The Child Support
Enforcement Act, introduced last week by House Policy Chairman
Christopher Cox (R-CA) and Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), would
require delinquent parents to pay taxes on their unpaid child
support as if it were income. Cox explains that one of the
bill's purposes is to "encourage parents to pay what they owe."
However, this misguided piece of legislation--the latest salvo
in the war against "deadbeat dads"--lies upon a foundation of
illusions.
The first and biggest illusion is that, as
Cox's press release noted, there is $78 billion owed in back
child support nationwide. Arizona State University researcher
Sanford Braver, in his book Divorced Dads: Shattering the
Myths, explains that "unemployment is the single most
important factor relating to nonpayment." Braver, who conducted
the largest federally funded study of divorced dads ever done,
notes that his findings were "consistent with virtually all past
studies on the topic" and that it "belies the image that
divorced fathers don't pay because they refuse to though they
are truly able to pay." According to a US Government Accounting
Office survey of custodial mothers who were not receiving the
support they were owed, two-thirds of those fathers who do not
pay their child support fail to do so because they are
financially unable to do so.
The $78 billion figure is further
inflated because it includes child support "owed" by fathers who
lost their jobs or became disabled but were unable to get
downward modifications in their child support. According to
Elaine Sorensen of the Urban Institute, even among fathers who
experience income drops of 15% or more, less than one in 20 are
able to get courts to reduce their child support payments. In
the interim, arrearages mount, along with interest (10% or more
in many states) and penalties.
Also included in the $78
billion are fake arrearages caused by billing errors, which
audits and evaluations have shown comprise a third of all
arrearages in some states and counties. These errors include:
mistaken identity; mathematical errors; failure to record or
transfer records of payments; billing men for children they did
not father; failing to stop child support when a child reaches
the age of emancipation; accepting custodial parents' false
reports of nonpayment; and failure to update child support
orders with later court rulings affecting modifications.
Another illusion upon
which the Child Support Enforcement Act rests is that states are
not collecting money from many well-heeled child support evaders
but this new tax penalty will spur them to pay up. Currently
fathers who are behind on their child support are subjected to
numerous penalties, including jail, the loss of driver's
licenses and business licenses, wage garnishments, tax
interceptions, and seizures of bank accounts and houses. It is
hard to imagine that there are many evaders who have stoically
endured all of these punishments but who will now decide to get
out their checkbooks because of the Child Support Enforcement
Act.
Instead of political
grandstanding, Congress should intervene to improve the system
both for those owed child support and those obligated to pay it.
For one, the government should change the way it financially
supports states' child support enforcement efforts. Currently
state agencies are federally reimbursed for every child support
dollar they collect, and thus are encouraged to grab and hold on
to every dollar they can. The federal government should instead
give block grants to states and establish yearly compliance
evaluations which include stiff penalties for false collections
and billing errors.
Also, the government must
repeal the Bradley amendment, which mandates that child support
arrearages cannot be modified or forgiven. The law, though
perhaps well-intended, has ruined the lives of tens of thousands
of men guilty of nothing more than of being laid off of their
jobs or suffering disabling injuries. By prohibiting judges from
resolving these injustices with debt modifications, these
innocent men are permanently driven underground and out of their
children's lives.
The third and most
important reform needed is to enact measures to allow divorced
and never married dads to remain a part of their children's
lives. Most fathers have little chance of getting sole or even
joint physical custody of their children, and little is done to
ensure that fathers have access to their children. Left at the
mercy of custodial parents, studies show that half or more of
these fathers endure visitation interference or denial, and
hundreds of thousands more are victims of "move-away moms" who
permit or use geography to drive them out of their children's
lives.
Braver's research, as well
as US Census data, indicates that fathers who have joint
physical custody or regular visitation and who have jobs rarely
fail to pay their child support. Child support compliance among
those fathers who have been cast out of their children's lives
is substantially lower. Enforcing children's right to have a
father in their lives is as important as enforcing child
support. And since the link between access to children and child
support compliance is so strong, there can be no truly effective
child support enforcement without it.
Glenn Sacks writes about gender issues from the male perspective.
His columns have appeared in
the Chicago Tribune,
the Los Angeles Times,
Newsday,
the Houston Chronicle,
the San Francisco Chronicle,
the Philadelphia Inquirer,
the San Diego Union-Tribune,
the St. Louis Post-Dispatch,
the Los Angeles Daily News,
the Washington Times
and others.
He invites readers to visit his website at
www.GlennSacks.com.
Dianna Thompson is director of the
Second Wives Crusade
and executive director of the
American Coalition for Fathers and Children.