How the Failures of Welfare Reform Created Our Lawless Courts (Part One)

Despite the best of intentions, the programs developed within our “Welfare Reform” of the 1990’s served as the major funding sources used by the states to promote single-parent families. This resulted in the decay of the cornerstone of our society, marriage and intact, functioning family.

We told by both major American political parties that our “welfare reform” of the 1990 is a success because there are less people on the welfare roles today. Although a correct statement, at what cost to our society, families, partenthood and marriage?

What this series will examine is how the monetary subsidizing of single parent households, through any method, can have an equal or even greater negative impact on marriage and children as public assistance programs have.

We will see that through fraud, abuses of funding systems and blatant violations of the very federal laws that funded marriage protection and incentive, responsible fatherhood, safe families, and many of the other social policies, our states unleashed a reign of terror on marriage and against parents in general that has gone on, unchecked for over a decade.

Long time critics of public assistance programs contend that; “…welfare payments do not assist children; they increase dependence and illegitimacy, which have a devastatingly negative effect on children’s development.”

Despite spending billions of dollars for social programs depicted to promote and preserve marriage and sponsor personal responsibility and accountability, in 2005 our nation saw the highest level of out-of-wedlock births in our history, child support arrearages are spiraling out of control, our divorce rate remains at near record levels and today the average American family is a single parent household.

If you have been a defendant in any of our family courts since the welfare reform of the 1990’s, you most likely left there with an eerie feeling that the decision was made long before you walked into the courtroom. That should be of no surprise to anyone because the fact is; the decision was made long before your case was even filed.

How and why did this happen and proceed with such great predictability? That is because our states’ family law statutes and the operations of their courts supported this, by design.

Our states’ family law statutes were never intended to dispense justice or operate in “the best interest of the child.” Nor do they execute the true governance over the daily operations of their courts. Conversely, the states’ family law statutes are designed to ensure the operations of their family courts leverage the maximum return from an array of federal grant sources, often at the expense of the best interest of the child. Many of the federal programs providing the grant money to their family law operations are major parts of our failed welfare reform effort.

The legislatures of most of our states have abnegated their authority over the operational guidelines of their courts to committees ruled by their Supreme Courts. These committees produce and manage the states’ courts guidelines, rules and the procedures that govern the day-to-day operation of the state’s family courts and that of the court personnel and, in effect, the attorneys practicing within them.

As we know the separation of powers forbids our courts to legislate. So the guidelines, rules and procedures that govern our courts operation aren’t actually laws. But they do have the full effect and force of law.

To be certain nothing can stop this feeding frenzy off the federal teat, the states have excluded the operation of the courts from their respective Sunshine Laws. So their citizens can not find out in advance what they are planning to do in the next revision. Therefore they have no say in the matter except after the fact, which for all practical matters is no say at all.

After interviewing dozens family law attorneys throughout the country my organization, True Equality Network realized that family law attorneys do not actually practice law at all. They are merely “procedure processors” within a system filled with highly constrictive procedural guidelines.

Given these conditions, it is easy to see how under such a system the rulings of the courts will become predictable. Then again, that is the intended design.

Since the adoption of the laws collectively known as welfare reform, Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRAWORA) and its repulsive siblings which include, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and the Child Support Performance and Incentive Act (CSPIA), the states have adopted a mindset of taking as much money as they can from their citizens who are almost always parents of minor children. This lets the states suck as much from the federal coffers as possible.

The fundamental failure of “welfare reform” is found in its core concept of basing the federal incentives under these laws primarily on the money the states collect in child support, not primarily on the percentage of cases they successfully collect.

Since the welfare reform laws were enacted we have seen some horrifying results. Not the least of which is how the national level of child support arrearages has grown from being less than ten billion dollars when welfare reform was first debated in the US Congress in the 1990’s to approaching one hundred billion dollars today.

Worse yet, the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) shows that currently the average income of an obligator with high child support arrearages is less than ten thousand dollars a year. So despite popular fiction the fact is that the average so called, “dead-beat-dad” isn’t driving on the beach in a Porsche with their teenage trophy wife while their children starve with their abandoned ex-wife. They actually meet the financial qualifications to apply for public assistance themselves and are more aptly called, “dead-broke-dads.”

The truth is, less than 4% of all child support arrearages in the United States are owed by child support obligators who earn more than twenty thousand dollars a year.

Initial review of these facts may cause one to wonder if the states are run by total financial idiots; they aren’t at all though. They quickly realized that the federal incentives pay them for both child support moneys collected and for those uncollected (arrearages). The states also discovered that as the income of the parents decreases they reach a point where the federal incentive for arrearage enforcement exceeds the incentives they would get for collecting these cases.

Beginning as early as 2000 many states starting making large cuts to their child support enforcement systems, some of the cuts were as high as 36%. Why? Because they more than meet the federal collection requirements under CSPIA via the collection of the cases of higher wage earners through automatic wage attachments.

To add insult to injury, in the budget cuts announced at the end of 2005, the US Congress decided to reduce match grants for child support enforcement by 16% over a five year period. This resulted in the Governors Association complaining very vocally regarding these cuts, some members claiming it would protect “dead beats.” The very dead beats they don’t even bother to try to collect from, but enjoy receiving the funding for claiming they do.

Our States’ Governors know spending money for efforts to collect lower income cases costs more money then it is worth from collection incentives. So why should they bother? As with so many of our domestic policies, programs under welfare reform serve those that need service the least or not at all and abandons those with the greatest real need.

Among the battery of “laws” the states’ court committees create, child support guidelines are their big cash cow. Also, beyond its own funding, domestic violence claims are proven to open the door to even more child support per case and many other funding sources unrelated to domestic violence.

Not only are the states paid for collecting or not collecting child support, those performance figures also play a major role in how much TANF grant money they receive. Read through TANF sometime, you may be shocked to learn that a large portion of those law’s dialog are covering when and where the states can spend their welfare incentives on highway projects.

However, we don’t call it highway funding in this case. That spending is classified within a category called “improving access to facilities,” which is a perfectly legal and legitimate application of TANF incentives. This spending is then applied toward the state’s percentage of welfare incentives spent on “assistance related programs.”

The important point here is that if the state needs more highway funding, all they need to do is raise the state’s level of child support and they can spend their resulting welfare incentive increases on highway projects and remain in perfect compliance with the relevant programs funding requirements.

In view of the fact that the states child support and welfare incentives are largely based on the child support money on their books, they need to figure out how to get the most money per case out of people. A quick overview of the construct of child support guidelines shows us that in every state child support awards are predominately based on three considerations:

1) Income of both parents – and the difference between them

2) Child care costs of both parents – and the difference between them

3) The amount of time each parent has the child – or the difference between them

The parents’ income is not something the state can control (or legally change), neither are the care costs the parents have, they are pretty much what they are. So the only thing the state can control and manipulate is the time the parents have with the child. We call this “custody and visitation.”

If you search the web you will be able to find online child support calculators for every state. Experiment with some example cases for yourself. What you will find is that the time the parents have with the child has the single greatest impact on a child support obligation of the three main considerations.

At many income levels the difference between 50/50 (equal) parenting time and 70/30 will result in twice the child support being awarded to the custodial parent and can double again if the time the non-custodial parent has with the children becomes drop to 85/15 (or less in some states). You can be assured that this is no accident.

The mechanics of these abuses by the states of CSPIA funding are well documented. One example is the report prepared for the US Congress by True Equality Network, which you can download from our web site.

If any doubts remain that family law is based on dollars and not on justice, equal protection under the law, or the best interest of the child, ask North Dakota’s Governor, John Hoeven.

Among the typical items on the ballet in 2006, North Dakota had ballet item for “Presumptive Equal Parenting.” Governor Hoeven himself spoke out against this ballet initiative. Not for the welfare or well-being of his state’s children.

Rather than defending the wellbeing of his state’s children, Governor Hoeven’s stated reason for opposing this initiative was due to the hundreds of millions of dollars in federal grant money such a law would cost his state. That, by the way is a significant portion of the state’s expected annual revenue and revenue that is considered greatly in the state’s budget requests.

The Governor did this even though he was informed numerous times that scientific studies clearly show children in equal parenting arrangements after a family breakup excel at almost the same levels as those in intact, healthy families with both their biological parents present.

He was also made aware that the large majority of teens in juvenile detention, who become pregnant, smoke, run away, do drugs, and other social problems are in primary custody arrangements.

Governor Hoeven was also aware that in their biennial report “Custodial Mothers and Fathers and Their Child Support” (1999, 2001, and 2003) the US Census Bureau reports that parents with equal parenting arrangements are far more likely to pay their child support, in full and on time without any enforcement actions then any other parenting arrangement. Where parents who have limited, disrupted, or no visitation with their children are likely not to pay a cent.

Based on Governor Hoeven’s own commentaries, it is clear that his decision was not based on the best interest of the child or family values; it was all about the money.

It is important to note that the states actually have no legal requirement to do what is required of most, if not all, of the federal incentive programs. Those requirements are only applicable if the state wants to apply for the federal moneys a given program provides. Making the choice to destroy families and parenthood for the money is a conscious one.

All of the family law actions in our county courts yield federal incentive moneys for the state, including domestic violence orders. It is a long established fact that there is no faster way to reduce a parent’s visitation time than a claim of domestic violence, plus everyone involved gets paid even more. This includes both parties’ attorneys who now are handling the domestic violence case in addition to the divorce and custody issues.

Moreover, it should be no surprise that no one will stand up against a false allegation of domestic violence, except its victim. Even when everyone knows for a fact the putative victim’s claim is completely fabricated or they openly admits to the court that it is a false claim the orders are often issued anyway. It is no wonder divorce attorneys are eager to tell their clients in divorce cases to file claims of domestic violence and include the children in the claim.

Let’s take look at some actual cases.

One very well publicized case is that of Bennett J. Vondehiede. His video and document supported story is published on www.daddyjustice.com. Ben was doing his custody exchanges in the lobby of his Pennsylvania city’s main police station to make sure nothing went wrong. After one drop off Ben’s ex-wife filed a domestic violence complaint against him. She claimed she was attacked in the lobby of the police station.

Even though the police department’s own video surveillance system clearly shows that police officers were present at the reception desk when the parents met and nothing happened to constitute domestic violence that evening, a restraining order that included his son was issued against Ben anyway. Ben’s case regarding this blatant false claim being supported by the family court is still ongoing.

In another case, reported to several members of the US Congress the victim is Dave B. Dave’s now ex-wife suffers from a serious mental illness. Although when she is on her medication all who knew her will profess that she is a delight to be with and was highly regarded by friends and neighbors. However, she chooses to go off her medication regularly.

During these periods without her medication she would act-out very violently towards her husband and child. Following several involuntary committals to in patient mental health hospitals she again decided to stop taking her medications. In this, the last of such events for the family, she beat Dave and their son with a baseball bat. Most of Dave’s injuries were the result of him shielding their son from the blows directed at the child.

Dave was then advised to file criminal charges. Since repeated efforts to keep his wife on medication had failed, he had to think solely of protecting his son. So he did file complaints of criminal spousal abuse and also charges of child abuse on behalf of their son.

The day before the hearing Dave’s wife filed a civil complaint of domestic violence on behalf of herself and their son against Dave in family court. He was arrested entering the courthouse for the hearing for the criminal charges. Having missed the hearing the criminal charges against his wife were dropped.

Later, Dave was in court again, this time as the defendant in a civil domestic violence case. Without going into great detail, the restraining order, sole custody of the son, and a temporary child support order were granted to the mother. However, review of the court documents showed that all of this was allegedly granted three weeks before Dave’s wife filed her complaint.

An investigation revealed that the court was so predisposed to granting domestic violence restraining orders, with custody and child support that they would preprint the court orders, leaving only the personal information of parties of the case to be added. In this case, someone neglected to dispose of the old forms and Dave’s information was added to a form over three weeks old.

Moreover, during Dave’s incarceration he was subjected to physical torture for refusing to acquiesce to the false claims of domestic violence. The torture has left him permanently physically disabled and suffering from pronounce Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. A man who was once a healthy and productive, loving parent now struggles to live a normal life.

Then we have the story of Rob Z., which is his real name. Although Rob is a Certified Master Social Worker, he found himself unemployed for over seven years. This was because Rob was the stay-at-home-dad for his son. When his wife decided it was time for a change she filed a claim of domestic violence against Rob to help the process along.

Despite several witnesses, including neighbors and their own child testifying that the mother was violent partner of the marriage a restraining order was placed against Rob anyway. The order also granted temporary sole custody of their son to the mother and ordered Rob to pay child support.

Rob was removed from his home and was forbidden to have any contact with his son. However, after several months Rob’s wife changed her mind. She wanted a completely clean beginning, free of any prior obligations. So she called Rob and told him to come and pick his son. Rob agreed.

While en route Rob’s wife called him and asked how long it would be until he arrived. He gave her his estimated time and continued to go pick up his son. Upon arrival Rob found his son in the street with his belongings packed in plastic trash bags. As Rob loaded the belongings into the car, a Sheriff’s Deputy arrived.

Unknown to Rob, his wife have called in a violation of the restraining order after asking him how long it would be until he arrived at his former home. Rob was arrested for the restraining order violation and the boy was placed in temporary foster care. Once freed from jail, Rob was able to get his son from state custody.

Being that he was unemployed for so long Rob was having a hard time finding full time work. He had the credentials, but no current experience. Rob and his son ended up living in a tent in a North Carolina State Park for the summer. During this time Rob tried to get the child support order dropped. The courts not only refused to drop the support order, but decided to enforce the no contact with his son provision of the existing domestic violence restraining order they also refused to drop and Rob was arrested again.

Rob says, “That sure kept me from asking again.”

Events like the above went on for the balance of the two years the domestic violence restraining order remained in effect. Rob moved on trying to support himself and his son, while paying a child support order to a parent who refused to have any contact with their own child. Once the restraining order expired the courts finally dropped the child support order against Rob and granted him sole custody of his child.

But not all cases end in disaster, like Bill R’s case; once again that is his real name. Bill wanted the military to be his career. Early on he married, the couple had a son and all looked wonderful. That is until his wife developed a serious substance abuse problem. An intervention hosted by family and friends resulted in Bill’s wife leaving one night without any notice to Bill or anyone he knew and not returning.

Given Bill’s entry level pay scale he was having a hard time financially. So Bill tried to go about what we all know every reasonable single parent does and filed for child support. After two years without receiving a cent he went to the court house for help enforcing the child support order.

To his absolute shock he was told right to his face that, “We don’t enforce against women.” Bill chuckled and replied, “So much for equal protection under the law.” The case worker scolded him and then informed him that if he didn’t watch his mouth she would call children’s services on him and make sure they take his son so he would have no reason to return to her office and give her anymore lip service. Bill never received so much as one cent in child support.

Despite the bad experience Bill had with the family court and having to give up his dream of military service to earn more money, he made the choice to do what was in the best interest of everyone concerned, especially his son.

Bill worked tirelessly to inspire his son to love and respect his mother. Although nearly a decade passed before Bill’s wife got help for her substance abuse issues, she did reestablish contact with her son and today they enjoy a happy and healthy relationship. No matter what goes wrong in a family law case, that should be how it ends.

Bill’s case proves it doesn’t take government interference in your life to do what is in the best interest of a child. Maybe it does prove the absent of government interference in your life helps it happen. But unfortunately, cases like those covered above are more the rule than the exception today.

To date, not one person involved in the above cases who wronged the citizens they swore to serve has been so much as reprimanded for their actions, nor have any of the false claims made to our courts been prosecuted. Charges have been filed against Ben V’s ex-wife and her attorney, the first such case I have heard of. But the hearing is still pending and an unending stream of motions to dismiss flood the court.

Be forewarned, that anyone finding themselves the defendant in today’s family law courts shouldn’t deceive themselves. They should look around at the people working there. Every one of them stands to make money, somehow, some way, when they lose. Notice that I didn’t say if they lose either.

The moral of the story is; when you are wronged by the family courts; don’t look for redress because it doesn’t exist in the family court today. Chances are, standing up for your civil rights will just be asking for even more abuse.

You should expect you’re civil and human rights to be violated so egregiously that you may begin to believe the Constitution of the United States of America is just another myth children are told, along with Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and the Easter Bunny.

So long as federal child support incentive programs pay the states based on the dollar values of a case, instead of the same incentive level per successfully collected case, no matter what the dollar value is this is the way it is going to be. Middle class families will be destroyed while the poor will continue to be abandoned. Nothing about this sounds like a public assistance program, does it?

Currently, despite the established scientific facts that children do better with equal access to both of their parents and the most effective and cost effective method of child support enforcement is enforcing custody and visitation, federal incentive programs under our failed welfare reform are paying our states to limit the time children spend with one of their parents.

Moreover, when those wronged have filed for redress in the federal courts they are told that custody matters are exclusively a state matter and the cases are summarily dismissed.

Terri Lynn Tersak is the President and CEO of True Equality Network

This entry was posted on Thursday, October 18th, 2007 at 11:43 pm and is filed under CounterPulse, Family, Fatherhood, Feminism, Society, Vox Populi. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. | 104 views | Trackback | Print this page |

I am a wife, a mother of an autistic son and the retied President & C.E.O. of True Equality Network. I much prefer Mrs. to Ms. -- marriage is a good thing and needs all the advertising it can get. | More from Terri Lynn Tersak