A Nevada state task force is looking at ways to improve the collection of delinquent child support payments after a legislative audit found deficiencies.
Nevada consistently ranks near the bottom of the nation in payment collection. Last year the state collected about 52 percent of the payments owed. The national average is about 61 percent.
“The last ranking I saw for Nevada in child support enforcement was 54th, ranking us even lower than the territory of Guam,” said Assemblywoman Sheila Leslie, D-Reno. “To say our child support enforcement system is broken is not accurate. It’s beyond abysmal.”
It’s unclear what progress the task force has made since it first met in the spring.
Owing more than $10,000 in child support is a felony. But deadbeats must be serve papers before officials can force payment or punishment.
State officials say the system protects civil rights but hampers enforcement. [Las Vegas Review-Journal, September 7, 2009, page 4B]
Nevada, in many ways, is about as modern as some third world countries we read about and see on TV.
I know something about the herculean effort to collect child support. I once headed up the Family Support Division of the Ventura County District Attorney’s office in California back in the late 1970s. I had a staff of four attorneys, and a support staff of some 75 individuals to handle thousands of child support cases. Most of the cases were to collect support to reimburse the Welfare Department. But many were non-welfare cases in which mothers were struggling to support their children all alone.
Many of the cases involved single girls/women who got pregnant without any thought of what they would do when the baby arrived. The father didn’t give it much thought either, so long as they got their ashes hauled. They put it back in their pants and button up and head out looking for the next girl. But that quickie, as much fun as it might have been, doesn’t just end with the last button in his fly. Raising a baby for 18 years is expensive and certainly not easy.
In the “unmarried” category the law requires that the DA judicially establish the identity of the father of the child, then secure a court order for the father to pay for the child’s support for those 18 years.
Most of the “unmarried” women were receiving welfare benefits which included prenatal medical care, medical costs of delivery of the child, then on-going support for the next 18 years. Many of those women didn’t give a damn if the father paid child support or not, so long as they could get their welfare money.
Of course, to determine who the father is the only source for that information is the pregnant girl/woman. It was not infrequent that the girl/woman would refuse to disclose the name of the father. In some instances they really didn’t know who it was when they had been sexually active with two or more men at the same time during the period of conception.
Those uncooperative girls/women would continue receiving their Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) payments from the welfare department. Why? Because the money was paid to support the child, not the mother.
To judicially establish the identity of the father in a paternity case required filing a civil paternity lawsuit against the man/men the mother provided the name/names of.
Once you have the name(s) of the potential father(s) you still have to find them and serve them with the Summons and Complaint in the lawsuit.
That may or may not be easy. If the alleged father was relatively stable and still lived in the area he could be served without much effort. If the sexual encounter with the mother was a father who was not stable and essentially transient it became in most cases close to impossible to find him. Often as not the mother wouldn’t even know the last name of the transient father or anything about him. All they knew was their womb was filling up with a fetus. Sexual encounters occur between strangers and friends alike.
In instances where we had the names of two or more potential fathers we filed the paternity lawsuit against both of them as defendants. The theory would be to let them fight it out between themselves in court as to who the father of the child was.
If there were two men alleged to be the potential father efforts were made to secure blood tests to match with the baby’s blood type to potentially eliminate one. But back in the 1970s DNA hadn’t been heard of as yet which would have been the most reliable evidence as to paternity. You try to get two men accused of paternity give you some blood to test. They aren’t going to help you. They aren’t thinking about the baby—they think about their own best interests—and that doesn’t include paying money for decades.
These men aren’t responsible people. Most, once served with the Paternity lawsuit, would let the 30 day period in which they were required by law to answer to, would let the time expire. These men aren’t too bright either. When they would not answer the lawsuit a judgment of paternity, which judicially named them as the father of the child, would be issued by the court because of their default.
That judgment of paternity would include court orders that required the declared father to pay for the prenatal and medical care expenses incurred before the child’s birth, plus pay monthly child support for the infant until it reached age 18. The monthly support amount would be set, arbitrarily, at say $200 per month, payable through the DA’s office, who kept records to account for every dime he paid.
The Family Support staff used to celebrate the judicial declaration of paternity of the new father with a birthday cake, complete with a candle to celebrate his new fatherhood. Of course he was never present at these celebrations. He would be wandering around somewhere, fat, dumb and happy without a care in the world.
But, before you could enforce that default judgment of paternity you had to personally serve a copy of it on that new father. At that point the new daddy would suddenly take interest. Not because of love or concern about their new baby, but about concern it was going to cost him money. He now becomes labeled as an “absent parent.”
From this point forward the Family Support Divisions sole interest in daddy is to collect the child support money from him.
His main interest is finding a way to avoid paying it.
A number of tools exists to collect it. If he had a bank account (rare) we could levy on his account to collect past due support. If he had a job we could obtain and serve a court order on his employer to hold out a percentage of his pay check assigning it to the delinquent account maintained by the DA. If he owned any interest in real property we recorded the judgment which served as a debt-lien on the property, collectable if and when he tried to sell the property. A notice of the delinquency could be filed with IRS who would divert any income tax refund to the DA to apply the debt.
Some absent parents would try to get their employers to pay them in cash, under the table, to avoid paying child support. Others would flee from California to another state in an effort to avoid paying. Collecting money from some guy in Alabama through the interstate compact was like pulling hen’s teeth.
Once boxed in the absent fathers would come up with all kinds of excuses for their failure to pay. Some claimed they couldn’t find a job (which could be true). A favorite was that the mother wouldn’t allow them to visit their kid (which is not a legal excuse for failure to pay support). Any excuse not to pay.
For those who just wouldn’t pay we filed criminal charges of wilful failure to pay child support and generally, upon conviction, got them sentenced to jail for a year. Our conclusion was that if the guy isn’t going to pay he might as well be in jail, he was worthless anyway. Here is an example:
In January 2004, Chauncey Moore stood with other businessmen outside the Moulin Rouge as they announced their plans to buy the historic hotel and casino for $12.1 million.
Now Moore is the target of a Clark County District Court complaint filed by his ex-wife, Sonja Mack, who claims he owes her more than $49,000 in child support and interest. In the complaint, filed March 2, the San Diego woman is asking a judge to withhold Moore’s income to pay the obligation.
Mack, 41, said she sought the help of National Child Support, a private collection company based in Ohio, after officials in San Diego County failed to force Moore to pay his obligation.
“I don’t want to hurt Chauncey, but I’m tired,” said Mack, who works for the city of San Diego.
Mack’s complaint claims Moore, the chief operating officer of the Moulin Rouge Development Corp., is required to pay $560 a month to support the two sons he had with Mack. The boys are now 16 and 17.
According to Mack’s complaint, Moore owes $49,175 in arrearages. That amount includes a principal balance of $38,367 plus $10,808 in interest. [Read more in the Las Vegas Review Journal]
Back in 2007 the following story appeared in the Las Vegas Review Journal:
By the numbers, Clark County District Attorney David Roger’s effort to step up enforcement of child support orders in Nevada’s most populous region is a success.
But the gains he’s made in recent years have done little to leverage the Silver State out of its dismal national showing when it comes to making non-custodial parents financially support their offspring.
On Tuesday, Clark County announced that the district attorney’s family support division collected more than $104 million in child support from 50,110 parents in fiscal year 2006-07. That represents a 10 percent increase in collections made during 2005-06. Overall, there’s been a 45 percent gain since Roger took office in 2003.
Making that progress has been a significant achievement for staff, Roger said, since these cases sometimes involve noncustodial parents who’ll do almost anything to dodge paying support.
“There are a lot of people who don’t want to live up to their moral or legal obligation,” Roger said of divorced parents who change jobs or move out-of-state to make collection more difficult.
But Roger’s campaign to step up child support collections pales beside Nevada’s poor standing in that area.
A 2006 performance audit commissioned by Nevada legislators shows the state ranked 49th in the nation when it comes to collecting child support. The state ranked 48th in the nation for arranging payments in child support cases in arrears.
Nevada also hugged the bottom of state rankings in establishing paternity for children in support cases, obtaining court orders for support payments and running cost-effective collections and enforcement programs.
“Nevada’s child support program has performed poorly compared to other state programs,” auditors said in their report, which also said: “In all five categories the federal government uses to measure performance and provides incentive dollars, Nevada is in the bottom six of the 50 states.”
Clark County accounts for about 71 percent of child support collections in Nevada, the audit said.
Assemblywoman Barbara Buckley, D-Las Vegas, called Nevada’s national standings for child support collection “pathetic.” Children in the state are not receiving the money they are entitled to by court order, Buckley said, which means they may be deprived of things as basic as medical care and shelter.
“It’s unfortunate that we’re still so behind where we need to be as a state. … I think we can certainly get out of 49th place.”
One thing that would help improve collections significantly is upgrading the computer system used by the family support division, said Bob Teuton, assistant district attorney in charge of the family support and juvenile divisions.
Nevada uses NOMADS, a technology Teuton said is both limited and antiquated. Its ability to mine and compile data is poor, and additional staff is required to review simple functions, such as identifying individuals who are in arrears and notifying them about wage garnishment procedures.
The automated system should be a help to the staff, not create more work for them, Teuton said.
NOMADS was purchased about eight years ago, Teuton said.
There are now 22 states examining system upgrades for family support divisions, Teuton said. Nevada isn’t one of them.
Teuton said the district attorney’s office takes about 16,000 child support cases to court each year. About half of those cases involve custodial or noncustodial parents who live in another state.
Over the last four years, Clark County Commissioners have approved 38 new positions for the family support division to help meet the growing demands on that area of the district attorney’s office.
Las Vegas attorney Randall Roske suggested that a more vigorous approach in holding child support scofflaws accountable might also help.
He was in Clark County Family Court on Monday with a client who is owed more than $40,000 in back child support. It was supposed to be a pay or stay proposition for the ex-husband in arrears, that is, cut a check for $800 to his ex-wife or go to jail.
“He didn’t come to court, he didn’t stay and he didn’t pay,” Roske said. “I look at that as an utter failure.”
The ex-husband’s attorney promised the court that a check would be ready Tuesday, Roske said.
Last March 4, 2009 the following was reported in the Las Vegas Review Journal:
CARSON CITY — Nevada legislators frequently hear witnesses testify that the state ranks worst in the nation in its foreclosure rates, suicide rates and Medicaid reimbursements, and near the bottom in support for education.
But on Tuesday they learned something new: Nevada ranks 54th in its rate of child support collection.
Deadbeat parents are paying just 47.6 percent of their legally obligated child support.
“That puts us behind Guam,” said Assembly Speaker Barbara Buckley, D-Las Vegas. “When you count the territories, we are 54th.”
That is what the Division of Welfare and Supportive Services report shows. The report was presented to legislators during a joint Senate-Assembly budget hearing.
According to the Division of Welfare’s Web site, the state collected $179.7 million in support from noncustodial parents last year in 116,233 child support cases.
But it collected just 47.6 percent of the potential support, placing the state just behind Guam’s 48.5 percent and far below the 61.2 percent national average.
The District of Columbia ranked 45th with a 54.2 percent collection rate, while the Virgin Islands was 43rd at 54.6 percent and Puerto Rico was 31st at 57.4 percent.
Pennsylvania ranked first with a 78 percent support collection rate.
Assemblywoman Sheila Leslie, D-Reno, said legislators are used to hearing that Nevada sometimes ranks 51st behind the District of Columbia, but she never heard of a 54th rating.
In many surveys, American possessions and territories are not included.
“It is frustrating for all the custodial parents,” said Buckley. “We are worse than Guam, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.”
Welfare Division Administrator Romaine Gilliland said he plans to organize a task force that includes county and state officials and work on improving the state’s collection rating.
Legislators, however, noted the division still has not acted on most of the recommendations from a 2007 audit.
“The excuse last time (at the 2007 Legislature) was that the audit had just come out and there had not been time to review it,” Buckley said.
Those recommendations included improving or replacing its computer system, a step Gilliland said would cost $40 million to $100 million.
A new computer system might allow the agency to better track nonpaying parents and take steps to secure some of their wages, but it’s too expensive, he said.
Child support collection is a collaborative effort between counties and state, Gilliland said. He said there has not been a stable source of funding for the collection effort.
Cases in which a noncustodial parent is not paying support are turned over to the Child Support Enforcement Program. That joint federal, state and local program brings legal action against nonpayers.
The program was intended to ensure families’ self-sufficiency by making child support a more reliable source of income, according to the state’s welfare agency Web site.
That should give you some idea why Nevada sucks at collecting child support. It is hard work. It requires constant diligence in following up on child support cases for decades. That takes focus and devotion on the part of people working for the child support collection agency. Too many DA’s weren’t interested in that segment of their offices. Ultimately the State of California took the function over and centralized it all in Sacramento. Whether they are doing any better than the county DA’s or not I don’t know. Nevada’s child support is likewise centralized.
I thought I might take a look to see if I could see how Nye County does in collecting child support. The Nevada website page listing the child support offices in each of Nevada’s counties is here. So I scrolled down the page to find Nye County. When I clicked the link to Nye County it took me here. The page says “We’re sorry, but there is not a web page matching your entry.” It then tells me Click here to go to the home page. I did and it took me here. It is the main web page for Nye County. Not a single word about child support on it. I suppose one cannot find out how Nye County ranks in it’s job of collecting child support. So, if you are a single mother needing help in collection child support for your baby who do you go see? Or if you’re curious about how Nye County is doing in collecting child support because your taxes helps support it how would you find out online?
But collection of child support is an important part of governmental business. It doesn’t get much publicity and certainly isn’t a sexy job. Taxpayer’s wind up spending the money to support those kids.
Related posts:
After 23 months and over $17,000 in arrears, I’m told by my case manager that jail is for the real criminals and not refusal to pay child support.
Well Greg, I’m afraid your case manager is dead wrong. Refusal to pay child support is a crime in every state in the union.
My child is owed over $35, 000 and I can’t even get a caseworker to return my call after not receiving a single payment in almost a year. I’m just at an absolute loss.
One method you might try, if you haven’t already, is go public about the fact you are being ignored by the caseworker. I don’t know where you live but you might contact a TV station in your area and see if they will pick up on your story. Try the newspapers as well. Anything to cast the public spotlight on whatever child support office you have to deal with. Bureaucratic offices will do almost anything to avoid negative publicity focus public attention to their failure to do their jobs. Ignoring mothers with children is definitely not in their job description.
Good luck.
I live in Las Vegas, I will definitely try your idea. Thanks!
Hi Karen. Are you going to try the YouTube method? If so, let me know I’d like to post it on this blog, if you don’t mind. Good luck!
Featheriver. I just have read your article, especially how you stated so many times about the fathers not being so “bright” Or the fathers this, or the fathers that, But really how “bright are the single mothers? They are so trampish that they do not know who the father could be. I did not read anywhere in your rhetoric where the “mother” should have any responsibility in spreading her legs, and as you mentioned many times to “strangers”. Great Mother material there, don’t you think? I also read that you state it is better for the “non-payer” to be placed in jail. How nice. It cost California $74,000.00 per year to house an inmate. Lets do the “math” shall we. Lets say the support payment is $300.00 per month for one child. That comes to $3,600.00 per year does it not? Hmm…. Well it appears that the tax payers just provided over 20 YEARS of child support!! for ONE YEAR of higher educational criminal training provided by the prison system. What kind of “bumbler” are you? Oh and you all got a great laugh about it im sure. “Yeah, we just put another one behind bars”. Another question concerning paternity. Since you could not prove who the “real” biological father was, how many poor basterds were “wrongly” imprisioned? How many “wrongly” had their lives financially ruined by you and your minions? Do you even know? By your comments in your “rhetoric” I would guess no. Could it be 50%, 40%? or maybe even far more. (the trashy mothers do not know) Congrats! You immoral idiot, and all like you. Let me send you a rag to wipe the birthday cake from your face. Yes, I think you are right. The “YOUTUBE” idea might be great! especially to put out the word on you and all like you. It would be interesting to find out how many wrongly accused will like to join a class action lawsuite against you and your DA of the time to have their names cleared by actual DNA paternity testing. I think it would be a great idea for the ones wrongly accused and imprisioned by you, and your ilk to answer for your moral crimes. SEXY job “indeed”. You display the exact problem with the States budgets today, and why the child support agencies are “broken” They were broken by idiots just like you.
I’m sure that you will not dare to post these comments, so I will help you. Your website will be mentioned in the upcoming “YOUTUBE” video that I will produce.
Whoa now, just a minute! You can’t totally shift the blame for unsupported children on just the mother. The vast majority of those who fail to provide support for their children are fathers, not mothers, although some mothers fail to pay child support when the child in the custody of the mother. They were treated the same way as the absent fathers were.
I won’t apologize one whit about the efforts to collect unpaid financial support for children from their parents. The argument about the costs of incarceration doesn’t logically compare to the costs incurred by taxpayers to support children for years and years who were receiving welfare benefits because the father would not pay.
Men have the same responsibility as women “in spreading her legs.” He can leave his zipper zipped unless he is prepared to take on the responsibility of a pregnancy.
The real victims in the failure of parents to financially provide support are the children.
Tell you what–if you think you can do a better job in the field of child support–then do it yourself. Otherwise make your YouTube and go pound sand.
Jack, thank you for your invitation to pound sand, however, I have put together a few facts for you, and your readers. I will also point out that regardless of who is the custodial parent male or female there is no “Accountability” for the child support paid to the custodial parent. Once the money is transferred it falls into the blackhole of the custodial parents preferrences. There is not a way for the courts or the “paying” parent to indeed verify that the money does in fact benefit “the children” . Stories are rampant of how thousands of dollars are transferred to the custodial parent, and without anything to show for it. There must be “Accountability” In reading these “FACTS” please notice that your statements about the men defaulting are incorrect. Women default at TWICE the rate as men. This Jack Is a FACT. You tell me me to “DO IT” Yes, this is a typical response from a minion of “THE SYSTEM” Jack I invite you to get off your high horse, and you being the authority you claim to be. Think for yourself, and and ask the question “How” You know better than anyone how the system is truely broken, if you will admit it to yourself. Jack put down the “bible” of government dribble, and Think Man. It must boil down to “TRUST WITH VERIFICATION”
TEN MYTHS OF THE CURRENT “CHILD SUPPORT” SYSTEM
1. Child support is for the children. False
Currently there is NO system of accountability by the custodial parent. Many parents can, and do, spend the money for the child on personal luxury items that have no bearing on child welfare. If we really wanted the children to have the financial support shouldn’t the custodial parent have to show how the money is spent?
2. Those “deadbeat dads” who have abandoned their children should pay for them. True, but…
There are very few parents who abandon their children. Actually most non-custodial parents were forced into being “non custodial” against their will as over 80% of divorces are against the wishes of the other parent. Over two thirds of divorces are filed by women and yet 90% of the time women “win” custody of the children even when they wanted out of the family. In New York State there is no SHARED PARENTING statute. No matter who files, one parent or the other will be forced into being a visitor and “non custodial”. The “winner” receives full control of the finances with no accountability. The overall vast majority of non-custodial parents did not abandon their children; they were forced away from them.
3. No matter who caused the divorce the child shouldn’t have to suffer financially. True, but…
Over 90% of parents who have shared parenting pay their financial child support on time and in full compared to under 70% for those with just visitation. Children of divorce fare better emotionally when they have TWO involved parents in their life. If policies promoted shared parenting for children they would receive both FINANCIAL AND EMOTIONAL SUPPORT FROM BOTH PARENTS. A win-win situation for all involved. If we want to ensure the child’s financial well being we need to promote both parents access to the children.
4. All that may be true for divorcing couples but, we need to get those “deadbeat dads” who are fathering these children out of wedlock and dumping them on welfare! True, but…
Studies have shown that over 80% of out of wedlock fathers are present in the maternity wards at the time of their children’s birth. Most acknowledge their paternity and are ready and willing to be financially and EMOTIONALLY involved in the upbringing of their child. And why aren’t these mothers equally financially responsible?
5. Fathers should accept their paternity and financial responsibilities! True, but…
Most fathers do accept their financial and EMOTIONAL responsibilities for their children but the system is gender biased labeling fathers as financial providers and discounting their emotional value to their children. The saying goes “mommy’s baby, daddies maybe”. Even in those cases where DNA evidence has found the man NOT to be the father HE IS HELD FINANCIALLY RESPONSIBLE ONCE HE ACCEPTS PATERNITY OR IS MARRIED AT THE TIME OF BIRTH. DNA testing facilities report that 50% of paternity tests come back negative. FALSE PATERNITY IS ESTIMATED AS HIGH AS 18% IN BOTH MARRIED AND OUT OF WEDLOCK BIRTHS! Don’t children have a right to know who their real father is? Fathers should accept responsibility for their children and mothers should be held responsible for telling the truth when it comes to paternity! Responsible fatherhood belongs to the biological father.
6. OK, some fathers may have gotten a raw deal but there are a lot of them who just refuse to pay child support to children who need it! False…
The number one reason given, by both custodial and non-custodial parents alike, is inability to pay. 6% of those in default in a recent government study that was released to show “the arrears problem” were found to be dead. In fact women are found to be in default of child support payments at twice the rate of men. The vast majority of default on child support is due to inability to pay not a refusal to pay!
7. The important thing is children are financially cared for to keep them out of poverty. True, but…
The number one indicator of child poverty is coming from a single mother household. Over 54% of children in poverty come from single mother families as compared to 11.5% of children in married households. If we want to combat child poverty we need to develop policies that discourage single parenthood.
8. If non-custodial fathers or mothers can’t afford to pay they can just get their support reduced. False…
Support is based on a percentage of income at a fixed point in time based on ability to earn. Once the amount is set non-custodial parents are rarely, if ever, afforded a reduction. The “Bradley Amendment” states that child support arrears can NOT be reduced no matter what the reason for the arrears! Courts have even gone so far as to “impute” income, that is add on other income or assets for inclusion in child support payments. An example of this is a non-custodial parent who moves into a relative’s residence temporarily without paying rent. The fair market value of the “rent” not paid can be added to the non-custodial parent’s income in computing child support. Non custodial parents who suffer unexpected interruptions in their income are often penalized for being “in arrears”. An example of this is Bobby Sherrill, a Lockheed Employee and divorced father who was captured in the Gulf War in Kuwait and spent 5 months as an Iraqi hostage and prisoner of war. The night after his release he was arrested for being $1425.00 in arrears in child support. Non custodial parents are penalized including loss of driving privileges, suspension of automobile registrations, loss of hunting and fishing licenses, suspension of professional licenses even if needed to produce income, posting on public “wanted” posters, turned in as “bad” credit risks and arrested and incarcerated for six months at a time even if they can prove that payments were not made due to inability to pay! These same penalties are applied even when there are no arrears and the report is in error. Child support owed continues to build while the non-custodial parent suffers the above penalties, including while incarcerated.
9. These non-custodial parents are just trying to get their child support payments reduced. False…
The number one complaint by non-custodial parents is that they were forced to be non-custodial against their will. Of those who have accepted the non-custodial status the number one complaint is that there is no access (visitation) enforcement. Even when it is spelled out in a court order, there are no penalties for the custodial parent who denies the non custodial parent. Complaints of being labeled a paycheck and a visitor fall way behind access enforcement and lack of time with their children. Prior to separation both parents cared for their children financially without a child support unit.
10. Overall, child support payments are based on the needs of the children. False…
Child support payments are based on an arbitrary “ability to earn” income of the non-custodial parent. It has no actual basis in the costs to raise a child or even in the actual expenses paid towards the child. New York does not even have a proportional offset for non custodial parents who spend more time, or spend money directly, on the care of their children. Non custodial parents are assessed 17% of their gross income (35% of net) for one child and 25% of gross income (48% of net) for two children. This assessment is the same for a non-custodial parent who spends no time whatsoever with their children and the non-custodial parent who spends 49% of the time with their children with increased direct expenses for the children. The NY Court of Appeals has even gone so far as to rule that when two parents spend equal time (50%) with the children that the “custodial” parent can be determined for the purposes of child support by who makes more money, even when the financial needs of the children are being met in both households. The guidelines are strict application regardless of circumstance.
The child support system is based on the premise that after divorce/separation one parent or the other will be the sole custodian of the children and the other parent will be the financial provider. This fails to address the real world where both parents are actively involved in the child’s emotional upbringing and share in the financial responsibilities to the family. Current policies reduce the value of one parent or the other to children and in fact contribute to child poverty by promoting single parent households. Not only are these single parent households financially distressing to children but they are also emotionally damaging to children in ways that are to numerous to mention here.
Well Kevin, I’m a bit tardy in responding but I had other irons in the fire. But let me see what I can do here.
You are correct. Once the money is paid over to the custodial parent there are no controls how the money is spent, whether on the child or on booze, drugs, gambled away.
I don’t know how “rampant” it is that custodial parents waste money in that manner. The task ascribed to DA’s office was to collect the child support amounts ordered by the court from the absent parent and give it to the custodial parent (in non-welfare cases) or reimburse the Welfare Department for monies paid out to welfare recipients. It has never been a requirement, to my knowledge, that the DA had to oversee how the custodial parent spent the money. Short of moving in with the custodial parent and monitoring the expenditure of the money I don’t know of a way to provide the “accountability” you propose. In welfare cases the Welfare Department has case workers that provide some oversight. It would take an army of government workers to provide that kind of oversight, which would be politically infeasible.
In non-welfare cases the only accountability I can think of would be oversight from the non-custodial parent. That, however, isn’t very practical because a lot of non-custodial parents do not even visit their kids and even those that do aren’t in the children’s home on a daily basis to micromanage the expenditure of the child support money. Additionally, many custodial parents re-marry and their new spouse would not appreciate the former spouse’s interference.
Fact is there is no pragmatic way I know of to achieve “trust with verification.”
I agree that the vast majority of non-custodial parents do not abandon their children. I also agree that in most cases the mother of the children, especially very young children, secure custody of the kids. That is the decision of the court. In general, women are better situated to provide daily care to the children than the father, particularly if he works and she doesn’t.
However, what you are addressing is beyond the limited scope of the role of collecting child support. You are talking about a sociological problem. The job of people working in Family Support Divisions of DA’s offices, is enforcement of law, not devising solutions for sociological problems.
I don’t know if your assertion of 90% or 70% is accurate or not but I can’t disagree with the belief that children of divorce fare better emotionally when they have two involved parents in their life. The issue of joint and shared custody vs singular custody is decided in the family law courts, not DA’s offices.
I agree with you that promotion of both parents’ access to the children is the better goal. Of course, don’t overlook the fact that the parents themselves have the obligation to provide both financial and emotional support to their children. Yet, people are people and divorces (or termination of non-marital unions) are often fraught with intense emotional factors between the splitting couples. Children are frequently used as pawns by their parents.
The mothers are equally financially responsible. Whether most fathers in paternity cases acknowledge their paternity or not depends. If the relationship between the parents was casual and the mother somewhat promiscuous results in many alleged fathers to be understandably skeptical whether they are the biological father or not. It depends largely on the circumstances. Like some fathers, some mothers are not conducive to financially supporting their children.
I doubt that 80% of out of wedlock fathers are present at the birth of their children. I don’t have any authoritative figures on the topic, but experience indicates to me that far fewer show much interest, other than initial curiosity, which wears off sharply once they realize the child might cost them money.
Yes, most fathers do. But those are cases which rarely, if ever, find their way into a DA’s office. Remember, the law requires that the identity of the biological father in paternity cases be judicially established by a court. The law, at least in California, also provides that a child conceived during marriage is conclusively presumed to be the child of the husband.
I understand and don’t necessarily disagree with the thrust of your argument, however, in real life things aren’t always the way any one of us might think it should be.
You are correct that the predominant reason given for failure to pay child support is the inability to pay it. However, the predominant reason for willfully failing to pay child support is that the absent parent prefers not to pay it and spend their money on other things. Some arrange to get paid under the table.
Obviously a dead absent parent has no ability to pay. I’ve never prosecuted a dead absent parent, however.
My experience has been that absent parents don’t pay child support because they don’t want to generally arguing that the custodial parent won’t permit them to have visitation with their children. Determination about which parent gets custody of the child or about visitation of children is beyond the jurisdiction of the prosecutor. Those questions are for the parents and the court to decide.
By law, failure of the custodial parent to permit visitation by the non-custodial parent is not a lawful defense to willful failure to by child support.
No disagreement about that. Those factors are subjects of legislation and governmental policy makers, not within the purview of law enforcement.
Once a court has issued a court order for payment of child support, for example $100 per month commencing January 1, 2010 and continuing each month thereafter until the child reaches age 18, the amounts due, if not paid, accrue into an arrears.
The arrears, by law, builds and continues to be owed and payable until fully paid. The arrears is not like the ongoing child support payment amount, subject to modification, up or down. It is sort of like cast in stone.
When a non-custodial parent, who is subject by court order to pay the monthly amount, finds him/herself in a position whereby they no longer have the ability to pay the ordered amount has the recourse to bring a motion in court asking for a reduction in the original court-ordered amount, seeking a modification of the court order by the court. A modification would determine what the future arrears would be.
Matters such as the Bobby Sherrill case, to which you refer, is at least an infrequent circumstance. I don’t know anything about that matter or the full facts of it. For example, I don’t know whether the $1,425 arrearage was accrued well before his arrival in Iraqi or accrued during his POW status, or what. So I won’t comment more about it.
As to the remaining examples you gave, not knowing the factual circumstances attendant to those instances you cite, leaves me in the same position.
Not sure I understand what you mean about non-custodial parents being forced to be non-custodial thereby affecting the amount of their child support payments. That in a marriage situation one spouse can file for a divorce, seek custody of the children, and seek a child support order from the court without the consent of the other spouse is a matter of law over which a Child Support Unit of a DA’s office has no control. DA’s have no say so whether a court will enforce a child visitation order.
All this you are raising in your point #10 are matters governed by statutory law. Way above my pay-grade. Your only way of affecting change in these areas, that I know of, is through legislation.
Let me end this by saying your second comment to the post is far preferable to blasting me as an idiot or some kind of governmental dingbat with minions working for me. So far as I know I’ve never met you nor do you know me. Your second comment is more substantive and conducive to a more mature level of discussion. I appreciate that and in that spirit thank you for your second comment and I hope it causes future readers to think about the points you’ve raised. They are important and worthy of consideration and discussion.
Do have a good day.
Jack,
Thank You for this great response. I have been spending some time on the issue of Nevada being ranked 54th in the USA for child support collections. I have come to the conclusion that Nevada, and California may indeed need to completely abandon their current “Draconian” methods of insuring the health and welfare of our states children who, through no fault of their own, been caught up in situations many times are detrimental to them. Truely children “suffer the sins of their parents”. I do applaude your efforts with the system as trying to do something is far more admiral than doing nothing at all. So, In the coming days I will put forth a plan for you and your readers to comment on. A plan that I believe between all of us could very well within the year of 2010 put Nevada in the top 5 of the nation for it’s child support system. A “shinning star” if you will, which can be used as an example to all the other state programs. I suggest that we all work together, and I am willing to put a finished proposal before the government officials. Lets see where this great discussion can take us.
Thank You Jack
I’m a custodial parent in Alaska trying to collect child support from a Nevada resident. After reading your article, I understand my difficulties a little better. My support arrearages are over $51,000 and after several years of a dead beat dad claiming he’s unemployed, just laid off, etc. I’m tired of it. It appears that Clark County will prosecute. I need to make some phone calls. My case work in Alaska isn’t much help. I’m not gettin support now so what does it matter if deadbeat dad sits in jail for a little while. Thanks for your article.
Your experience in NOT getting help from Child Support agencies isn’t unique. You almost have to build a fire under some of those people to get their attention. E-mail me at featheriver@gmail.com, maybe I can give you some suggestions. At least I’ll try.