# Have You Heard of This?

- Link: https://thechildsupporthustle.com/have-you-heard-of-this/
- Published: 2024-05-06T14:23:34+00:00
- Author: MsRockMon

⌊\"\"⌉⌊\"\"⌉December 9, 2019

Kenya N. Rahmaan 

The child support system changed when the welfare system was ‘reformed’ in the late
1990s.  With the support of both major parties, Former President Bill Clinton was
able to pass The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act(
PRWORA), which, according to many government officials, would change welfare ‘as
we know it’ in the United States.  According to the Office of the Assistant Secretary
for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE) (1996), the Act was:

 

> _a comprehensive bipartisan welfare reform plan that will dramatically change 
> the nation’s welfare system into one that requires work in exchange for time-limited
> assistance.  The law contains strong requirements, a performance bonus to reward
> states for moving welfare recipients into jobs, state maintenance of effort requirements,
> comprehensive child support enforcement, and support for families moving from 
> welfare to work-including increased funding for child care and guaranteed medical
> coverage._

 

With the passing of this bill, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) replaced
Aid to Families with Dependent Children (ADFC), and the child support system changed
drastically. To be clear, TANF is a support service program that is supposed to 
provide financial and medical assistance to needy, dependent children and the parents
or relatives with whom they live (Benefits.gov). Not only were enforcement tactics
amplified in order to locate possible non-custodial parents, establish paternity,
and collect child support payments from absent fathers, but there were new requirements
for custodial parents receiving TANF benefits. One of the most significant requirements
of all custodial parents receiving TANF and Medicaid benefits is that he/she must
sue the non-custodial parent for child support. Failure to meet this requirement,
absent a ‘good cause’ exemption, is the denial of benefits.

 

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) (2013), under 
Federal law, all TANF clients are required to cooperate with state authorities in
child support and establishment efforts. When custodial parents apply for benefits,
they are mandated to assign the rights to child support payments over to their respective
state. By assigning their rights over to the state, he or she is granting permission
for the state to file a lawsuit against the other parent, which allows the state
to retain any child support collected on its behalf. Some states have the authority
to pay or ‘pass-through’ some or all of the child support received to the TANF family,
however, there are no jurisdictions in the US that completely pass-through the full
amount of child support collected.

 

As of 2019, 26 states refused to pay any child support collected on behalf of families
receiving public benefits to those families. The remaining jurisdictions have different
pass-through regulations, which vary from paying $50 for one child and $200 for 
two or more children in most states to a couple of states that claim to pay the 
full child support amount to the families. Colorado and Minnesota both report to
pay the full amount of support; however, the statutes include very specific rules.
For example, Colorado as a state claims that it pays all child support to these 
vulnerable families.  Unfortunately, the decision of whether to actually pay the
full amount of support collected is left to individual counties. 

 

Minnesota, on the other hand, will only pay the full amount of support to the families
after any permanently assigned arrears have been paid in full. And even after the
arrears have been satisfied, the child support paid to the family will not exceed
the monthly TANF amount. Since the states ‘own’ any current and future child support
payments collected on behalf of low-income and poor families receiving public benefits,
the concept that the PRWORA and the child support reformations in the 1990s were
implemented for ‘the best interest of the child’ is a myth. By forcing already struggling
single parents to assign their current and future rights to child support payments
over to the state, it is financially damaging to the custodial parents as they attempt
to lift themselves out of poverty.

 

Equally damaging is leaving the decision to pass-through any of the child support
collected to those same vulnerable families up to the discretion of state officials.
The reforms have, however, been substantially beneficial for the state and federal
governments. The Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) continuously
boasts that it is one of the most cost-effective government programs today. In FY
2016, the program collected $5.33 for every $1.00 spent, compared to $5.26 in FY
2015 (OCSE, 2017). 

 

Even with the decrease to $5.14 reported nationally in the FY 2018 Preliminary Report
to Congress, the return on investment by the child support program still remains
one of the top-performing programs.  That is to be expected when the states retain
large portions, if not every penny, of child support payments collected. But this
is not the only reason given for the program consistently being praised as a top
performer. According to the OCSE (2016), a study of administrative data in Washington
found that regular child support payments were associated with a reduced likelihood
of custodial parent’s welfare use and an increased likelihood of custodial parent
employment. 

 

It is important to note that this statement is based on a study conducted by the
Washington State Department of Human Services which means that the study sample 
was quite small compared to those that would result from a national study. Secondly,
with the passing of PRWORA, one of the more impactful changes to the welfare program
was the time limit clause placed on receiving those TANF benefits.  The Center for
Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) (2018) wrote that while states can set their
own time limit policies, they cannot provide cash assistance from federal TANF funds
for longer than 60 months to a family that includes an adult recipient. Based on
the time limit constraint and the child support cooperation mandate for all recipients,
receiving child support payments would absolutely result in a lower number of custodial
parents using welfare. 

 

Quite simply, custodial parents could not receive child support and welfare based
on the statutes.  Once they left welfare, either by choice or by force, the child
support payments would continue because of the judgment that had been ordered on
behalf of the state to recover welfare costs.  Additionally, because custodial parents
were not permitted to remain on TANF after the time limits expired, there was little
choice left but to obtain employment.

[videopress t1eSnFCd]

Notice that the employment increase does not include whether newly obtained employment
provided enough to lift a family out of poverty, especially considering that even
after the family has left the welfare roles, the child support payments still belong
to the government. To answer the question posed by the commenter, yes, I have heard
of this. ‘This’ is the way that the government forces custodial parents who are 
in need of financial assistance to forfeit their rights to child support payments
over to the government.  I have personally experienced the transformation under 
the PRWORA and how the state of Ohio traded an extra $50 in TANF benefits for the
assignments of all rights to current and future child support payments over to the
state.  I have been forced to endure horrible treatment when I asked, and later 
demanded, that ‘my’ child support case be closed.

 

Even though I had relocated to a different state and no longer received TANF or 
any other public benefits in either state, it would eventually take me eight long
years to close the child support case in Ohio. ‘This’ is one of many reasons why
I wrote my book, The Child Support Hustle, and founded The Reform Child Support 
NOW! Movement. The child support system benefits the government in far greater ways
than it was ever intended to benefit the children. Keep Fighting!

 

References:

Benefits.gov. (n.d.). Welcome to benefits.gov. Retrieved from https://www.benefits.
gov/benefit/1679

Center for Budget and Policies Priorities. (2019, July 15). Policy basics: An introduction
to tanf. Retrieved from https://www.cbpp.org/research/policy-basics-an-introduction-
to-tanf

National Conference of State Legislatures. (2013, April 1). Child support 101: State
administration. Retrieved from http://www.ncsl.org/research/human-services/child-
support-adminstration.aspx

National Conference of State Legislatures. (2017, July 18). Child support pass-through
and disregard policies for public assistance recipients. Retrieved December 8, 2019,
from http://www.ncsl.org/research/human-services/state-policy-pass-through-disregard-
child-support.aspx

Office of Child Support Enforcement. (2016, December). _The child support program
is a good investment_. Retrieved from https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/
programs/css/sbtn_csp_is_a_good_investment.pdf

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation. (2016, September 
2). The personal responsibility and work opportunity reconciliation Act of 1996.
Retrieved from https://aspe.hhs.gov/report/personal-responsibility-and-work-opportunity-
reconciliation-act-1996