MzRockMon's The Child Support Hustle®️

Source: Wikipedia

Kenya N Rahmaan

The Obama Administration and the federal government have released the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking or the NPRM. The government listed the Federal Register under Volume 79, No. 221, and was made available on November 17, 2014. The register proposes numerous changes to both state and federal child support regulations. The Republican-controlled Congress has proposed a bill to stop the Administration from implementing these changes. The proposed adjustments to the guidelines conveniently exclude any mention of abolishing the license revocation process, ending charging interest, and other financial penalties to delinquent payments (among other issues). There are some items listed that have caused the GOP to scream foul.  

 

According to Congress.gov (2015), the bill, H.R. 2688, introduced on June 9, 2015, would block any action from being taken to finalize or give effect to a certain proposed rule governing the Federal child support enforcement program. The specific concerns that GOP leaders have outlined seem to be issues that help the non-custodial parents or NCPs in their times of need and underscore the violation of individual rights that the government is supposed to afford all American citizens. In a press release offered by House and Senate lawmakers, which the lawmakers published in June 2014, four top-ranking Republicans accused the Administration of violating the law by excluding Congress in implementing the proposed rules.  

 

The claim was that the Obama Administration was shaking the fundamentals of the child support and welfare laws from their foundation and that there were also other crucial flaws with the proposed changes. Human Resources Subcommittee Chairman Charles Boustany of Louisiana states that the President’s rule could potentially let delinquent parents’ off the hook’ (Ways and Means Committee, 2015). No language within the Federal Register remotely suggests that parents would be excused from paying child support or arrears. There is language, however, that could assist parents when faced with adverse situations.

 

According to Chairman Dave Camp of House Ways and Means and Senator Orrin Hatch, Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Finance (2014), one of the issues lawmakers were challenging was that the NPRM makes Federal financial participation available to the following: 

 

  • the new job services program,
  • other expanded items, 
  • and other allegedly de minimis items. 

 

The other expanded items that the Republicans are against funding are all components that would benefit the child and the parent. For example, the proposals by the Administration would include minor transportation expenses such as public transportation money in the list of additional expenses. Parents could use bus fare to participate in child support proceedings and related activities (Flexibility, Efficiency, and Modernization in Child Support Enforcement Programs, 2014). Parents who cannot attend child support hearings cannot defend themselves against their accusers if they do not have transportation to the courthouse. They must have access to transport to and from the hearings, even at the government’s expense. 

 

Many child support orders are obtained by default judgments. Based on the definition provided by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services or HHS (2014), a default judgment is a decision that a tribunal makes when the defendant fails to respond or appears after proper notice. The tribunal, or the legal authority, can apply any amount and terms to the child support order with no exceptions. The fact that the government officials are opposing changes that will provide money for transportation to such hearings means that those officials do not mind denying people the right to face their accusers in a court of law.

 

One of the other costs that the Republican opposition is arguing against is the alleged de minimis. De minimis costs include parenting time provisions entered as part of a child support order and incidental to a child support proceeding (Flexibility, Efficiency, and Modernization in Child Support Enforcement Programs, 2014). By law, child support and visitation issues are separate and different fees can be charged when heard before a judge. The Federal Register would like any additional fees traditionally charged when deciding parenting time to be considered too insignificant to charge the NCP for the time and money it may cost to process such requests. 

 

The GOP would instead vote on a measure that would force parents to pay for those nominal fees. Deciding on a parenting plan should be something that the government encourages, but rather, it is something that our officials are trying to defeat. The less money spent on trivial items means more money that a parent can spend on their children.   Thirdly, Camp and Hatch are ordering a halt to creating a new job services program to assist unemployed and underemployed non-custodial parents.

 

Source: Office of the Administraion for Children & Families

According to PolicyLink.org (2015), Federal financial participation (FFP) is available for job services for eligible non-custodial parents that are identified in the state plan. Currently, only eight states in the entire country participate in the National Child Support Noncustodial Parent Employment Demonstration or CSPED. The states are the recipients of the employment demonstration programs, which began in 2012 and ended in September 2017. The Department of Health and Human Services or HHS (2015) reported that each grantee would receive $775,000 in 1115 demonstration funds over five years.  

 

The grantees are supposed to use the money to assist NCPs in many areas that hinder them from finding and retaining long-term and adequate employment. Once the FFP is added, each grantee’s total amount of funding over five years is $2.3 million (HHS, 2015). The GOP disagrees with this new jobs program proposal even though 42 other states were excluded from participating in such an important program. The Letter from Congress (2015) states that the NPRM creates a new job services program not found in the list of allowable program types in the federal statute. While the permissible program types offer limited assistance in a small number of states to some parents, these programs barely scratch the surface when it comes to decreasing the employment needs of low-income people, especially parents.

 

HHS (2015) has recently revealed that 70% of unpaid child support debt is owed by parents with no or low reported income. The only acceptable public policy seems that the government helps these poor parents find gainful employment. Instead, the Republican leaders believe that the NPRM goes too far by adding new eligibility criteria for this new program (Camp and Hatch, 2015). The new eligibility criteria, which these leaders have called ‘particularly flagrant,’ reveal strict and specific qualifications that an NCP must fulfill to be declared eligible for employment and training programs. 

 

According to the Flexibility, Efficiency, and Modernization in Child Support Enforcement Programs (2014), the non-custodial parent must:

 

  • have a IV-D case
  • have a current child support order
  • be unemployed or not making regular payments
  • not be receiving Temporary Aid for Needy Families (TANF) assistance or assistance funded with state dollars counting towards TANF maintenance of effort (MOE)
  • not be enrolled in a Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Employment Training Program
  • not be receiving the same job services under Workforce Investment Act (WIA)
  • not receiving a Federal Pell Grant.

 

The GOP claims to have introduced H.R. 2688 to ensure that any changes are submitted to legislators and voted on instead of becoming law through an Executive Order signed by President Obama. Of course, it is no secret that the GOP has failed to support many programs designed to assist those living in poverty in their time of need. For example, Nick Wing and Arthur Delaney of the Huffington Post (2015) reported that Missouri State Representative, Rick Brattin (R), proposed banning food stamp recipients from using their Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) to buy steak and seafood.

Source: Congress.gov

Banning low-income people from eating, arguably, healthy food is immoral and unethical. If it is not illegal, it most certainly should be placed in that category. Singling out items that may seem too expensive to be consumed by a poor taxpayer proves the insensitivity many GOP leaders express when deciding on critical legislative decisions. GOP leaders attempted to decrease the number of people receiving public assistance across the country by mandating that applicants pass a drug test before being approved for any benefits.   

 

Consider states that have recently passed legislation to drug test public assistance applicants and recipients. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures or NCSL (2015), Utah passed H.B. 155 requiring individuals applying for cash assistance to complete a written questionnaire screening for illegal drug use. Georgia, Tennessee, and Oklahoma have implemented drug testing laws and Utah, and all states have Republican governors. Florida is a state that has passed a drug testing law for TANF recipients, which is ruled unconstitutional by two federal courts. 

 

Governor Rick Scott signed an executive order requiring that state employees and public assistance recipients submit to a random drug test. Stacy Singer of the Palm Beach Post (2011) conveyed that hundreds of thousands of Floridians could have been affected, forcing them to submit to drug tests or risk losing their public jobs and benefits. After a few years and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) involvement, the higher courts have forced Governor Scott to surrender. The Huffington Post (2015) reported that U.S. District Judge Mary Scriven in Orlando initially declared the law requiring urine tests for the applicants to be unconstitutional search and seizure. Scott has publicly announced that his Administration would not appeal the ruling. The refusal to appeal does not mean, of course, that a new governor will not attempt to pass legislation in the future to drug test TANF applicants and recipients. 

 

This defeat for Scott has nothing to do with the fact that the 11th Circuit found that only about 206 percent of Florida welfare applicants failed the drug test during the four months the law was in effect (Huffington Post, 2015). Drug testing poor people in need of a safety net is yet another illustration of the lack of compassion displayed by the GOP. Suppose these officials are left to vote on passing an effective employment program that will benefit low-income parents. In that case, voters must consider all of the other programs that Republicans have attempted to disband over the years.

 

A final issue that Republican leaders are challenging pertains to the Executive Order declaring new policies regarding the incarceration of NCPs and the state plan. According to Camp and Hatch (2015), the NPRM creates a new condition requiring a state to provide notice to both parties when a non-custodial parent (NCP) is incarcerated. The current law does not include such a provision. In most states, the NCP must affirmatively request to have their orders modified (CLASP, 2015). Failure to automatically adjust child support orders for incarcerated parents is one of the main reasons, along with the fact that most states treat incarceration as voluntary unemployment, that child support arrears become too unmanageable for parents upon release. 

 

There is nothing in the child support federal statute that requires the state to notify an incarcerated parent of any request for child support modifications. As explained in the Flexibility, Efficiency, and Modernization in Child Support Enforcement Programs (2014), states may elect to initiate a review of an order after being notified that an NCP will be incarcerated for more than 90 days. Automatic child support reviews should already be a process written into the statutes considering most incarcerated parents do not earn incomes. No national data specifies how much parents (some non-biological) truly owe in arrears upon their release from prison; however, a few states have provided those statistics.

 

For instance, in a study conducted on 650 parental inmates in Massachusetts, there was an average of over $10k in child support debt owed upon the day of entry. Without modifications, and after completing the prison sentence, the released parents were buried in child support debt. According to Jessica Pearson (2004), they (the parents) will accumulate another $12,461 in child support debt, plus 12% interest ($6,254) and 6% penalty charges ($3,128). By implementing the new statute found in §303.8, parents will have a better opportunity of overcoming barriers upon their release, thus being better providers for their children. 

 

The GOP is more concerned that the current required contents of state plans are authorized in, and typically amended by, statute (Camp and Hatch, 2015). If the people in charge were actively seeking ways to assist parents and revise child support laws to ensure a better system, perhaps the signing of an Executive Order would not have been necessary. The NPRM has introduced solid and viable solutions to pressing issues that most NCPs, if not all low-income parents, experience. Since incarceration is a possible punishment that could end a parent’s freedom for at least one day or even years (14 in Idaho), there must be stipulations on the law books to protect the rights of an incarcerated NCP.

 

Source: KOKO News5 abc

The NPRM offers another protection to both imprisoned NCPs and free custodial parents, which has garnered disapproval from some in the Republican Party. The Flexibility, Efficiency, and Modernization in Child Support Enforcement Programs (2014) lists a proposal stating that the state must provide notice when the agency learns that a non-custodial parent is incarcerated to the incarcerated parent and the custodial parent. The current law does nothing to specify any notice conditions of a jailed parent. Because the Feds have no mandate forcing child support agencies to notify parents of a significant change in circumstances, payments, arrears penalties, and fees will continue to accumulate without any official notification about the debt or the case to either parent. A significant change in circumstance is why a parent can submit a modification request.  

 

Under the new statute, both parents are informed of the right to request the state to review and, upon request, to adjust the order (The Flexibility, Efficiency, and Modernization in Child Support Enforcement Programs, 2014). By implementing this seemingly minor process, the tariff parents allegedly owed, millions (perhaps billions) of dollars, can be reduced across the nation. It is no secret that former President Clinton and the Republican-led Congress are responsible for the atrocity called the Deadbeat Punishment Act of 1998. This attempt to recover welfare payments from non-custodial parents has been an almost complete failure where low-income families are concerned.   

 

The government fares far better in collections and retention of child support payments courtesy of the collection and distribution laws. The Obama Administration, following federal guidelines, has proposed legitimate and desperately needed changes to the unconstitutional child support system. These proposals offer minimal improvement to the law. Yet, Republican officials would instead pass a law arguing against the avenue used to implement the changes instead of having a serious discussion about the benefits of a systematic facelift. This stall tactic will only prolong the passing of much-needed improvements to the child support system and possibly eliminate others. 

 

The delay will continue while children and parents suffer from the current child support laws. Make no mistake, even with the possible improvements, the system remains exceptionally flawed. The Child Support Enforcement Agencies need a complete overhaul, both state and federal. Parents should not be ‘nickel and dimed’ when going to court over child support and visitation issues. 

 

There should be no discussion about whether or not the state should halt the accumulation of arrears for an incarcerated parent. The government needs to abolish laws allowing the incarceration of poor parents and adding the burden of heavy debt on these parents. In America, low-income and poor parents need more employment and training programs, especially as the country continues to recover from the recession. Furthermore, child support agencies should notify people of any possible changes to child support orders in writing. 

 

Parents need notification, and incarceration should not bar them from that right. People have the right to know when someone has named them in a lawsuit. Equally as important is knowing when a judgment changes for or against their best interest. It is time to hold all politicians responsible for repairing the broken child support system and the destroyed lives that directly result from failed child support policies.

 

References:

Camp, D., & Hatch, O. (2014, December 22). Ways and means forms. Retrieved from http://waysandmeansforms.house.gov/uploadedfiles/nprm_scanned_letter_12.22.14.pdf

House of Representatives. (2015). H.R.2688 – 114th Congress (2015-2016): To block any action from being taken to finalize or give effect to a certain proposed rule governing the Federal child support enforcement program. | Congress.gov | Library of congress. Retrieved from https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2688

Huffington Post. (2015, March 5). Rick scott gives up trying To drug test florida welfare applicants. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/05/florida-welfare-drug-testing_n_6807268.html

National Conference of State Legislatures. (2015, May 8). Drug testing for welfare recipients and public assistance. Retrieved from http://www.ncsl.org/research/human-services/drug-testing-and-public-assistance.aspx

NPRM: Flexibility, Efficiency, and Modernization in Child Support Enforcement Programs | Office of Child Support Enforcement | Administration for Children and Families. (2014, November 17). Retrieved from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/css/resource/nprm-flexibility-efficiency-and-modernization-in-child-support-enforcement-programs

Pearson, J. (2004, March 9). Building debt while doing time: Child support and incarceration. Retrieved from http://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/Building-Debt-While-Doing-Time-Child-Support-and-Incarceration.pdf

PolicyLink. (2015, January 12). The new proposed child support rule: What it means for low-income fathers. Retrieved from http://www.policylink.org/sites/default/files/1%2012%2015-ChildSupportRule-Slides.pdf

Singer, S. (2011, March 11). Gov. rick scott’s drug testing policy stirs suspicion. Retrieved from http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/business/gov-rick-scotts-drug-testing-policy-stirs-suspicio/nLq8f/

U.S.  Department of Health and Human Services, & Office of Child Support Enforcement. (2014, March). Changing a child support order. Retrieved from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/programs/css/changing_a_child_support_order.pdf

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, & Office of Child Support Enforcement. (2015, March). The national child support noncustodial parent employment demonstration (CSPED). Retrieved from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/programs/css/csped_fact_sheet_1_march_2015.pdf

Ways and Means Committee. (2015). House, senate lawmakers announce bill to reaffirm congress’ role in welfare policy – Ways and means. Retrieved from http://waysandmeans.house.gov/house-senate-lawmakers-announce-bill-to-reaffirm-congress-role-in-welfare-policy/

Wing, N., & Delaney, A. (2015, April 21). A day in the life of a welfare recipient, according to

GOP legislation. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/21/welfare-

Recipients-gop-legislation_n_7103126.html

 
Verified by MonsterInsights