JACK EHRLICH
STATE VIEW
Duluth News Tribune
Friday May 11, 2007
A bill in the Minnesota Legislature to increase state funding for child support collection, on the surface, looks reasonable. Proponents argue in favor of reinstating funds for child support enforcement that were cut at the federal level to help reduce the federal deficit. They argue Minnesota taxpayers should now pick up the tab.
As so often seen, proponents use the imagery of a poor mom needing her child support check. While this may be effective public relations, it does not reflect the realities of a program that has gone astray of its original mission, which was supporting needy families on welfare.
Congress intended the program, called Title IV-D, to only be available for those on welfare and those at risk of falling on welfare, and only in cases where the father was found guilty of abandoning his children to public assistance. This program is costing much in Minnesota because citizens and judges have been led to believe everyone who goes through a divorce or paternity action with kids must be in Title IV-D. As a result, more than 60 percent of the people in the program don't belong. This welfare-service program has no eligibility standards and no means of testing and is thus fiscally irresponsible, unnecessary, and potentially harmful to families.
I know of a woman, a partner in a major Minneapolis law firm who makes more than $250,000 a year, who uses the child support enforcement program to collect $1,000 per month in child support from her unemployed ex-husband. He can only afford to feed the children macaroni and cheese when he has them. Is this how we want tax dollars employed?
Minnesota's child support program can be harmful to the well-being of children and contributes to gender polarity. An estimated 80 percent of child-support employees are women supporting the agency bias. When fit, loving fathers who have remained involved with their children simply cannot afford exorbitant child support payments, the child support enforcement agency wrecks their credit ratings, suspends their drivers' licenses, and has them arrested. When they lose their job, judges often impute income and threaten fathers with jail even if they can't afford to pay. Then, with a bad credit rating, a suspended drivers' license, and an arrest record, the dads can no longer find work because nobody wants to hire a deadbeat. The system creates deadbeats out of fit, loving fathers.
In February 2006 the Minnesota Legislative Auditor's Office wrote in its Child Support Audit Report that "Minnesota's program has the second-highest spending level in the country" and that "Minnesota has the second-most child support staff in the country."
Additionally, the state auditor was instructed to report about the ongoing issue of due process and whether custodial parents, non-custodial parents and children were being treated fairly. The completed report didn't provide any findings about ongoing due process and fair treatment. Under the direction of the Minnesota Department of Human Services and the Title IV-D agency, the legislative auditor's office ignored its duty to study this issue.
Contrary to Minnesota's Legislative Audit Report, local county child support workers across Minnesota are making inaccurate statements and lobbying to get more tax dollars. They are trying to claim Minnesota's child support program is well-managed and cost-effective when, in fact, it is a waste of money and can be harmful to families and children.
The parents of Minnesota have been asking year after year for legislative reform that recognizes the importance of fathers' involvement with their children. Said another way, Minnesota's child-support program has been broken for many years, and to increase any funding now is not the answer.
During a divorce, fit and loving parents who have done nothing wrong face the removal of their children based on the opinion of a custody evaluator whose decision is almost always accepted by the courts. There's no trial by jury in family courts. Criminals get more rights and a higher burden of proof than fit, loving parents do when faced with separation from their children.
Ask family court judges how many times they've ordered a father arrested for non-payment of court-ordered child support compared to how many times they've had a mother arrested for failure to provide court-ordered parenting time to a father. The answer clearly will reveal what the system of family law considers important.
Divorce is extremely hard on children. They need the love and caring of both parents. I encourage the Legislature to implement programs designed to keep both parents equally involved and equally responsible for providing for their children.
Jack Ehrlich is a member of the Roseville, Minn.-based Center for Parental Responsibility, which advocates for the rights of non-custodial parents
For more information on the Child Support Program (Title IV-D, Child Support Enforcement) you can visit the Nationwide Blueprint for Title IV-D Reform at http://www.nationwideblueprint.com.
