Should we not be lobbying for the betterment of our most vulnerable citizens and valuable resource?

Question

The Deficit Reduction Act (DRA) of 2005 made cuts to federal funding for child support enforcement that will significantly reduce child support collections for families. Bills to restore the
funds (H.R. 1386, S. 803) have been introduced in the 110th Congress.
Millions of families rely on child support enforcement services.
The child support program serves over 17 million children, collecting about $24 billion dollars in child support annually. Child support enforcement services are available to families of all income levels. But most of the families that participate in the program are low- and moderate-income: 46%
are families that have left welfare, 15% are current recipients of public assistance.2 The vast majority are headed by single mothers.
Child support helps families make ends meet, leave welfare, and avoid a return. Child support provides 31% of family income for poor single-mother families when received.3
U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Administration.

Answer 1

It is sad that there is a need for a collections service. People should feel the obligation to take care of their children's needs. Too many people don't, and that is why this is a very relevant question.
To cut funding for making the responsible parties to act responsibly, creates a situation where the tax paying community will be paying for more than just a collections agency.
Children need to be fed, clothed and need a place to call home. When a relationship that involves children dissolves, how can someone walk away or even when they have been pushed away, how can you go without expecting to take care of your children?

Answer 2

hi elsie. i do no longer extremely be responsive to the place to start up, you have such extremely some logical and useful solutions given to you. For a metamorphosis that is wonderful to ascertain that that is a project that is especially close to to extremely some peoples hearts. i'm on an NHS sufferers communicate board and it extremely is one difficulty that is often dropped on the vanguard of debates. It additionally highlights the non-stop lies we get from the government. I say this because of the fact almost 2 years in the past they advised the rustic that there will be not extra immigrants familiar who could no longer bypass a basic english and maths attempt. As for the employment stages, I continuously create merry hell. i do no longer merchandise to human beings getting to understand variuous careers yet in the NHS that is crucial that engglish is properly understood. how are you able to take a seat down back precise in the event that they do no longer comprehend the language how are you able to be helpful the perfect pills are being given, how are you able to be helpful that tough clinical care isn't likely on at the back of closed doorways etc. regrettably I actual have had first hand adventure of this, no longer because of the fact of dementia yet because of the fact of no longer information issues once I had my 3 strokes. the finished difficulty is extremely frightening. per hazard if each and every person who has a family contributors member suffering variety dementia lobbied the NHS & government they could take a seat up and take observe. save the forged paintings up elsie because you nurses are bloody angels bless you xx

Answer 3

Definately :)
Families are very important in society and it's unfortunate that the government does not see it as such.
Too many families are living in poverty nowadays and they need all the help they can get(whether headed by a mother or father), because in the end, the children once they grow up will be paying the taxes that help look after others too, such as the elderly, etc.

Answer 4

A lot of money could be saved by not requiring, as most states mandate, every non-custodial parent to have to go through the agency responsible for enforcing child support. There are plenty of non-custodial parents who will and do pay reliably to the custodial parent without some bureaucracy making them go through the state attorney's office. It is a waste of money in these instances and eating up public funding. Only if a person fails to pay should they then be pursued by a child support enforcement agency.

Ember Halo, that may be true in some states, but many states put ALL payors into the system upon divorce, eating up public funding for those who pay willingly when they could be using that money to pursue the noncompliant.

Answer 5

Unfortunately We are all in one way or another "Wards of the State' whether We choose to admit it or not.
Whatever happens in the U.S.of A. will eventually have a trickle down effect in Canada or Australia, or in any other country where contributors can access this question.
We all need to become responsible for the children living in Our Country, rather than waiting to see what will the U. S. will do next.

Answer 6

There is so much wrong with "child support", it is difficult to begin and too lengthy to conclude in the space available here.

Let it suffice to note that first of all, if all ordered child support was paid on time and in full every month, the welfare roles would be unaffected. In the realm of ‘poverty’, a non-custodial parent simply does not earn enough to be able to pay enough to bring the ‘family’ out of poverty. In these cases, even if they were living in the ‘family’ they would still be in poverty.

While it is undoubtedly true that many 'families' rely on child support as a means of support, child support *should* be for the support of the children and ONLY the children, not the 'family'.

Government intervention is at odds with fairness. A parent who loses custody must pay child support to the parent who wins custody. This assignment has the tendency to turn children into cash prizes. In fact, it exerts a similar effect on the government, for the money passes through the state treasury, where it is used to earn federally funded bonuses for the state. Governments reap substantial profits from child support. “Most states make a profit on their child support program;” according to the House Ways and Means Committee, which notes that “states are free to spend this profit in any manner the state sees fit.” States profit largely through federal incentive payments, as well as by receiving two-thirds of operating costs and 90 percent of computer costs (U.S. House of Representatives 1998).Government claims of nonpayment are produced not from any compiled data (which do not exist), but simply from surveys of custodial parents. The single most important factor relating to nonpayment is unemployment.

To collect these funds, states must channel payments through their criminal enforcement machinery, further criminalizing the fathers and allowing the government to claim that its enforcement measures are increasing collections despite the consistent operating loss in the federal program. In January 2000, Secretary Shalala announced that “the federal and state child support enforcement program broke new records in nationwide collections in fiscal year 1999, reaching $15.5 billion, nearly doubling the amount collected in 1992” (HHS 2000). Yet the method of arriving at these figures is questionable.

When we hear of collections through enforcement agencies, we assume they involve arrearages or that they target those who do not otherwise pay and whose compliance must be “enforced.” In 1992, most child support was still being paid voluntarily and directly, without coercion or accounting by the state. Increasingly over the past decade, all payments (including current ones) have been routed through enforcement agencies by automatic wage garnishing and other coercive measures that presume criminality. Moreover, OCSE figures show that whereas the number of welfare-related cases (where collection is difficult) has remained steady since 1994, the number of nonwelfare cases (where compliance is high) has steadily increased (OCSE 1999, 4). The “increase” in collections was achieved not by collecting the alleged arrearages built up by poor fathers already in the criminal collection system, but rather by bringing in more employed middle-class fathers who pay faithfully. The payments and the accounting mechanism also provide additional incentives to squeeze as many dollars out of as many fathers as possible and have the added effect of further institutionalizing their status as semicriminals.

Add to that, “collections” (which is a misnomer because most would pay anyway), cost far more than can be collected. For instance, in 1998, Florida taxpayers paid $4.5 million to Lockheed Martin IMS and Maximus, Inc., to collect $162,000 from fathers.

Throughout the United States and abroad, child-support machinery has been beset with allegations of mismanagement and corruption.

In my opinion, ending the Office of Child Support Enforcement is the only sensible solution and get the government out of the business of enticing women to divorce or create fatherless households.

Answer 7

Yes! Children don't vote or buy politicians. So things that affect them they need adults to fight for them.

It is sad that children anywhere are hungry or sick or not educated. But in America? And because of parents that don't support their own children? That is criminal to me.

I don't know how any parent could want their child to Not be healthy and happy and able. But I know that they have legal responsibilities and they need to face them.

Edit and America is supposed to be a country of Christian Family Values..?

wiliemom this is Not about whether the parents are married or not..and is Not about "welfare mothers" it is about Children.

Most women know who their child's father is and most fathers know too.

Answer 8

It's all about the children, eh? Alright, I'll bite.

How about we focus on children being able to see both their parents on regular occasion. That way they have both their mom and their dad. Too many children don't have access to both parents, especially fathers. It is time we quit looking at fathers as a bank account.

If a parent doesn't want to see their child by all means charge them child support. But there are too many fathers who want to be part of their children's life who just get their wallet cleaned out. Child support should be a last resort and it is too often the first and only.

Answer 9

Yes I totally agree with you, but im canadian, first and secondly...
We need ppl that can talk to ppl , talk to crowds of ppl and make and outreach of speechs to tell the public what's going on, cuz watching the news doesn't do you any good.
GO to infowars.com. It should help, with something.

Answer 10

valuable resource? if their single mothers don't get off welfare and do whatever they have to, these children will be next welfare generation, having children without marriage. I didn't see the stats on how many of these dead beat parents were married to the custodial parent. You forgot to mention it's hard to get support when you don't know the parent. Maybe they should have gotten pregnant by a military person, they are real good at getting support.