New Obama/Bayh/Davis 'Fatherhood' Bill Helps Bureaucrats, Not Dads

With support from President Obama, Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) and Congressman Danny Davis (D-IL) introduced the Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act of 2009 for Father's Day, a bill cosponsored by then-Senator Barack Obama in the last Congress. Obviously Bayh and Davis have to contend with DC political realities, which work against fathers and make rational legislation to help them politically difficult. Still, this Responsible Fatherhood bill will help bureaucrats and others far more than it helps dads, and in some ways it will hurt fathers.

According to Bayh's press release, the legislation will:

1) "Ensure that child support payments to families do not count as income and result in loss of food stamps."

That's nice for low-income mothers, who can probably use the help, but it doesn't directly help the noncustodial fathers who are paying this child support.

2) "Restore cuts in federal child support enforcement funding to help state and local governments collect $13 billion in additional payments for single parents"

This hurts low-income men who, unable to make the unrealistic payments demanded of them, are already harassed and jailed by the multi-billion dollar child support apparatus. Obama/Bayh/Davis want to increase funding for child support enforcement, even though the Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement’s own data show that two-thirds of “deadbeat dads” earn poverty-level wages, and only 4 percent earn even $40,000 a year. This situation has been made far worse by the recession.

This measure won't help mothers either, because there's little money to collect from most so-called "deadbeats" anyway. What this measure does is help keep and expand employment for child support enforcement bureaucrats. To learn more, see a newspaper column I wrote about child support enforcement funding here.

President Barack Obama's new economic stimulus package already provided $1 billion for fattening up child support enforcement's bloated budget. The standard argument in favor of this is superficially convincing -- "More than $4 was collected in support for every dollar invested in the program."

It is true that federal figures show that over $20 billion in child support is collected nationwide yearly, and that only $5 billion is spent on enforcement. However, the vast majority of the funds collected are not done through enforcement tactics -- they're simply the payments already being made by law-abiding noncustodial parents. These payments will continue to be made regardless of the cuts.

 

The $4 for $1 myth was created by incorrectly counterposing total collections with expenditures on enforcement. To give child support enforcement credit for all child support collections is like the collections department at Target being credited every time a customer buys something and pays at the register. The mainstream media has largely declined to discuss this Enron-style accounting.

3) "Require states to send 100 percent of all child support payments to the single parent within five years, rather than letting states take a portion of money for administrative costs."

Currently many noncustodial fathers—particularly African-American and Latino fathers, upon whom Obama often focuses—are required to pay their child support to the state to reimburse the cost of public assistance, instead of to the children’s mothers. This new measure helps low-income mothers, and that's a good thing. It's also a modest positive for fathers -- paying "child support" that doesn't go to your children is demoralizing for low-income men struggling to make a difference in their kids’ lives.

4) "Fund programs designed to protect the families who have been affected by domestic violence."

Protecting battered women is important, but domestic violence laws and programs have also made it easy for unscrupulous mothers to drive fathers out of their children's lives by making false accusations of domestic violence. As many prominent family law professionals have noted, this is a major problem, particularly as it applies to domestic violence restraining orders, which are issued almost automatically. To learn more, see my column Restraining Orders Can Be Straitjackets On Justice (Newark Star-Ledger, 7/28/08).

The bill does have a few provisions which actually pertain to fathers:

1) "Fund job training programs and community partnerships to help parents find employment."

Although often these programs' real purpose is to bring fathers into the system so they can pay child support, it can still be a good thing for fathers, if it's run properly.

2) "Fund financial literacy programs and budgeting education, employment services, and mediation and conflict resolution for low-income parents."

This helps mothers at least as much as fathers but is a good idea, if the programs are effective.

3) "Expand the Earned Income Tax Credit to increase the incentive for full-time work and fulfillment of child support obligations."

Fathers pay child support out of after-tax dollars, whereas mothers receive child support tax free. If this program helps ameliorate that, it's a good thing.

While some fathers voluntarily remove themselves from their children’s lives, many seek a greater role. Most child custody arrangements provide fathers only a few days a month to spend with their children, and fighting for shared parenting is expensive and difficult. Custodial mothers frequently fail to honor visitation orders, and there is no system in place to help enforce visitation orders. The Obama/Bayh/Davis "Fatherhood" bill does little to address the real problems separating fathers from the children who love them and need them.

Glenn Sacks is the Executive Director of Fathers & Families, the nation's largest family court reform organization. Fathers and Families, a 501 (c) (3) nonprofit organization, improves the lives of children and strengthens society by protecting the child's right to the love and care of both parents after separation or divorce.

Comments

[Elusen]

The system CAN be changed for the better - so that fathers can be more integrated in their kids lives - and the federal government and the states both must play a role. The federal government has undertaken more than it can enforce and the unintended consequences have been very negative. Fathers need the freedom to be full and acitve fathers in their children's lives every day.

For specific recommendations, please see the article: Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families at http://familylawandfathers.com.

[Jon Morgan 1]

The reason being, is that I am a student. I am currently paying some of my student loans as I finish up a BA program. The fact of the matter is, after I pay for a meager two bedroom apartment and pay on my student loans and car expenses and have the current amount of child support garnished from my check, I am completely broke at the end of the month. If I were to incurr more expenses, I would be on the road to becoming homeless. I am damned if I do and I am damned if I don't. I have lost my children to the family court system and my vindictive ex-wife. No wonder men commit suicide in these situations. I am beyond words to describe how desperate and sad I have become and due to my financial situation, I may never recover. I am hopeless and I have lost all that is precious to me...........

[Jon Morgan 1]

Today, I spoke with another highly recommended attorney about my visitation agreement that my wife was violating, I haven't seen my kids almost 9 mos and my ex -wife has refused all visitation.. I was strong-armed into agreeing to allowing my children move almost 300 miles away, due to false allegations made of domestic violence, due to a CPO that was filed the day after I filed for a divorce from spouse. As I spoke to the attorney, I asked him if I would stand a chance of spending more on child support. He told me that there was a very good chance that my support payments could double, due to the guidelines and the fact that I had a pay increase over the past year. When I found this out I was devestated. I was previousily concerned, but as of now I am so distraught and devastated.

[rg16mg27]

I am appalled by this entire situation. My husband has a bitter ex that holds the AG over our heads. She doesn’t follow visitation properly and we have spent a fortune trying to resolve that along w/ paying out ton money in support. She doesn’t work and continues to have more children. As a new Wife to this Man I have to work, and I have only one child to raise, because we can’t afford to have any of our own. She just raised her support to almost $250.00 more a month and is already screaming she can’t wait until three years to get more. Where are his rights!!!! Who can I write to there has to be someone or something we can put pressure on as good honest men and women. He was never even married to these women. Who do I write...is there anything I can do? I get online I ask advise only to get nothing. Any suggestions?

[txrngr34]

Just my opinion...but until they nationalize a standard child support calculation AND take into consideration [within those calculations] the custodial parent's situation (like number of children in his/her care, their own efforts to provide for the children, etc) along with a slew of other factors...not much will change in the near future.

It's an inherently flawed system, that will probably take a lifetime to truly reform. But it shouldn't stop us from voicing our opinions and/or petitioning our lawmakers to do better.

The way it's set up now, to me, it almost seems like the presumption is made that the NCP will not be involved and therefore should be "punished" by paying $xxx child support.

[txrngr34]

I don't feel the bill is counterproductive to fathers being involved. However, I don't feel it does much to promote it either. It seems to be a bill that marginally moves us towards a more fair, unbiased system.

As a custodial father of my oldest 2, and soon-to-be non-custodial of my youngest, I think a more realistic approach to shared parenting would be a huge morale booster for dads. In Texas, the default SPO (standard possession order) for joint custody calls for the standard 1st, 3rd, 5th weekends, and only the 2nd, 4th Thursday nights. For those that do math quickly, there's no way that adds up to anywhere close to 49%...which is the premise behind joint custody for an NCP (non-custodial parent). I understand minimizing disruption to the weekly school schedule, but then who came up with the 2nd, 4th Thursday? Why not throw in some additional Tuesdays or Wednesdays? You have to be an informed parent to realize that as a responsible dad, you should (and will probably get) ask for additional days...unf­ortunately­, not all responsible dads are informed enough on the process...and lawyers don't always do a good job of taking the time to inform their clients of their options.

So my question to yall? How plausible is it to create a national SPO that is truly closer to equal, shared parenting? Can this even be a reality, on a national level?

[Robert Gartner]

Two things must first happen before any more legislation occurs. First, family courts must cease disregarding the equality of fathers and the essential need of a child for each and both parents on an equal basis. Second, the federal Bradley Amendment, which precludes a judge from negotiating child support arrears, must be repealed.

[rg16mg27]

How and who do can I write to in legislation? Any suggestions? The only way to change this is in numbers...

[mypov123]

Great article, Glenn. We need more people to voice their concerns about this bill. President Obama cannot preach about "responsible fatherhood" and then support a bill that doesn't make it any easier for men to be responsible.

[LeftRight]

Part III

The third is my wife's ex husband. He's made his payments on time, every month, for the entire time that they've been divorced. He's been nice, easygoing, and reasonable about it. The only time that we had to go to the state about it was when he retired from the US Navy and his pay dropped by about 50%, so he took us to court to reduce the payments. We didn't challenge him.

I'm sorry, but from what I've seen, more than 90% of child support issues stem from courts being too generous, and women being too greedy!!

[LeftRight]

Part II

The second is my wife's adopted daughter's husband. He is on his second marriage, with their three kids plus her oldest living with them. He has three kids by a previous marriage. When he got divorced from his first wife they set up a ridiculously large child support payment, that he was able to pay for the first six month, then the steel mill where he worked went bankrupt. It's been 8 years, he's been able to get a few jobs over the years, but most of his time has been unemployed n the small town in which they live. Recently he got a good paying job at the new steel mill. His weekly take home pay started out in excess of $400/week (VERY good for the area) and has been dropped to less than $100/week due to the state taking out the child support payments.

[LeftRight]

Part I

Makes me think of the three fathers I've seen involved in Child Support payments....

The first is my own stepfather, who lives in WA and was paying it directly to the mother of his children. She was insane and didn't want him to know where she lived, so she often moved randomly without notifying him, so he would have to track her down to send the check to her. If he was even one payment behind in a year, she would insist that the state crack down on him. Additionally she kept his kids away from him (with a few exceptions) and so I only know one of my stepbrothers except as a name (the one by a different woman)