects every man, woman and child on the planet.

The only ones it doesn't seem to be affecting are millionaires, billionaires and politicians.

[dadzrites]

10:45 AM on 02/06/2011

Tresco says: Guys man up and take care of your kids. That means do the best you can. If you lose your job pay what you can. Even if your ex is being..."d­ifficult" you have a duty as a father to support them. A few misconceptions here. If you're paying child support, most likely you're having it garnished by the government. If you lose your job, you're likely on unemployment. The gov't is probably taking most or all of it because they don't modify it downward as the law requires to reflect the lost income. I know of many fathers taking home $100 per week on a $500-$600 per week unemployment check--after child support is garnished. Is this fair? Hell no! As with any intact family, if the father's income drops, everyone pulls in their belts. Except with child support. If dad loses his job, mom still gets the full amount or as close to the full amount as possible. The courts are violating the laws by not reducing the income.

As for the "difficult mom" not letting dad see the kids, the US Supreme Ct. (& several states) has held there is a fundamental constitutional right to the care, custody & nurture of one's children. There is also a RECIPROCAL duty/obligation to financially & EMOTIONALLY support the children. Denial of parenting time by mom is a unilateral termination of parental rights that obviates the responsibility of financial support.

[densogirl]

04:04 PM on 02/10/2011

Tell it to the "Friend of the Court." My son hasn't seen his daughter in 5 years. He couldn't afford to file a case against the mother every 2 weeks. I am still paying his legal bills from 5 years ago. He paid his child support,too. No rights for dads unless you have money.

[WVJoe]

02:06 PM on 02/24/2011

I am in the same boat as are many other good dads out there. I have no access to my daughter and now that she is 16, what court will do anything for us? I pay my child support, it is garnished from my pay and still have been removed from my childs life. I am sick to death of the dead beat dad drumbeat, when will the conversation move to why moms refuse to let there childrens fathers be in the father.

[Levi Reed]

07:37 PM on 03/04/2011

Can you please cite two or three cases that state this? I've been looking for these cases to no avail

[SionShankel]

03:30 AM on 02/06/2011

If the income is down for the fathers, just imagine how much it went own for the mothers too... because most of the divorced mothers with kids have to work both outside and inside the home and we all know women start out making less then men...the economy is hitting single mothers double hard.

[Tresco]

08:14 PM on 02/05/2011

Guys man up and take care of your kids. That means do the best you can. If you lose your job pay what you can. Even if your ex is being..."difficult" you have a duty as a father to support them. If your ex or the court are hosing you I understand your plight. Ex wives and judges are often totally unreasonable and many a good man has been screwed over without reason. I hate that with the fire of a thousand suns. I'm just saying to do right by your kids.

[dadzrites]

02:09 PM on 02/05/2011

No matter what the government tells you (and I don't believe the government for one instant), they claim that the AVERAGE amounts of child support are reduced and don't seem to be that much. Is anyone aware that according to GAO reports that Mothers in 25% of all cases DID NOT WANT SUPPORT, that 21% DID NOT PURSUE AN AWARD, and that 25% of fathers are unable to pay because of underemployment, unemployment, disability or death. The reasons for not wanting child support are varied, such as the mother not wanting the father in the child's (children's) lives, the mother is a high-income earner and doesn't need the father's money, criminal convictions and incarceration, sexual molestation charges, etc.

If what the government says is true about the reduced payments and lower average amounts, then how come the payments and amounts have declined because of the recession? Because the amounts were too high to begin with!

[dadzrites]

01:58 PM on 02/05/2011

25% of the workforce comprises women earning more than men because they have college or professional degrees or beyond. Eighty percent (80%) of those unemployed during this "Great Recession" are men. Many media outlets are calling it a "Mancession".

What is child support in name, is in reality untaxable de facto alimony. Even though the gov't likes to underreport the average amount of child support, I can tell you that from areas like the NJ-NY-Philadelphia Metro region, LA-SD-SF area, Chicago and a few other areas, child support awards of $1500-$2000 per month are not uncommon, while alimony awards are usually double or triple that. Men who were paying those amounts, because of their high-paid positions, are now finding themselves on unemployment, but the courts are willfully refusing to reduce the amounts because the states (and the courts--being an arm of the state) will lose massive Federal funding that is sent to each state's general treasury, with "not strings attached". (See Title 42 U.S.C. Sections 658a,f)(called the "federal reimbursement incentive payments to the states"). The more support (& alimony) awarded, enforced upon and collected, the more federal funding the state gets. And, who are the first people paid out of the state treasury? Judges, child support workers, law enforcement, DAs, politicians, etc. The US S.Ct. held that this is an unconstitutional conflict of interest, judges must recuse themselves, and any orders are null & void.

[densogirl]

04:10 PM on 02/10/2011

But the guy paying alimony can at least claim a credit. That takes it out of his gross reported income. No so for child support. Now, that's what I call unfair. My son had almost half his unemployment check go to child support. He finally gets a job making $7.30 an hour and the court takes out just as much. I'm sending him food. Now, he just got fired. More money to spend to go to court.

[danielei]

12:13 PM on 02/05/2011

And when the custodial mother loses her job, which was already paying less than a man's wages, or never could work because she was doing the unpaid job of raising the children, or is hired at a lower wage or only working part-time without benefits because of her primary responsibility to her children, or when she never did collect child support when the economy was good, or when.....and on and on and on and on.

[Denis Pakkala]

12:06 PM on 02/05/2011

This will result in more men going to jail because they lost their jobs and/or have to take lower paying jobs. It's only "child support" in name, but actually intended to equalize incomes.

Hopefully these mothers are working, somebody is going to have to pay for the prisons.

[Gaylord P Farqua]

10:44 AM on 02/05/2011

Unfortunately this result of unemployment may cause the new House majority to act fast and repeal the child labor laws so these kids can find jobs. There is no way that the crusading deficit fighters will consider taxing multi-millionaires or billionaires or reducing defense spending or closing the myriad of corporate tax loopholes to help out these kids and their mothers. Better to arrest the delinquent fathers, imprison them and get them off the unemployment rolls. Besides, ..."are there no workhouses..." the latter day Dickens might ask?

[plages]

11:37 AM on 02/05/2011

There was no recession when my father dropped us, and fled. I'm now 70, and some father's just shouldn't be, in good times, or bad!

[paintedfaceless]

12:23 PM on 02/05/2011

a bit of a stretch...

[DejzaVoo]

10:27 AM on 02/05/2011

Decline? I have been waiting 14 years for child support payments. Heh. They know where he is. He has never been put in jail for the support issue. Every couple of years, they intercept his tax return. He owns a restaurant in North Carolina now. But I still have never received court ordered child support.

[imissmyson]

10:50 AM on 02/05/2011

So sad. Morally a law shouldn't even be necessary. A man who doesn't support his children is not a man. A jail sentence should be imposed. The kids won't be hurt by that as they aren't getting money from him anyway. Let him pay with his freedom.

[Naninwstock]

10:54 AM on 02/05/2011

Keep up with the fight. You will collect eventually. I fought for 10 years and the total came to nearly 50 grand. Finally, last year they found him, and his money. He had been doing pretty well over the years and now he is the one paying. Although it is coming in a little here and there, after each court appearance, he pays just enough to keep him out of jail. Last year he signed the agreement to pay and skipped out on the agreement. 2 days ago was the last court date, we hope, and he has to pay the balance. It has been a long hard interstate battle, but keep going. Good luck to you. I know just how you feel....

[avg american]

10:22 AM on 02/05/2011

Another tragic fallout directly affecting the children and future economy.

The underemployed, and unemployed - this depression is not your fault.

When the Wall Street casino tanked, big corporations, opportunistically took advantage of the perception that the world is falling to 'right-size' their companies to increase shareholder value.

This is kinda how it works. Simply put: when an employee gets fired, payroll expense goes down, because that person is gone and while the other staff members pick up the added work load, the corporation keeps the money in the form of shareholder value for itself.

The big corporations didn't need to do this.
Many of them didn't have to lay off their staff.
It was an opportunity to seize, and they did en masse.
Resulting in 20+ million unemployed and growing.

You are not unemployed because you didn't do a good job.
You are not unemployed because you didn't sacrifice enough.
You are not unemployed because you didn't work hard enough.

You are unemployed because of a rigged and corrupt system.
This depression is not your fault.
The 2% richy-rich are the shareholders.

[seted]

10:00 AM on 02/05/2011

When it comes to the issue of child support I believe the whole system needs to be overhauled. I know of a case where a man got divorced because the woman had and was continuing to cheat on him, the man insisted that the woman's new born child could not have been fathered by him and a DNA test proved it. Regardless of the finding the man was still ordered to pay child support only because he happened to be standing at her roulette table when the ball clicked home. I think when it comes to men and women relationships the courts are horribly bias. Things are starting to change now , but slowly. I know of a 14 year old male who was seduced and fathered a child with a 35 year old woman, if it was the other way around they would have tossed the man in prison. Granted this was a few years ago but it still happens and the male's life is basically ruined. Unless the abuser is a teacher you never hear about it.