lumigan tramadol tadalafil

Welfare Funding Obstructs Shared Parenting

2007-07-18
By

The movement for shared parenting faces a major obstacle: the federal government. The conventional piety is that family law is a matter for the states, and federal officials claim they have no authority to become involved. This is piffle. The federal government is up to its ears in family law by its funding for child support enforcement, domestic violence programs, and child abuse “prevention.”

Family law reformers must labor to create 50 campaigns to enact shared parenting in 50 state legislatures. But we labor in vain until we confront the federal funding. In essence, the federal government pays states to collect child support. How this works is complex, and the formula seems to change constantly (perhaps to prevent us from understanding it?). I have described the process in a paper just published by the Institute for Policy Innovation. But the essence is this:

  • The more child support collected, the more money the state receives from federal taxpayers.
  • The more children are forcibly separated from their fathers, the more money the state receives from federal taxpayers.
  • The more mothers divorce their husbands or bear children out of wedlock, the more money the state receives from federal taxpayers.
  • The more sole custody awards are granted, the more money the state receives from federal taxpayers.
  • The more onerous the child support levels, the more money the state receives from federal taxpayers.
  • The more money is squeezed out of every parent (or even any non-parent available), the more money the state receives from federal taxpayers.

Conversely, the argument goes (not entirely accurately), stable two-parent families and shared parenting mean a loss in revenue for the state. The government has created a machine for destroying families, an engine for generating fatherless children and making a profit in the process at taxpayers’ expense.

The result was seen starkly during the last election in the North Dakota Shared Parenting Ballot Initiative. Mitch Sanderson and the North Dakota Coalition for Families and Children toiled valiantly to collect signatures and successfully put the measure on the ballot. They received overwhelming support and little opposition, and the measure looked set to pass easily.

Then the federal government stuck its nose in. In an action that was certainly improper and probably illegal, HHS regional administrator Thomas Sullivan issued what amounted to an ultimatum to North Dakota. Threatening an ” immediate suspension of all Federal payments for the State’s child support enforcement program,” Sullivan explicitly pressured a state senator to take “whatever steps are necessary to ensure that initiated measures are not enacted.” A federal bureaucrat not only took sides
in a matter of state politics but marshaled the weight of his multi-billion dollar agency to intimidate voters.

The threat was hollow and little more than a scare tactic, but it worked. Bar associations and the media uncritically (and falsely) announced that the state would
lose $70 million. No one raised the issue of what permits federal officials to intervene in a state’s internal affairs and use its citizens’ own tax dollars to twist their arms.

Tackling this federal funding is more than just some nuisance that must be taken care of before we can approach state legislatures to pass shared parenting laws. It offers a huge opportunity. Right now we are fighting 50+ battles in 50+ jurisdictions. Addressing the federal funding will create what we need more than anything in this country: a national debate about child custody and child support. In Britain, Australia, and Canada, national debates have taken place on the front pages because they have national laws. In the US, we are fragmented into 50 states and are lucky to get an article inside the local news section. No one advocates federalizing family law. But we must confront
federal family policy and funding in such a way as to get the issues debated in a national dialogue on the causes of fatherlessness.

This is what RADAR are achieving with federal domestic violence funding. They have created a campaign focused specifically on the Violence Against Women Act – a destructive and unconstitutional law that federalizes and politicizes law enforcement, bypasses due process of law, and pays feminists to create a machinery for destroying families and separating children from their fathers.

We need a similar campaign to confront federal child support funding. Dedicated researchers like Molly Olson, Jason Bottomley, and Lary Holland have spent years investigating this system in depth. Now Dr. Michael Ross of the Family Rights Coalition of Michigan (info@frcmi.org) has begun a grassroots political campaign to gain the attention of that state’s legislators. Ross wants leaders in other states to create similar campaigns and link them up into a national movement.

Here in Washington, the American Coalition for Fathers and Children has organized a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt, endorsed by the leaders
of 14 prominent national organizations, including Phyllis Schlafly, Susan Carleson, and Grover Norquist (and more are expected). The signatories represent both pro-family advocates concerned about the continued erosion of marriage and taxpayer watchdog groups who object to the escalating costs of subsidizing single-parent homes.

Again, this is not an additional political burden. It is an avenue to make your group part of a national campaign. It is also an opportunity to create a coalition not only with “pro-family” groups but also with taxpayer groups, who can be very influential both locally and nationally. The only way to defeat the divorce machinery is to create coalitions with allied interests. An abuse that hits all Americans in their pocketbooks is one that can gain attention.

Stephen Baskerville is president of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children (www.acfc.org) and author of the paper, “Welfare and the ‘Road to Serfdom,’” just published by the Institute for Policy Innovation. His book, Taken Into Custody: The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family will be published in August by Cumberland House Publishing.

94 views
Didn't make Oprah's Book Club. And Ronnie doesn't care. Man up. Buy the book now on Amazon.com. Or listen to Ronnie tell a story at escaping-from-reality.com.


  • http://citizensrule.org right2parent

    Roger,

    What “transformation?” If you are referring to the Popp case again, you need to take another look, and don’t put so much weight into dicta. And I never said due process was an “option” for the state.

    If seems, you need a primer on administrative law and due process. David Usher has an interesting article today about a Missouri case. Although he only uses it to illustrate the incredible stupidity of Judge Limbaugh, the case deals with due process and administrative orders. A similar argument can be made for a collateral challenge of an administrative determination that a father is an “absent parent” under the state act enabling enforcement of child support orders in general. Here is the case:

    http://www.courts.mo.gov/courts/pubopinions.nsf/0f87ea4ac0ad4c0186256405005d3b8e/536a51a7f299052a862573840050bcb8?OpenDocument

    Also look at South Dakota v. Dole for a primer on State/Federal funding programs. IV-D programs fail every test. State agencies are not controlled by the feds.

  • http://citizensrule.org right2parent

    Roger,

    If you are talking about the Popp case again, you still don’t get it. Family law was never “transformed” by judicial fiat. Where do you get that? You apparently read too much into dicta.

    Anyway, you seem to need a primer on administrative law and due process. David Usher has an interesting article today about a Missouri case. Although he only uses it to illustrate the incredible stupidity of Judge Limbaugh, the case deals with due process and administrative orders. A similar argument can be made for a collateral challenge of an administrative determination that a father is an “absent parent” under the state act enabling enforcement of child support orders in general. Here is the case:

    http://www.courts.mo.gov/courts/pubopinions.nsf/0f87ea4ac0ad4c0186256405005d3b8e/536a51a7f299052a862573840050bcb8?OpenDocument

    Also, you might want to read South Dakota v. Dole for a handle on State/Federal funding programs. The IV-D program fails every test. State administrative agencies are not under federal control.

  • http://citizensrule.org right2parent

    Roger,

    What “transformation?” And I never said due process was an “option” for the state.

    You need a primer on administrative law and due process. David Usher has an interesting article today about a Missouri case. Although he only uses it to illustrate the incredible stupidity of Judge Limbaugh, the case deals with due process and administrative orders. A similar argument can be made for a collateral challenge of an administrative determination that a father is an “absent parent” under the state act enabling enforcement of child support orders in general. Here is the case:
    Roger,

    What “transformation?” And I never said due process was an “option” for the state.

    You need a primer on administrative law and due process. David Usher has an interesting article today about a Missouri case. Although he only uses it to illustrate the incredible stupidity of Judge Limbaugh, the case deals with due process and administrative orders. A similar argument can be made for a collateral challenge of an administrative determination that a father is an “absent parent” under the state act enabling enforcement of child support orders in general. Here is a link to the case:

    http://www.courts.mo.gov/courts/pubopinions.nsf/0f87ea4ac0ad4c0186256405005d3b8e/536a51a7f299052a862573840050bcb8?OpenDocument

    Also, see South Dakota v. Dole for a primer on State/Federal funding programs. The IV-D program, as administered, fails every test under this decision. State IV-D agencies are not under “federal control.”

  • http://www.geocities.com/rogerfgay/ Roger F. Gay

    Stephen is right – right2parent – you are wrong. You still haven’t accounted for the federal court rulings that transformed family law from private issue law to social policy; for the sake of allowing states to profit, thereby corrupting the system. State courts no longer have the option to apply due process in the constitutional meaning – but are restricted to a meaning defined entirely by legislation. The extent to which due process was ever up to states is not just debatable, it is again wrong to think that. Back in the olden days, when the US still existed, the US Constitution dictated to states that due process must apply. Neither state courts nor state legislatures had the power to change that – so only in the sense that states were required to apply due process was it up to them – so to speak. Imagining that due process should be understood to be a state option is wrong in more than one way. As simple administrative units under federal control, states have very little leeway, and certainly not the power to reinstate the federal constitution. One option states have is to dramatically increase state taxes and become more independent of the federal government – and re-establish constitutional rule within a state. That’s not going to happen however – since citizens are still required to pay federal taxes, whether they benefit their state or not.

  • http://dad4justice.blogspot.com dad4justice

    Indeed , how do we get 50/50 shared custody of my two daughters when mum had told serious lies to judicial system who have been backing the wrong horse ?

    If shared 50/50 was law then kids would win in the situation, however the bullshit parasitic leaches that administer twisted family law would never relinquish control over fathers as they enjoy creating family court file numbers because they some doe rae me to provide a living to pay for the golf club membership and the new BMW . Its the new age business , go to law school and jump on the PAS fractured family gravy train of deceit ! These deluded pious pricks cannot imagine the heartbreak they cause for so many non custodial parents !

  • stateVSme

    thanks for the information now how can I get 50/50 custody of my daughter if the mom will not agree?

  • http://mensnewsdaily.com/author/mike-lasalle Mike LaSalle

    WLS – you are a bonafide nitwit.

    Okay, here you go, boys and girls, knock yourself out… below find MND’s Google Adsense earning for the last 3 months.

    Google Adsense Earnings and Payments Summary:

    May 31 Earnings (May 1 – May 31) – details $634.87
    Jun 30 Earnings (Jun 1 – Jun 30) – details $594.47
    Jul 31 Earnings (Jul 1 – Jul 31) – details $568.50

    Note that our server costs are $415 per month.

    Note also that, for the past 2 years or so, MND has been my sole source of income – with the exception of occasional web consulting work.

    Note also that over the past two years or so, I have spent – out of my own pocket – roughly $40,000 in software development exclusively for this site (I will prove it with the canceled checks if someone asks).

    Note that I still owe the most recent developer (himself an MRA ‘activist’) over $7000 – of which I am able to pay him $50 per month at this time. (I employed this old, slow and expensive developer right up to the point when my personal finances collapsed. My credit is now trashed and my marriage is under great strain because of it. I have a lot to say about this bitter experience, but will shut up about it for now.)

    Note that last month I asked the MND community to help me out with the August server costs. Note that – at this time – only a handful of kind (and no doubt equally impoverished) people have donated for this month’s server costs.

    Note that I still haven’t covered the August costs, and September is looming.

    Enjoy yourself, WLS.

  • WLS

    While you may be `correct’ by fiat in the context of the role-playing-game that’s this blogsite’s business, what you say is useless in confronting the outer, real world.

  • http://citizensrule.net right2parent

    Federal power relies on the spending clause. This program fails every test laid out in South Dakota v. Dole.

    The state’s fail to provide a process to allow an accused “absent parent” to contest the designation made on an application for IV-D services.

    There is a common mis-conception among attorneys that no-fault divorce changed everything, and natural guardianship is no longer a protected, inalienable right, demanding a strict scrutiny review before it is terminated by the state.

    It is also important to keep in mind the difference between civil and administrative law with respect to government intervention. A private action for alimony and support is very different from an administrative action for child support.

    Reform has to start with an understanding of fundamental principles intentionally confused by common mis-application of current legislation.

  • WLS

    I probably agree with your aims, but differ in assessing the current state of the law and how reform must be approached. It seems to me it would be instructive to debate the details—as I recall I addressed federal power, the power of the states as it currently sits in statute and case law, and the irrelevance of no-fault—but evidently the management saw something offensive in it. Previously this meant conflicting with its financial interests, but this time I’m baffled as to precisely what.

  • veritas

    right to parent..
    WLS, I didn’t know anything was deleted here.

    WLS seems to be playing out this fantasy world where things he says are so important that they get immediatelly cencored!!..just go allong with it!!

  • http://citizensrule.net right2parent

    WLS, I didn’t know anything was deleted here. I’m just trying to address the legal argument concerning jurisdiction. The state has no power to interfere with your natural guardianship rights without cause. Society’s acceptance of this usurpation is indeed a problem. It must be addressed before any meaningful reform of “family law” can take place. I’m not trying to blow you off. If you want me to address something specific, just ask or email me: right2parent@thebestisp.com

  • WLS

    I thought we had a dialogue going, right2parent: what do you say? Did you read my response before it was deleted?

  • http://citizensrule.net right2parent

    WLS,
    The states respond that the federal government makes us do it. However, the states are responsible for due process, and the feds violate the spending clause when they make funding contingent on states violating their own constitutions.

    It’s true that state law rests on parens patriae power, but that power does not extend to families who are not in need. That would be about 80% of the cases.

    This power is also invoked in a custody adjudication. That’s where you have to understand what right is being violated by courts taking charge of children under state ward legislation without questioning the current status of the father as the head of the household. No-fault divorce does not determine his fitness to continue acting as his children’s natural guardian. It only disolves the marriage. The proceeding MAY include a custody determination, but that IS dependent on fault.

    A woman abandoning her family for no-fault has no right to custody, and no right to support. Both are dependent on facts that led to the dissolution. A no-fault petition is insufficient if it asks for custody and support without claiming the father is unfit and has failed in his responsibilities as a husband and father. It’s not a policy question. It’s a legal one.

    Justice Parker wrote an excellent opinion in Alabama recently, discussing state intervention. Find it here: http://www.bradleyarant.com/publications_opinions.cfm?ID=3661 Look to page 66.

  • WLS

    The most alarming and daunting part is that society on the whole seems to be accepting it and regarding being in the IV-D system as normal and necessary—neither of which are in most cases actually true.

    However, it’s not a conspiracy launched on high by Big Brother, it’s the bureaucrats and other petty interests herding the sheep.

    Separating couples need to be educated that they don’t have to have a wage assignment—and hence pay through the SDU—and unless the mother receives TANF or the children AFDC-FC, they certainly don’t need to be and most likely won’t benefit from being a case with the IV-D agency.

  • http://www.antipeonage.0catch.com Roger Knight

    Might I suggest screaming for the enforcement of the Peonage Law?

    I do, but I sure would like some accompanyment from this choir!

    As for those who profit of it, they are no better than IG Farbin employees and stockholders who profited off the German government’s purchases of ZyKlon B.

  • mruffolo

    Child support is a big business.

    In 2005, $3.5 billion in Federal funding was provided to states. In 2006, $3.9 billion.

    The total caseload (read: families) is 15.9 million.

    http://www.acf.hhs.gov/opa/fact_sheets/cse_factsheet.html

    Child support enforcement provides jobs and money for the government, specifically:

    • State, Tribal, and local Child Support Enforcement agencies;
    • Courts, law enforcement agencies, and other entities operating under cooperative agreements with child support enforcement agencies; and,
    • The Federal Office of Child Support
    • Other components of Federal, State, and local government such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF/Title IV-A), Medicaid (Title XIX), State Child Health Insurance Program (SCHIP/Title XXI), child welfare (including Title IV-E and Indian Child Welfare Act) agencies, and non-IV-D State and Tribal agencies that provide Child Support Enforcement
    services, Bureaus of Vital Records, Departments of Corrections; and
    • Related Federal government agencies that work on particular aspects of the program such as the Departments of Labor, State, Treasury, and the Social Security Administration.

    Child support enforcement provides jobs and money for the marketplace, specifically:

    • Employers, financial institutions, hospitals, the insurance community, program contractors;
    • Family law practitioners, private collection agencies (PCA), public prosecutors, and Tribal court advocates.

    http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pubs/2004/Strategic_Plan_FY2005-2009.pdf

    All work for divorced women.

  • mruffolo

    Baskerville writes the truth.

    Our Federal government provides up to $4.1 billion to States that establish support Orders, collect on amount due, and create arrearages (See 6B, 6C, & 6D)

    http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Baskerville writes the truth.

    Our Federal government provides up to $4.1 billion to States that establish support orders, collect on amount due, and create arrearages (See 6B, 6C, & 6D).

    http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title04/0458.htm

    Feminists politicians take money from senior’s retirement (Social Security) to fund their campaign of hate against fathers.

    Further, how do they intend to pay the back the money they took?

    Feminists take money from senior’s retirement (Social Security) to fund their campaign of hate against fathers.

    Further, how do they intend to pay the back the money they took?

  • WLS

    Title IV-D is in principle an `elective’ program for the states, permitted under the “spending” power constitutionally allocated the federal government. The dirty work is done by the states under state law, which rests on established family law and parens patriae notions of long-standing.

    It should be opposed as unwise policy: that it’s a socially destrictive, ill-conceived boondoggle.

  • http://citizensrule.net right2parent

    One more thing.
    There is nothing wrong with IV-D legislation if it is correctly interpreted. It just isn’t profitable for the states. If a responsible parent is not supporting a child that is thereby forced to seek public assistance, the state has an interest in collecting the amount that was promissed or the amount expended by the state. No more than that. The guidelines have the state obligation as a basis, not a father’s income. That’s another story, however, I’d be glad to share later.

  • http://citizensrule.net right2parent

    Ken,
    With respect to the IV-D problem, there happens to be an “absolute correct way” to fix it. The correct way is to object to your classification as an absent parent, now called a non-custodial parent. These terms, in case you didn’t know, are terms of art. They represent the class of people affected by this legislation. If you are not familiar with the Hamdi v. Rumsfeld case, I would suggest you read it. It was decided that Hamdi was improperly designated an unlawful enemy combatant without due process of law. That’s what you have with an application for IV-D services suggesting you are an absent parent, and their subsequent “notice of liability” without a hearing to determine whether your children are “dependent children” under the act. The question is jurisdictional. The agency and courts have no power to act if you are not within the classification. The feds are not allowed to contribute if the states are not allowed to act.

  • http://citizensrule.net right2parent

    Ken,
    The common cause has to be related to the so far successful efforts to dumb down the public perception of familly government. So-called family courts deal only with issues concerning the state’s parens patriae power. When a petition involving domestic abuse or custody of children is made to any court, you have to address it it terms of the right that it may interfere with. The issue is the vertical separation of power between the family and the state, not some notion of fairness once the have usurped that power. No-fault divorce didn’t change the natural order of family government. No legislation can do that. Custody and domestic abuse legislation deals with dependent children. The state has an interest in that. They have no interest in families, divorced or otherwise, where the children are not dependent on the state for their support. A patriarchal system of family government is the basis of our federal system of government, and comes from god, not from man. It can’t be changed by the stroke of a pen. It has been the stated goal of new feminists for 100 years to destroy the family. It’s time people started thinking about just how that has been nearly accomplished.

  • kenrosebriar

    right2parent: “Sound legal theory” means nothing unless there is a governing body willing to enforce it.

    The “legal theory” you describe will never be enforced unless there is enough of a public backing behind it – hence the paramount need to organize and educate first before making such an argument.

    As it stands now, as long as the feds are allowed to continually feed the states when their “family” courts break apart the already-feuding families who turn to them for help – there will continue to be no end in sight for this massacre of families and the associated ever-increasing expense to taxpayers.

    IV-D will never be changed without a massive public outcry – there is too much federal money involved. Don’t forget: This money has lead to the formation of a huge bureaucratic machine, and this machine comes with a huge lobby.

    Since only a handfull of individuals across the country are even slightly aware of exactly how this huge machinery even works, this is not enough of a force to overturn even the smallest effort of the government lobby behind the IV-D machine.

    Lary has said numerous times that there is no “absolute correct way” to fix the problems created by the IV-D program… He’s right. He’s also asserted that when people work against one another instead of just doing what they do best to achieve a common goal – it only hurts the “big picture” goal of fixing things.

    By organizing as best as possible, everyone can equally participate in coming together to decide exactly what the common cause is first – and then educating everyone enough so that developing a sound legal argument (that massive amounts of people can get behind) can be that much easier.

    I think this is called ‘putting the horse before the cart…’, and Dr. Baskerville is on the right track to accomplishing this – if you ask me, that is.

    With sympathy and regret,

    Ken Rosebriar
    kenrosebriar@comcast.net

  • roger

    as long as both parents get 50% physical custody, thereby elliminating the need for “child support”…..

  • http://citizensrule.net right2parent

    Larry,

    The problem with your solution to title IV-D overeach is it assumes IV-D is a stand alone benefit program. It is not, and the U.S. Supreme Court has said it is not. Therefore, eligibility for a related program determines whether the state has an interest in establishing and enforcing support payments through the title IV-D scheme. Neither the state or federal government can spend public money for a private purpose. The public purpose of this program is the recovery or avoidance of public assistance.

    Also, the liberty interest that’s affected by the unlawful intrusion into family government is a father’s natural right to guardianship, not some invented right to shared custody. There is no such thing, and it would destroy the natural family if there were.

    While Dr. Baskerville is right to suggest we need a common cause, it has to be grounded in sound legal theory. Shared parenting is a fine idea under the administrative program for placing state wards. The trick is to avoid state placement when there is a guardian by right.

  • http://www.fightfoc.com laryholland

    The Eagle Legal Defense Fund and The Center for Parental Responsibility both endorsed a call for changes to the Title IV-D program that I made to the now resigned Dr. Wade Horn.

    http://www.laryholland.com/serendipity/archives/281-Requesting-Change-Its-a-Matter-of-Adminstration-and-Legislation.html

    You can see the original letter “Requesting Change: It’s a Matter of Administration and Legislation.” You can also see some simple things that can be done at the Nationwide Blueprint for Title IV-D Reform Site which is being expanded for comprehensive changes to Title IV-A, Title IV-D, and Title IV-E, with rewards for positive outcomes instead of negative outcomes. http://www.nationwideblueprint.com. Essentially the States are using programs for revenue generation instead of solving legitimate social ills.

    Lary Holland
    Family Court Problems
    t. 800-319-4955
    f. 989-764-5920

  • Robert Stevens

    Can you say ” Government Sponsored Kidnapping and Extortion Racket”
    To really know what is going on, you have to get back into the history. Why does the federal govenment or any government want to destroy the family unit. The answer is simple really, MONEY.
    You see ALL THE GOVERNMENTS in this country are broke, they are bankrupt and this little problem did not start recently, it started way back in the 1930′s. When the economy crashed in oct 1929, the depression started, all the gold used to back our nations money was gone!
    Now to spare you the complicated details. b The only way our goverments have to “pay their bills” is off the sweat and labor of the people. The racket that is the family courts , child welfare and child support system is to fund that bankruptcy.
    The state must replace the father as the head of the home and then” for the best interest of the children” rob him blind to support, not the children, but their little “ponzi scheme”
    They accomplished this by trying…… trying to make women equal. They did, by design cause women, who are by nature. flighty and emotional , to launch a rebellion against fathers and men. They knew that women can not raise children by themselves, but they did try , by a massive propaganda campaign to make them believe they could.
    In the end this little scheme will fail and so will our society. I hope we can avoid this, but it is not looking too good. The only good thing that may come out of this ” disaster “is that the criminals who planned and executed this are destroyed. Women go back to being women, and naturally ,men will go back to being men again. We will have order , peace and a prosperous society.
    This whole God Awful mess will just be some pages in a history book.







Right.

Man up.

Buy the book now on Amazon.com. Or listen to Ronnie tell a story at escaping-from-reality.com.

Search

RSS Amy Alkon

RSS Donna Laframboise