Kenya N. Rahmaan
It is essential to examine the benefits that people receive from the government once they become single parents in America. There is a monumental difference between the mother’s treatment and the father’s. The difference is expressly contingent on which parent becomes the residential or custodial parent after the birth of a child to unmarried parents. The custodial parent means much more than which parent the child resides with on a primary basis.
It can be determined by how the parent and child are provided for in cases where the parent falls within the poverty guidelines regulated by the U.S. government. For example, time limits for SNAP benefits differ significantly between individuals and families. The CBPP (2014) reports that unemployed childless adults who do not have disabilities are limited to three months of SNAP benefits every three years in many areas of the country. The percentage of custodial mothers receiving SNAP benefits had increased from 23.5 percent in 2007 to 34.3 percent for custodial mothers in 2011 (Grall, 2013). The SNAP increase could be accredited to the slumping economy or the rise in unemployment across the country.
If the government considers these factors, the same economic hardship and unemployment problems will likely affect people without dependents. But SNAP benefits are not readily or abundantly available to these individuals. https://bit.ly/3kRHhqa According to the USDA (2015), on average, a poor person with no qualifying dependents can expect to be awarded $125.35 per month in SNAP benefits.
On the other hand, a custodial parent with three children can receive, on average, $511 a month and up. A custodial parent with seven dependents can be awarded up to $1,169 per month. A custodial parent can expect an increase of at least $146 in monthly SNAP benefits for each additional qualifying person (CBPP, 2014). This information means that, on average, a low-income NCP may be awarded $375 in food stamp assistance during a limited three-year span. At the same time, a mother of two can receive up to $18,396 in food subsidies within that same period.
Consider the singer mother with seven children to examine the extreme differences in the assistance that custodial versus noncustodial parents receive in SNAP benefits. That household stands to receive a whopping $42,084 in SNAP benefits after three years. The amount is, of course, barring any sanctions or life-changing circumstances that could increase or decrease the monthly benefit amount. The example presents further evidence of motherhood’s profitability when accompanied by the title of a residential or custodial parent.
It is important to note that several reports specify significant reductions to both amounts and time limits in G.A. and SNAP programs for childless individuals across the nation. Without these limited but vital programs to help the most vulnerable, the final result will be more people without dependents sinking deeper into poverty. Cash assistance and SNAP benefits are not the only awards a custodial parent may receive from the government. Healthcare is and has been, for what seems like forever, a controversial topic in the U.S. With the passing of the Affordable Care Act under President Barack Obama, more American citizens are obtaining medical insurance.
However, low-income, or people with no income, are often left without any insurance. Even with the new reforms, the most vulnerable citizens find themselves without the means to purchase even the most inexpensive healthcare. Medicaid.gov reported that Medicaid provides health coverage to 11 million non-elderly, low-income parents, other caretaker relatives, pregnant women, and non-disabled adults. As usual, non-disabled adults are inadequately provided for by the states that may offer some form of Medicaid. Even after the enactment of the ACA, 22 states are refusing to implement or are challenging the federal mandate.
For some, the elected officials may be acting in the people’s best interest. Still, for poor people without custody of their children, the stall tactics mean denial of yet another government-funded program. According to Benefits.gov, an Alabama resident applying for Medicaid must be either:
- pregnant,
- blind,
- have a disability
- have a family member in your household with a disability,
- be responsible for children under 19 years of age,
- or be 65 years of age or older.
This criterion leaves men without children in their custody to fend for themselves when coping with medical issues. The custodial parent, or mother-to-be, automatically qualifies for healthcare. The Medicaid program extends eligibility for women in family planning and cervical and breast cancer screening programs. There are no programs offered to men between 19 and 65 covering family planning education and testicular or prostate cancer screenings. In fact, for an individual with no dependents and no disabilities applying for medical benefits, there is nothing available.
The Medical Primer Alabama Medicaid Agency (2012) clearly states that Medicaid does not provide medical assistance for all poor persons. Even with the implementation of the ACA, which could essentially insure dependent-free adults, Alabama is still restrictive about who it will medically insure. To receive health care services in Alabama, even very poor persons must be in one of the designated mandatory groups or an optional group that the state has elected to cover (Medical Premier Alabama Medicaid Agency, 2012). Even in matters that could determine life and death, poor noncustodial parents are overlooked and discarded. In contrast, the residential parents reap all of the benefits of being primary caregivers.
Last but certainly not least, we must discuss shelter. Government-based housing programs offered to low-income parents are mainly provided if the individual has children in their custody. Illinois limits its homeless adults to six months of general relief assistance only if the applicant meets all other qualifications. The government offers several low-income housing assistance programs, but Section 8 and low-income apartments are two more common to families and individuals living in poverty.
According to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development or HUD, the Housing Choice Voucher Program, or Section 8, is the federal government’s major program for assisting very low-income families, the elderly, and the disabled to afford decent, safe, and sanitary housing in the private market. The custodial parent automatically qualifies for this program due to having child custody and being a low-income head of household. The federal government determines how much money is paid, which differs by state. The law at the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) states that the voucher payment standard (VPS) is the maximum monthly housing assistant payment for the family (before deducting the total tenant payment by the family. Currently, in New York City, the VPS paid on behalf of a family in need of three-bedroom living quarters is $1,999 a month (NYCHA, 2015). But the payments do not end there for residential parents.
The agency will pay utility allowances based on the source used for cooking, heating, and heating water. For example, a family residing in a dwelling with three bedrooms that uses oil heat to heat water will receive an allowance of $179 per month (NYCHA, 2015). If a family uses electric heat to heat water and has a three-bedroom house or apartment, the government will pay a voucher for almost $450 per month. Essentially, a single mother with custody of two children that qualifies for Section 8 can receive over $2,400 in housing benefits per month.
Unfortunately, these same benefits do not apply to low-income fathers. He may qualify for public housing, but the dwelling will not be private, nor will he receive any cash assistance for his residency. The housing accommodations will be in New York’s jails or prisons. In New York, the state will charge a parent that owes a child support debt with either 1st-degree nonsupport or 2nd-degree nonsupport as a repeat offender. Statistically, the people arrested for nonsupport are poor. Elaine Sorenson, Liliana Sousa, and Simon Schaner of The Urban Institute conducted a study of nine states for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in 2007.
She found that obligors owed 70% of the arrears with no reported income or reported income of $10,000 a year or less. This comparison of how the government treats poor custodial parents (usually mothers) and poor fathers show how extraordinarily biased and unfair the government can be toward noncustodial fathers who require housing. There are statistics and numerous examples of how the government essentially rewards poor mothers with benefits as long as she retains full custody of the children. On the other hand, the government deserts poor fathers with no resources.
After the recent recession accompanied by the slow economic recovery, employment opportunities are scattered and unobtainable for specific individuals. By simply giving birth, a woman living in poverty will be provided for by the government. In contrast, the same government expects the father living in poverty to pay child support and arrears. Often, the payments and debt are unaffordable. https://youtu.be/EiSSg8lL7RM A mother retaining full custody of children will receive cash, food stamp vouchers, medical insurance, and housing for, in some cases, an undetermined amount of time. The father gets no assistance and can have all licenses revoked, be labeled a ‘deadbeat’ rack up hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt, be arrested, and the government will sentence him to prison.
There is a clear double standard when it relates to parenthood. There needs to be equality when deciding how responsibility for parenthood is determined and, once settled, who will be awarded full custody of the children. We must, as a country, dramatically alter how we deal with low-income parents, regardless of gender. By implementing fair legislation, such as shared parenting and equal benefits if necessary, the children will benefit from being raised by both parents. Low-income women should not be guaranteed a profit when deciding to become a parent.
Even more importantly, our legislators should not deny people necessities, such as food, housing, and health care based on gender and the ability to give birth to a child. If a person is low-income, they need assistance even more through difficult times regardless of their parental and custodial status. The government has vilified poor fathers while denying any of the same programs that officials offer poor mothers, and the apparent bias is unfair. https://youtu.be/4CYD5I4vo9o
The difference exercised between low-income, and poor parents is another example of equal protection violation under the current child support laws. We, as a country, must strive to right the wrong that has been executed upon poor fathers by way of the unconstitutional child support system. By implementing the reform of the child support system under Former President Clinton, we, as a country, have made our vulnerable male citizens second-class citizens. Since the abolishment of the child support system is likely impossible, significant reform is the only option left for the U.S. to rectify the injustice that we have allowed to be brought against poor fathers.
References:
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. (2014, September 29). A quick guide to SNAP eligibility and benefits — Center on budget and policy priorities. Retrieved April 14, 2015, from http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1269
Grall, T. (2013). Custodial mothers and fathers and their child support: 2011 (60-246). Retrieved from United States Census Bureau website: https://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/p60-246.pdf
Medical Primer Alabama Medicaid Agency. (2012, February 2). The Medicaid Eligibility Primer | Alabama medicaid agency. Retrieved from http://www.medicaid.alabama.gov/documents/2.0_Newsroom/2.1_About_Medicaid/2.1_Medicaid_Primer_10-12-12.pdf
New York City Housing Authority. (2015). Voucher payment standards – New york city housing authority. Retrieved from http://www.nyc.gov/html/nycha/html/section8/voucher_payment.shtml
Office of Child Support Enforcement, & Administration for Children & Families. (2011). The story behind the numbers (1). Retrieved from U.S. Department of Health and Human Services website: https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/programs/css/veterans_in_the_caseload.pdf
Schott, L., & Cho, C. (2011, December 19). General assistance programs: Safety net weakening despite increased need — Center on budget and policy priorities. Retrieved from http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3603
Sorenson, E., Sousa, L., Schaner, S., & The Urban Institute. (2007). Assessing child support arrears in nine large states and the nation: Main page (233-02-0092). Retrieved from U.S. Department of Health and Human Services website: http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/07/assessing-CS-debt/
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. (n.d.). Housing choice voucher program section 8. Retrieved from http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/topics/housing_choice_voucher_program_section_8
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. (n.d.). HUD-VASH eligibility criteria – Homeless veterans. Retrieved April 15, 2015, from http://www.va.gov/homeless/hud-vash_eligibility.asp
United States Department of Agriculture. (n.d.). Supplemental nutrition assistance program (SNAP) | Food and nutrition service. Retrieved from http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap
United States Department of Agriculture. (2015, April 10). Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) | Average monthly benefit per person. Retrieved from http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/pd/18SNAPavg$PP.pdf
Vinson, M., & Turetsky, V. (2009, June 12). State child support pass-through policies. Retrieved from http://www.clasp.org/docs/PassThroughFinal061209.pdf
Washington State Institute of Public Policy. (2009). General assistance programs for unemployable adults (09-12-4101). Retrieved from The Washington State Legislature website: http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/ReportFile/1061/Wsipp_General-Assistance-Programs-for-Unemployable-Adults_Full-Report.p
Kenya N. Rahmaan
It is essential to examine the benefits that people receive from the government once they become single parents in America. There is a monumental difference between the mother’s treatment and the father’s. The difference is expressly contingent on which parent becomes the residential or custodial parent after the birth of a child to unmarried parents. The custodial parent means much more than which parent the child resides with on a primary basis.
It can be determined by how the parent and child are provided for in cases where the parent falls within the poverty guidelines regulated by the U.S. government. For example, time limits for SNAP benefits differ significantly between individuals and families. The CBPP (2014) reports that unemployed childless adults who do not have disabilities are limited to three months of SNAP benefits every three years in many areas of the country. The percentage of custodial mothers receiving SNAP benefits had increased from 23.5 percent in 2007 to 34.3 percent for custodial mothers in 2011 (Grall, 2013). The SNAP increase could be accredited to the slumping economy or the rise in unemployment across the country.
If the government considers these factors, the same economic hardship and unemployment problems will likely affect people without dependents. But SNAP benefits are not readily or abundantly available to these individuals. https://bit.ly/3kRHhqa According to the USDA (2015), on average, a poor person with no qualifying dependents can expect to be awarded $125.35 per month in SNAP benefits.
On the other hand, a custodial parent with three children can receive, on average, $511 a month and up. A custodial parent with seven dependents can be awarded up to $1,169 per month. A custodial parent can expect an increase of at least $146 in monthly SNAP benefits for each additional qualifying person (CBPP, 2014). This information means that, on average, a low-income NCP may be awarded $375 in food stamp assistance during a limited three-year span. At the same time, a mother of two can receive up to $18,396 in food subsidies within that same period.
Consider the singer mother with seven children to examine the extreme differences in the assistance that custodial versus noncustodial parents receive in SNAP benefits. That household stands to receive a whopping $42,084 in SNAP benefits after three years. The amount is, of course, barring any sanctions or life-changing circumstances that could increase or decrease the monthly benefit amount. The example presents further evidence of motherhood’s profitability when accompanied by the title of a residential or custodial parent.
It is important to note that several reports specify significant reductions to both amounts and time limits in G.A. and SNAP programs for childless individuals across the nation. Without these limited but vital programs to help the most vulnerable, the final result will be more people without dependents sinking deeper into poverty. Cash assistance and SNAP benefits are not the only awards a custodial parent may receive from the government. Healthcare is and has been, for what seems like forever, a controversial topic in the U.S. With the passing of the Affordable Care Act under President Barack Obama, more American citizens are obtaining medical insurance.
However, low-income, or people with no income, are often left without any insurance. Even with the new reforms, the most vulnerable citizens find themselves without the means to purchase even the most inexpensive healthcare. Medicaid.gov reported that Medicaid provides health coverage to 11 million non-elderly, low-income parents, other caretaker relatives, pregnant women, and non-disabled adults. As usual, non-disabled adults are inadequately provided for by the states that may offer some form of Medicaid. Even after the enactment of the ACA, 22 states are refusing to implement or are challenging the federal mandate.
For some, the elected officials may be acting in the people’s best interest. Still, for poor people without custody of their children, the stall tactics mean denial of yet another government-funded program. According to Benefits.gov, an Alabama resident applying for Medicaid must be either:
- pregnant,
- blind,
- have a disability
- have a family member in your household with a disability,
- be responsible for children under 19 years of age,
- or be 65 years of age or older.
This criterion leaves men without children in their custody to fend for themselves when coping with medical issues. The custodial parent, or mother-to-be, automatically qualifies for healthcare. The Medicaid program extends eligibility for women in family planning and cervical and breast cancer screening programs. There are no programs offered to men between 19 and 65 covering family planning education and testicular or prostate cancer screenings. In fact, for an individual with no dependents and no disabilities applying for medical benefits, there is nothing available.
The Medical Primer Alabama Medicaid Agency (2012) clearly states that Medicaid does not provide medical assistance for all poor persons. Even with the implementation of the ACA, which could essentially insure dependent-free adults, Alabama is still restrictive about who it will medically insure. To receive health care services in Alabama, even very poor persons must be in one of the designated mandatory groups or an optional group that the state has elected to cover (Medical Premier Alabama Medicaid Agency, 2012). Even in matters that could determine life and death, poor noncustodial parents are overlooked and discarded. In contrast, the residential parents reap all of the benefits of being primary caregivers.
Last but certainly not least, we must discuss shelter. Government-based housing programs offered to low-income parents are mainly provided if the individual has children in their custody. Illinois limits its homeless adults to six months of general relief assistance only if the applicant meets all other qualifications. The government offers several low-income housing assistance programs, but Section 8 and low-income apartments are two more common to families and individuals living in poverty.
According to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development or HUD, the Housing Choice Voucher Program, or Section 8, is the federal government’s major program for assisting very low-income families, the elderly, and the disabled to afford decent, safe, and sanitary housing in the private market. The custodial parent automatically qualifies for this program due to having child custody and being a low-income head of household. The federal government determines how much money is paid, which differs by state. The law at the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) states that the voucher payment standard (VPS) is the maximum monthly housing assistant payment for the family (before deducting the total tenant payment by the family. Currently, in New York City, the VPS paid on behalf of a family in need of three-bedroom living quarters is $1,999 a month (NYCHA, 2015). But the payments do not end there for residential parents.
The agency will pay utility allowances based on the source used for cooking, heating, and heating water. For example, a family residing in a dwelling with three bedrooms that uses oil heat to heat water will receive an allowance of $179 per month (NYCHA, 2015). If a family uses electric heat to heat water and has a three-bedroom house or apartment, the government will pay a voucher for almost $450 per month. Essentially, a single mother with custody of two children that qualifies for Section 8 can receive over $2,400 in housing benefits per month.
Unfortunately, these same benefits do not apply to low-income fathers. He may qualify for public housing, but the dwelling will not be private, nor will he receive any cash assistance for his residency. The housing accommodations will be in New York’s jails or prisons. In New York, the state will charge a parent that owes a child support debt with either 1st-degree nonsupport or 2nd-degree nonsupport as a repeat offender. Statistically, the people arrested for nonsupport are poor. Elaine Sorenson, Liliana Sousa, and Simon Schaner of The Urban Institute conducted a study of nine states for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in 2007.
She found that obligors owed 70% of the arrears with no reported income or reported income of $10,000 a year or less. This comparison of how the government treats poor custodial parents (usually mothers) and poor fathers show how extraordinarily biased and unfair the government can be toward noncustodial fathers who require housing. There are statistics and numerous examples of how the government essentially rewards poor mothers with benefits as long as she retains full custody of the children. On the other hand, the government deserts poor fathers with no resources.
After the recent recession accompanied by the slow economic recovery, employment opportunities are scattered and unobtainable for specific individuals. By simply giving birth, a woman living in poverty will be provided for by the government. In contrast, the same government expects the father living in poverty to pay child support and arrears. Often, the payments and debt are unaffordable. https://youtu.be/EiSSg8lL7RM A mother retaining full custody of children will receive cash, food stamp vouchers, medical insurance, and housing for, in some cases, an undetermined amount of time. The father gets no assistance and can have all licenses revoked, be labeled a ‘deadbeat’ rack up hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt, be arrested, and the government will sentence him to prison.
There is a clear double standard when it relates to parenthood. There needs to be equality when deciding how responsibility for parenthood is determined and, once settled, who will be awarded full custody of the children. We must, as a country, dramatically alter how we deal with low-income parents, regardless of gender. By implementing fair legislation, such as shared parenting and equal benefits if necessary, the children will benefit from being raised by both parents. Low-income women should not be guaranteed a profit when deciding to become a parent.
Even more importantly, our legislators should not deny people necessities, such as food, housing, and health care based on gender and the ability to give birth to a child. If a person is low-income, they need assistance even more through difficult times regardless of their parental and custodial status. The government has vilified poor fathers while denying any of the same programs that officials offer poor mothers, and the apparent bias is unfair. https://youtu.be/4CYD5I4vo9o
The difference exercised between low-income, and poor parents is another example of equal protection violation under the current child support laws. We, as a country, must strive to right the wrong that has been executed upon poor fathers by way of the unconstitutional child support system. By implementing the reform of the child support system under Former President Clinton, we, as a country, have made our vulnerable male citizens second-class citizens. Since the abolishment of the child support system is likely impossible, significant reform is the only option left for the U.S. to rectify the injustice that we have allowed to be brought against poor fathers.
References:
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. (2014, September 29). A quick guide to SNAP eligibility and benefits — Center on budget and policy priorities. Retrieved April 14, 2015, from http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1269
Grall, T. (2013). Custodial mothers and fathers and their child support: 2011 (60-246). Retrieved from United States Census Bureau website: https://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/p60-246.pdf
Medical Primer Alabama Medicaid Agency. (2012, February 2). The Medicaid Eligibility Primer | Alabama medicaid agency. Retrieved from http://www.medicaid.alabama.gov/documents/2.0_Newsroom/2.1_About_Medicaid/2.1_Medicaid_Primer_10-12-12.pdf
New York City Housing Authority. (2015). Voucher payment standards – New york city housing authority. Retrieved from http://www.nyc.gov/html/nycha/html/section8/voucher_payment.shtml
Office of Child Support Enforcement, & Administration for Children & Families. (2011). The story behind the numbers (1). Retrieved from U.S. Department of Health and Human Services website: https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/programs/css/veterans_in_the_caseload.pdf
Schott, L., & Cho, C. (2011, December 19). General assistance programs: Safety net weakening despite increased need — Center on budget and policy priorities. Retrieved from http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3603
Sorenson, E., Sousa, L., Schaner, S., & The Urban Institute. (2007). Assessing child support arrears in nine large states and the nation: Main page (233-02-0092). Retrieved from U.S. Department of Health and Human Services website: http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/07/assessing-CS-debt/
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. (n.d.). Housing choice voucher program section 8. Retrieved from http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/topics/housing_choice_voucher_program_section_8
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. (n.d.). HUD-VASH eligibility criteria – Homeless veterans. Retrieved April 15, 2015, from http://www.va.gov/homeless/hud-vash_eligibility.asp
United States Department of Agriculture. (n.d.). Supplemental nutrition assistance program (SNAP) | Food and nutrition service. Retrieved from http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap
United States Department of Agriculture. (2015, April 10). Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) | Average monthly benefit per person. Retrieved from http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/pd/18SNAPavg$PP.pdf
Vinson, M., & Turetsky, V. (2009, June 12). State child support pass-through policies. Retrieved from http://www.clasp.org/docs/PassThroughFinal061209.pdf
Washington State Institute of Public Policy. (2009). General assistance programs for unemployable adults (09-12-4101). Retrieved from The Washington State Legislature website: http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/ReportFile/1061/Wsipp_General-Assistance-Programs-for-Unemployable-Adults_Full-Report.p
Kenya N. Rahmaan
It is essential to examine the benefits that people receive from the government once they become single parents in America. There is a monumental difference between the mother’s treatment and the father’s. The difference is expressly contingent on which parent becomes the residential or custodial parent after the birth of a child to unmarried parents. The custodial parent means much more than which parent the child resides with on a primary basis.
It can be determined by how the parent and child are provided for in cases where the parent falls within the poverty guidelines regulated by the U.S. government. For example, time limits for SNAP benefits differ significantly between individuals and families. The CBPP (2014) reports that unemployed childless adults who do not have disabilities are limited to three months of SNAP benefits every three years in many areas of the country. The percentage of custodial mothers receiving SNAP benefits had increased from 23.5 percent in 2007 to 34.3 percent for custodial mothers in 2011 (Grall, 2013). The SNAP increase could be accredited to the slumping economy or the rise in unemployment across the country.
If the government considers these factors, the same economic hardship and unemployment problems will likely affect people without dependents. But SNAP benefits are not readily or abundantly available to these individuals. https://bit.ly/3kRHhqa According to the USDA (2015), on average, a poor person with no qualifying dependents can expect to be awarded $125.35 per month in SNAP benefits.
On the other hand, a custodial parent with three children can receive, on average, $511 a month and up. A custodial parent with seven dependents can be awarded up to $1,169 per month. A custodial parent can expect an increase of at least $146 in monthly SNAP benefits for each additional qualifying person (CBPP, 2014). This information means that, on average, a low-income NCP may be awarded $375 in food stamp assistance during a limited three-year span. At the same time, a mother of two can receive up to $18,396 in food subsidies within that same period.
Consider the singer mother with seven children to examine the extreme differences in the assistance that custodial versus noncustodial parents receive in SNAP benefits. That household stands to receive a whopping $42,084 in SNAP benefits after three years. The amount is, of course, barring any sanctions or life-changing circumstances that could increase or decrease the monthly benefit amount. The example presents further evidence of motherhood’s profitability when accompanied by the title of a residential or custodial parent.
It is important to note that several reports specify significant reductions to both amounts and time limits in G.A. and SNAP programs for childless individuals across the nation. Without these limited but vital programs to help the most vulnerable, the final result will be more people without dependents sinking deeper into poverty. Cash assistance and SNAP benefits are not the only awards a custodial parent may receive from the government. Healthcare is and has been, for what seems like forever, a controversial topic in the U.S. With the passing of the Affordable Care Act under President Barack Obama, more American citizens are obtaining medical insurance.
However, low-income, or people with no income, are often left without any insurance. Even with the new reforms, the most vulnerable citizens find themselves without the means to purchase even the most inexpensive healthcare. Medicaid.gov reported that Medicaid provides health coverage to 11 million non-elderly, low-income parents, other caretaker relatives, pregnant women, and non-disabled adults. As usual, non-disabled adults are inadequately provided for by the states that may offer some form of Medicaid. Even after the enactment of the ACA, 22 states are refusing to implement or are challenging the federal mandate.
For some, the elected officials may be acting in the people’s best interest. Still, for poor people without custody of their children, the stall tactics mean denial of yet another government-funded program. According to Benefits.gov, an Alabama resident applying for Medicaid must be either:
- pregnant,
- blind,
- have a disability
- have a family member in your household with a disability,
- be responsible for children under 19 years of age,
- or be 65 years of age or older.
This criterion leaves men without children in their custody to fend for themselves when coping with medical issues. The custodial parent, or mother-to-be, automatically qualifies for healthcare. The Medicaid program extends eligibility for women in family planning and cervical and breast cancer screening programs. There are no programs offered to men between 19 and 65 covering family planning education and testicular or prostate cancer screenings. In fact, for an individual with no dependents and no disabilities applying for medical benefits, there is nothing available.
The Medical Primer Alabama Medicaid Agency (2012) clearly states that Medicaid does not provide medical assistance for all poor persons. Even with the implementation of the ACA, which could essentially insure dependent-free adults, Alabama is still restrictive about who it will medically insure. To receive health care services in Alabama, even very poor persons must be in one of the designated mandatory groups or an optional group that the state has elected to cover (Medical Premier Alabama Medicaid Agency, 2012). Even in matters that could determine life and death, poor noncustodial parents are overlooked and discarded. In contrast, the residential parents reap all of the benefits of being primary caregivers.
Last but certainly not least, we must discuss shelter. Government-based housing programs offered to low-income parents are mainly provided if the individual has children in their custody. Illinois limits its homeless adults to six months of general relief assistance only if the applicant meets all other qualifications. The government offers several low-income housing assistance programs, but Section 8 and low-income apartments are two more common to families and individuals living in poverty.
According to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development or HUD, the Housing Choice Voucher Program, or Section 8, is the federal government’s major program for assisting very low-income families, the elderly, and the disabled to afford decent, safe, and sanitary housing in the private market. The custodial parent automatically qualifies for this program due to having child custody and being a low-income head of household. The federal government determines how much money is paid, which differs by state. The law at the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) states that the voucher payment standard (VPS) is the maximum monthly housing assistant payment for the family (before deducting the total tenant payment by the family. Currently, in New York City, the VPS paid on behalf of a family in need of three-bedroom living quarters is $1,999 a month (NYCHA, 2015). But the payments do not end there for residential parents.
The agency will pay utility allowances based on the source used for cooking, heating, and heating water. For example, a family residing in a dwelling with three bedrooms that uses oil heat to heat water will receive an allowance of $179 per month (NYCHA, 2015). If a family uses electric heat to heat water and has a three-bedroom house or apartment, the government will pay a voucher for almost $450 per month. Essentially, a single mother with custody of two children that qualifies for Section 8 can receive over $2,400 in housing benefits per month.
Unfortunately, these same benefits do not apply to low-income fathers. He may qualify for public housing, but the dwelling will not be private, nor will he receive any cash assistance for his residency. The housing accommodations will be in New York’s jails or prisons. In New York, the state will charge a parent that owes a child support debt with either 1st-degree nonsupport or 2nd-degree nonsupport as a repeat offender. Statistically, the people arrested for nonsupport are poor. Elaine Sorenson, Liliana Sousa, and Simon Schaner of The Urban Institute conducted a study of nine states for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in 2007.
She found that obligors owed 70% of the arrears with no reported income or reported income of $10,000 a year or less. This comparison of how the government treats poor custodial parents (usually mothers) and poor fathers show how extraordinarily biased and unfair the government can be toward noncustodial fathers who require housing. There are statistics and numerous examples of how the government essentially rewards poor mothers with benefits as long as she retains full custody of the children. On the other hand, the government deserts poor fathers with no resources.
After the recent recession accompanied by the slow economic recovery, employment opportunities are scattered and unobtainable for specific individuals. By simply giving birth, a woman living in poverty will be provided for by the government. In contrast, the same government expects the father living in poverty to pay child support and arrears. Often, the payments and debt are unaffordable. https://youtu.be/EiSSg8lL7RM A mother retaining full custody of children will receive cash, food stamp vouchers, medical insurance, and housing for, in some cases, an undetermined amount of time. The father gets no assistance and can have all licenses revoked, be labeled a ‘deadbeat’ rack up hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt, be arrested, and the government will sentence him to prison.
There is a clear double standard when it relates to parenthood. There needs to be equality when deciding how responsibility for parenthood is determined and, once settled, who will be awarded full custody of the children. We must, as a country, dramatically alter how we deal with low-income parents, regardless of gender. By implementing fair legislation, such as shared parenting and equal benefits if necessary, the children will benefit from being raised by both parents. Low-income women should not be guaranteed a profit when deciding to become a parent.
Even more importantly, our legislators should not deny people necessities, such as food, housing, and health care based on gender and the ability to give birth to a child. If a person is low-income, they need assistance even more through difficult times regardless of their parental and custodial status. The government has vilified poor fathers while denying any of the same programs that officials offer poor mothers, and the apparent bias is unfair. https://youtu.be/4CYD5I4vo9o
The difference exercised between low-income, and poor parents is another example of equal protection violation under the current child support laws. We, as a country, must strive to right the wrong that has been executed upon poor fathers by way of the unconstitutional child support system. By implementing the reform of the child support system under Former President Clinton, we, as a country, have made our vulnerable male citizens second-class citizens. Since the abolishment of the child support system is likely impossible, significant reform is the only option left for the U.S. to rectify the injustice that we have allowed to be brought against poor fathers.
References:
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. (2014, September 29). A quick guide to SNAP eligibility and benefits — Center on budget and policy priorities. Retrieved April 14, 2015, from http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1269
Grall, T. (2013). Custodial mothers and fathers and their child support: 2011 (60-246). Retrieved from United States Census Bureau website: https://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/p60-246.pdf
Medical Primer Alabama Medicaid Agency. (2012, February 2). The Medicaid Eligibility Primer | Alabama medicaid agency. Retrieved from http://www.medicaid.alabama.gov/documents/2.0_Newsroom/2.1_About_Medicaid/2.1_Medicaid_Primer_10-12-12.pdf
New York City Housing Authority. (2015). Voucher payment standards – New york city housing authority. Retrieved from http://www.nyc.gov/html/nycha/html/section8/voucher_payment.shtml
Office of Child Support Enforcement, & Administration for Children & Families. (2011). The story behind the numbers (1). Retrieved from U.S. Department of Health and Human Services website: https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/programs/css/veterans_in_the_caseload.pdf
Schott, L., & Cho, C. (2011, December 19). General assistance programs: Safety net weakening despite increased need — Center on budget and policy priorities. Retrieved from http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3603
Sorenson, E., Sousa, L., Schaner, S., & The Urban Institute. (2007). Assessing child support arrears in nine large states and the nation: Main page (233-02-0092). Retrieved from U.S. Department of Health and Human Services website: http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/07/assessing-CS-debt/
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. (n.d.). Housing choice voucher program section 8. Retrieved from http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/topics/housing_choice_voucher_program_section_8
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. (n.d.). HUD-VASH eligibility criteria – Homeless veterans. Retrieved April 15, 2015, from http://www.va.gov/homeless/hud-vash_eligibility.asp
United States Department of Agriculture. (n.d.). Supplemental nutrition assistance program (SNAP) | Food and nutrition service. Retrieved from http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap
United States Department of Agriculture. (2015, April 10). Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) | Average monthly benefit per person. Retrieved from http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/pd/18SNAPavg$PP.pdf
Vinson, M., & Turetsky, V. (2009, June 12). State child support pass-through policies. Retrieved from http://www.clasp.org/docs/PassThroughFinal061209.pdf
Washington State Institute of Public Policy. (2009). General assistance programs for unemployable adults (09-12-4101). Retrieved from The Washington State Legislature website: http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/ReportFile/1061/Wsipp_General-Assistance-Programs-for-Unemployable-Adults_Full-Report.p