August 24, 2004

The federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) held the first part of a two-day, "invitation only" meeting today called the African-American Forum. Invitees included child support enforcement officials, small community groups, and a small number of national organizations, including the American Coalition for Fathers and Children.

OCSE Director Sherri Heller, opening the meeting, announced a new National Child Support Enforcement Strategic Plan, 2005-2009. Dr. Heller acknowledged that the current enforcement system is "way out of balance" and promised to develop procedures that "treat both parents fairly." She began the meeting by saying it would be a "two-way conversation" and said, "We want to listen," though immediately following her remarks she left the meeting.

Dr. Heller said she was excited by the new Strategic Plan, though the document seems to contain little that is substantially new. She promised to prevent the build-up of unpaid arrearages through "early intervention" but did not say precisely what that intervention would be. She also pledged that more payments would go directly to "families" and less to the government. The Strategic Plan says its aim is to build a "culture of compliance," in which parents support their children "voluntarily" but also says that "severe enforcement remedies" would be applied to those who fail to volunteer.

Paige Biava of OCSE claimed that child support enforcement officials and some community groups had been consulted in preparing the document but acknowledged that no solicitation of public comments was ever issued and no systematic citizen input was collected. She said the basic principle of the plan is that "Families come first." She said OCSE defines a "family" as the custodial parent and children but in response to a suggestion accepted that it might be appropriate to include the non-custodial parent as well. The Strategic Plan lists "our customers, partners, and stakeholders" as including children, custodians, child support enforcement agencies, courts, law enforcement agencies, employers, financial institutions, hospitals, departments of corrections, attorneys, prosecutors, interest groups, churches, and legislatures. The list does not include non-custodial parents.

In response to another question, OCSE official Melvin Sutton said his office and local child support offices can provide no assistance with visitation interference and that no federal guidelines govern or encourage visitation.

Perhaps most revealing was what both the Strategic Plan and the agenda of the two-day meeting did not contain. In recent years severe criticism of the child support system has issued forth from journalists, scholars, and even some judges, as well as non-custodial parents. These include charges of illegal and unconstitutional practices that violate constitutional rights. Yet no acknowledgement was made of such allegations nor was any effort made to address them.

In Society magazine, Bryce Christensen writes, "The advocates of ever-more-aggressive measures for collecting child support…have moved us a dangerous step closer to a police state and have violated the rights of innocent and often impoverished fathers." Liberty magazine has called the child support problem a "myth." Sanford Braver has meticulously debunked it with documentation. A new book, "The Law and Economics of Child Support Payments, edited by William Comanor, contains many essays critical of the child support system. Ronald Henry's contribution to that volume calls the system and its justification "an obvious sham," a "disaster," and "the most onerous form of debt collection practiced in the United States." A Georgia Superior Court judge declared guidelines unconstitutional on "numerous" grounds in 2002. Last December, the ACLU demanded the release of 100 prisoners in a single Pennsylvania county on grounds that they had been incarcerated without due process of law.

One may disagree with these assessments. Yet nowhere in the Strategic Plan, which will govern the operation of the child support system for the next four years, is there any recognition that such serious criticisms have even been raised. Apparently none of the above mentioned scholars who have questioned the ethics and methods of child support enforcement was invited to speak at this or any other meeting sponsored by OCSE. Instead Elaine Sorensen, who has spoken at many such meetings, presented research that was very similar to research she has presented many times before.

The Strategic Plan makes no mention of the desirability of observing due process of law or the constitutional rights of parents and children. No concern is expressed that guidelines be just and appropriate. Nowhere is the possibility raised of using federal guidelines to discourage divorce or encourage shared parenting, both of which would relieve the overall enforcement load. No concrete measures or incentives are advanced for requiring or encouraging the involvement of non-custodial parents in the decision-making or raising of their children.

Finally, the tone of the meeting was highly significant. Speakers and officials were frequently interrupted with questions, which were often direct and even hostile. This was in sharp contrast to the deference display at similar meetings only a few years ago. Bearing in mind that many participants were involved with groups that receive federal money, the critical response was marked.

The meeting continues Tuesday. The contact official for information is:

Ja-Na Bordes, (202) 401-5713, JBordes@acf.hhs.gov