Child Support Laws Crippling Poor Fathers
The more one learns about our system of criminal justice, the more one must wonder about some of its senseless policies. That the United States incarcerates more of its citizens than any other country in the world is pretty much common knowledge to most. But in case you have been asleep at the wheel, here are some mind-numbing numbers. With about five percent of the world’s population, the United States is home to nearly 25 percent of the world’s incarcerated population. About 2.2 million people are locked behind bars on a given day. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, there were 1,561,500 inmates in state and federal prisons at year-end 2014 (serving terms of one year or more) and another 744,660 in local jails at midyear 2014. About 6.9 million Americans (one in 35 adults) were under some form of correctional supervision (incarcerated, on parole or probation) at yearend 2013. The number of adult Americans with felony convictions is estimated to be about 24 million (8.6%). About 25 percent of black American adults have a felony conviction.
That’s the big picture. However, throughout our criminal justice system there are laws, regulations, and issues that are antithetical to the notion of a free and democratic society. The coercive and often deadly policing of neighborhoods of color, discriminatory “stop and frisk” laws, criminalization of the mentally ill, bail policies that unfairly impact poor suspects, and what many consider to be the inhumane over dependence on and arbitrary use of solitary confinement. Family members and friends are often forced to travel inordinate distances to visit children, friends, and other people they care for. They are charged exorbitant fees to speak with them by telephone and are treated without dignity during visitation. Much of this has occurred because various elected officials compete to see who can be toughest on people who defy the law. Many books and hundreds of journal articles have been written about our unjust system of crime control. My dissertation focused on the impact of incarceration on the earnings and employment of indigent fathers.
The Washington Post ran an article on one particularly perplexing policy impacting poor inmates which disproportionately affects black and Latino fathers. Child support obligations continue during periods of incarceration which often amass significant amounts of debt while these fathers are behind bars. Once released, indebted fathers are under pressure to pay down their arrears. Failure to do so results in more late fees and penalties and could ultimately put them back in prison. In many jurisdictions this occurs because incarceration is considered “voluntary impoverishment”. The term generally refers to those who quit their jobs or otherwise forfeit income in order to avoid paying an ex-spouse alimony or child support. A classic example might be Marvin Gaye’s 1978 release of “Here My Dear,” thought to be a lackluster recording whose proceeds were going to his ex-wife, Anna Gordy Gaye.
The idea that poor fathers would deliberately get themselves locked up to avoid paying child support is ludicrous on its face and a ridiculous justification for current policy. Columbia University social work professor Ronald B. Mincy and Urban Institute scholar Elaine Sorensen first wrote about child support policies that were burying poor incarcerated fathers back in 1998 differentiating “deadbeat” dads from “turnips”. Deadbeat dads were those who could afford to pay but did not. Turnips were fathers who were unable to pay—the thinking being the old adage that you can’t get blood from a turnip. Although there is a judge in Alabama who thinks giving blood is a reasonable substitute.
The Obama Administration believes current child support policy that piles debts on poor incarcerated fathers is helping no one. It does nothing for the mother or her child’s circumstance. Housing the father as an inmate is significantly more costly than what the state could recoup from fathers for welfare payments to their children. Fathers are often removed permanently from the lives of their children which one could argue might be good or bad. The Office of Child Support Enforcement has drafted new rules that will go into effect in 2017 that changes the definition of incarceration to “involuntary” impoverishment and would allow indigent incarcerated fathers to push the pause button or negotiate a payment reduction while incarcerated.
Not surprising Republican lawmakers oppose what appears to be a commonsense rule change. Utah Senator Orin Hatch and House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) have introduced legislation to block the new rules. There are many things wrong with our current system of criminal justice and reform is moving at a glacial pace. In the meantime, much too much human capital is being obliterated by the many indelible scars being inflicted on far too many people—particularly African American males.
Child Support Laws Crippling Poor Fathers was originally published @ Congressional Research Institute for Social Work and Policy » Charles Lewis.
To overcome the destructiveness of the child support system, we must take stock of the system itself.
The system is structurally unable to account for chronic unemployment or dire poverty of noncustodial parents. The agency assesses debt in full knowledge that some parents have no assets, no income, no job and no prospects. About 25 percent of noncustodial parents in the system are poor and unemployed or underemployed. Most of them protect and support their children whenever and however they can. Still, regardless of the threat of incarceration or other enforcement tactics, they simply don’t have the ability to pay.
The poorest, most marginalized, parents are dealing with (or running from) the continuous toll of debt and the threat of incarceration. In fact, examination of agency practice will likely reveal the racial inequity, disparity and discrimination evident in the rest of society. Regardless of race, income level, marital status or gender, most parents want to support and inspire their children, and the current system cannot help the poorest, most disadvantaged families reach those goals.
We must end the destructive policy of incarcerating parents who can’t pay support, and stop uselessly adding to the child support debt toll. More important we must create policies and services that help families get ahead. A new, better family policy agenda would recognize that some parents will need services outside and instead of the child support system.
But it also operates as a government cost-recovery strategy by reimbursing states and the federal government for benefits paid to mothers on behalf of children. As such, families on Temporary Assistance for Needy Families only receive about a quarter of the child support collected on their behalf. The majority of states keep all child support collected on behalf of these families, and fewer than half allow even a small pass-through of the child support they collect — typically $50 — to go to the child.
Some fathers pay up to 65 percent of their wages in child support and arrearages to the state. Such a high level of garnishment would severely strain almost any person’s budget, and drives many low-income men into severe poverty or the underground economy.
Payments should be set reasonably, with greater flexibility to adjust to the noncustodial parent’s income. Fathers can now request a review, but only if they know their rights and can navigate the judicial process, which the majority do not.
Punitive methods to coerce a “deadbeat” dad into paying, like incarceration, should only be used in cases where fathers demonstrate that they have the means to pay, but are unwilling to fulfill their obligations, not when they are unable to. The federal Office of Child Support Enforcement itself has said that “the average incarcerated parent with a child support case has $10,000 in arrears when entering state prison, and leaves with $20,000 in arrears. Not only is this debt unlikely to ever be collected, but it adds to the barriers formerly incarcerated parents face in reentering their communities.”
Hurray for the world! The new 2011 JCAO Child Support Obligor list is online for all of the public to view. In Mike O’Connell’s comments on WLKY NEWS that was aired advertising the DEADBEAT DADS LIST, he actually stated that he did not care who it embarrassed. So much for serving the public. Now there is a question that I would like to address to the FINANCE and Administration Cabinet, COT, CHFS, DCBS, FAMILY of Income Support, OIG, OGC, OAG, Office of the Ombudsman, Office of Records Management, DSE, and the Jefferson County Attorney’s Office Child Support Enforcement and I don’t care who it embarrasses.
Is all the information online according to LAW just make believe? Am I the only one who can decipher proper interpretation of the Law? Compliance Officers are ignorant when it comes to interpretation of the law. Chip Ward of the Ombudsman’s Office (CHFS) tells me he reads every complaint that is entered into KASES (the computerized child support system) and it is recorded with my PHI, but it is all about interpretation of the Law. He ignored my pleas for help. There is a Child Support Specialist named Janice Taylor. Both Ward and Taylor are ignorant and have no compassion providing services for CHFS and the Commonwealth. They are an abomination to the people they serve.
This issue has been going on three years now. Why in GODS name do I need a lawyer that will do nothing but take what little money I already have? Mr. O’Connell, I am not a deadbeat dad and you are not allowed to slander my good name, nor are you fit to. 
fugitivenation 