CaliforniaRepublic.Org published an article by Larry Stirling, a former California State Senator and Retired Superior Court Judge. In the spirit of his article... he hit the nail right on its head with his analysis of the California's forced participation in the federal title iv part d program. (Child Support Enforcement)
Stirling states in his article that "Child-support
payments are civil orders of a civil court. Collecting money via the
criminal courts is notoriously ineffective. The notion creates a
"debtors prison," something we thought was abandoned along with our
ties to England." Many others have made this very same analysis of the child support enforcement program.
I plan on discussing many additional points with Stirling pertaining to the flaws inherent in the federal title iv-d program and will be sure to post the correspondence here for all to reference. The evidence is building against a system that uses the middle and higher-income families to conceal the miserable failure of the program to service the original intended beneficiaries...actual needy families.
http://www.theonerepublic.com/archives/Columns/StirlingL/20070406StirlingLFiasco.html
The California Child-Support Fiasco
In
the annals of government screw-ups, the repugnant epic of the federal
and California state governments bollixing child-support collections is
the worst.
Unpaid
child support for 2 million children now totals approximately $19
billion, up from $14.4 billion just six years ago. This whole mess
started with a 1988 federal law that requires each state to create a
"statewide computer system to track and help collect child-support
payments."
Contributor
Larry
Stirling
Larry
Stirling is a former California State Senator and Retired
Superior Court Judge [go to Stirling index] |
The
collection of civil child support orders falls under the "police
powers" of the states. Federal legislators should read the 10th
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which clearly forbids such
initiatives.
The
state of California should have sued the Feds, pointing out to the
court that such legislation is "ultra vires" to federal constitutional
authority and therefore void.
States
did not sue because the Feds included a hook designed to snare the
greedy. That law promised money to the states if they complied timely
and, oh yes, a penalty if they did not.
California
is one of only two states in the Union that has not yet successfully
complied with this law. As a result, we taxpayers have been "fined" by
the federal government $1.2 billion. Who pays that fine? The state
employees or state contractors who screwed up the assignment? Nope: us.
Is
there any worse public policy than the bankrupt federal government
bribing state and local governments to comply with a void law and then
"fining" them for their failure? Even if the Feds had the authority to
impose such a requirement, it was unnecessary to do so.
The
first reason is that child support in California is handled on a
county-by-county basis. Insiders tell me computer support available to
child-support operatives in San Diego was superior to that of Los
Angeles.
San
Diegans complained bitterly that locals were being forced to abandon a
superior format and adopt L.A.'s protocol simply because it would be a
cheaper way to meet the federal deadline. In other words, form over
substance.
The result of that internecine warfare delayed implementation of a statewide system and brought on the fines.
The
second and much more important reason the Feds never should have passed
such legislation is that not one, not two, but at least three
computerized data bases for tracking down "deadbeat parents" already
exist. They are and continue to be available to child-support seekers
at nominal cost. There is no cost of development or operation.
These systems are known as credit-reporting agencies. They are not just statewide in scope: They are worldwide.
Any
creditor can subscribe to any or all credit-reporting systems presently
used by millions of other creditors around the world. While the
eventually fielded software being provided to government child-support
collectors may have a few additional bells and whistles (for the
billions spent and fined), the essence of collecting any debt is
locating the subject and encumbering his or her credit rating and
levying on available assets.
This
mess is not entirely the federal government's fault. California
lawmakers and state staff share a large part of the blame for this
disaster. California blundered when it criminalized the issue of
child-support payments, thereby involving district attorneys up and
down the state.
Collections
failure ultimately resulted in the states DAs being ignominiously
relieved of the responsibility. Sadly that resulted in the creation of
yet another new ineffective bureaucracy.
Child-support
payments are civil orders of a civil court. Collecting money via the
criminal courts is notoriously ineffective. The notion creates a
"debtors prison," something we thought was abandoned along with our
ties to England.
District
attorneys specialize in using various hammers in prosecution and
sentencing. And as a public-policy pundit once observed: "When the only
tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail."
As
a judge, I presided over several cases involving child-support orders.
The criminal remedy never worked even when the defendant was actually
found.
Child-support
violations are misdemeanors. Law enforcement hardly ever serves a
misdemeanor arrest warrant and certainly not across county or state
lines.
The solution is to return this issue to the civil division of the Superior Court where it belongs.
The
Legislature should allow an enforceable civil judgment to accrue
automatically as soon as the payment is overdue so the parent can
immediately refer the matter to a private-collection agency. The law
should further state a child-support payment includes, by operation of
law, not only interest on the unpaid balance, but also the "actual and
reasonable costs of collections."
This change would mobilize and unleash an army of collections agents and attorneys to work on behalf of kids.
Such collectors only get paid when they collect. That is certainly different from what is happening now. CRO
copyright
2007 Larry Stirling
