# Mandated Child Support Cooperation for Food Stamps

- Link: https://thechildsupporthustle.com/mandated-child-support-cooperation-for-food-stamps/
- Published: 2024-07-21T22:09:35+00:00
- Author: MsRockMon

[⌊\"Food⌉⌊\"Food⌉[Kenya Rahmaan

February 3, 2018

While it is somewhat clear that parents who are applying for Temporary Assistance
for Needy Families (TANF) benefits are required to cooperate with child support 
enforcement, it may not be as clear when applying for other public programs.  According
to Paula Roberts of the Center for Law and Social Policy or CLASP (2005), one of
the requirements is that the person in the family with the legal right to do so 
must assign to the state any rights any child has in the family to receive child
support.  This law is the reason that most states have the authority to retain most
if not all, child support payments during and after a period of time that a parent
receives cash TANF benefits.  This regulation is so lucrative to the government 
that a reported $32 billion was collected on behalf of 16.3 million children.

If a family was receiving or has received TANF benefits, the amount passed through
to those families was a miserable $118,136.280.  In contrast, the amount that the
government retained during that same period was approximately $10,268,017,098. Due
to the guidelines being more specific when TANF benefits are sought by a low-income
parent, it is easy to believe that all public programs mandate cooperation with 
child support agencies.  This is true to a certain extent; however, the requirements
for cooperation are largely controlled by the individual state.

To begin, Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) are
both federally controlled medical programs providing health insurance to people 
and children who have incomes (or lack thereof) that qualify.  The individual who
is the decision-maker must assign their rights to child support over to their respective
state.  The individual must also assign the medical support rights of any children
in the family if he/she has the legal capacity to do so (CLASP, 2005).  These mandates
are essentially uniform across the country. Nevertheless, there is fine print associated
with these laws that affect how medical benefits are awarded and maintained.

For instance, all states must establish a “good cause” statute for persons who refuse
to cooperate with child support enforcement.  In most states, this clause only applies
in very limited circumstances.  According to Roberts (2005), these reasons include:

 1. Situations where there is domestic violence,
 2. The child was conceived through rape or incest, and
 3. Where a parent is contemplating placing the child for adoption.

Any other one may offer to justify using the ‘good cause’ clause when refusing to
cooperate with child support enforcement usually does not apply.  Failure to cooperate
does not mean that the parent loses all of his or her benefits.

Quite the contrary occurs when refusal to cooperate has been recorded by the county
child support caseworkers.  If a parent refuses to cooperate, that individual will
be denied Medicaid benefits.  However, all children within the household and/or 
listed on the case documents are still eligible for Medicaid.  Roberts (2005) states
that this is because the statute requires cooperation from those who are “legally
able.\”

Parents can legally refuse to sign their rights to child support payments (current
and future) over to the government without retribution regarding their medical benefits.
The children are still legally eligible for medical benefits offered by the state
with no penalties and/or sanctions. Based on the current state of the medical and
insurance systems in America, one could argue that no insurance at all is equivalent
to receiving state-funded medical insurance.  Thus, refusing to sign over rights
to child support in exchange for Medicaid may be a better option for the parent 
and the family.

SCHIP child support cooperation requirements are quite similar to the Medicaid requirements
in that the program serves low-income children, and refusal to cooperate with child
support enforcement cannot terminate benefits.  This is due to the fact that the
federal statute does not contain a child support assignment or cooperation provision(
Roberts, 2005).  Children cannot have private insurance while participating in SCHIP,
which has caused some dilemmas for the states that have chosen to include SCHIP 
in their Medicaid expansion program.  There is currently no requirement that state
Medicaid agencies refer applicants or recipients to their state child support agency(
Roberts, 2005).

Unfortunately, parents are not being told this important information and are still
being made to sue for child support, thus assigning all child support payments over
to the state. There are a handful of states that have chosen to manipulate the guidelines
as a way to force parents to cooperate with child support enforcement.  By structuring
the SCHIP program as a Medicaid Expansion, the Medicaid assignment and cooperation
provision would apply (Roberts, 2005).  Less than 15 states have decided to use 
this example as a way to mandate child support participation.

States could implement SCHIP as an entirely individual program.  By doing this, 
the Medicaid guidelines would not apply, but the state could write its own policies
to impose cooperation requirements for low-income parents seeking medical insurance
for their children.  It is important to note that if the state implements its SCHIP
program through a Medicaid expansion and the individual who enrolls the children
refuses to meet the assignment or cooperation requirements, the children, nonetheless,
are still covered (Roberts, 2005).  There are many parents being deceived by caseworkers
as they are told that certain criteria must be met in order for medical benefits
to be awarded. Parents must be correctly informed that even if they refuse to participate
with the child support agency, the children will still receive medical benefits.

This is the law regardless of which state medical program the parent chooses to 
apply to.  Another benefit that many people believe requires cooperation with child
support enforcement is the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP.  While
states may have different titles for their SNAP programs, the purpose of the program
remains the same across the nation.  According to the United States Department of
Agriculture or the USDA (2015), SNAP offers nutrition assistance to millions of 
eligible, low-income individuals and families.

This program is often the difference between children eating or starving, so it 
is essential that the administrators of this program relay accurate eligibility 
information to all applicants.  The Food Nutrition Program (FNS) works with state
agencies, nutritional education, and neighborhood and faith-based organizations 
to ensure that those eligible for nutrition assistance can make informed decisions
about applying for the program and can access benefits (USDA, 2015).  This is the
reason that it is particularly disturbing to learn that parents applying for SNAP
benefits are being forced to sue for child support in order to receive food stamps.
Although the federal government decides the general eligibility criteria for all
state-funded programs, the statute is obvious when explaining child support cooperation
in exchange for food stamp benefits

The Food Stamp Program (FSP) is available to people who need help purchasing food.
However, states have the option to impose a child support cooperation requirement
on either the custodial or noncustodial parents who participate in FSP (Roberts,
2005).  As of November 2010, there were 18 states that included child support cooperation
mandates in the FSP eligibility requirements.  There are two specific requirements
that must be met in order for the applicant to be approved for the FSP.

Some states have implemented a comparable disqualification clause or a CS.  Roberts(
2005) explains that, in this case, the state does not have a specific cooperation
requirement for Food Stamp households.  Ohio and Georgia are a couple of states 
that have added a CD provision in the eligibility requirements of FSP and child 
support.  It is more specific to all public programs in that applications and recipients
who fail to perform an action (including child support cooperation) in TANF are 
automatically sanctioned by the food stamp program as well (Roberts, 2005).

Of course, if an individual is only applying for food stamp assistance, disqualification
due to failure to cooperate with child support enforcement should not be an option.
The SNAP program is in place to help the most vulnerable families but the states
with child support stipulations seem to have the highest dependents relying on the
FSP to eat.  For example, Rita Price of the Columbus Dispatch (2014) wrote that 
the share of Ohio households reporting limited and uncertain ability to provide 
nutritious meals averaged 16% from 2011 to 2013.  The economy recovering from the
Great Recession is undoubtedly one cause of this elevated percentage.

Food stamp cuts and rising grocery costs are keeping thousands of Ohio families 
from escaping the Great Recession’s worst effects (Price, 2014).  The eligibility
requirements that Ohio imposes on applicants that force people to sue for child 
support should also be included as one of the reasons for the food insecurity experienced
by the most vulnerable Ohioans. The number of people experiencing food insecurities
can be found in Georgia as well.  The Georgia Food Bank Association (2016) reported
that of 28.1 children in Georgia, 1 in 4 children live in food-insecure households.

Children should not be forced into starvation while there are more than adequate
food programs in operation to support the less fortunate.  The limitations that 
the child support statutes impose on the hungry people of this nation are deplorable.
Cooperation with child support enforcement should not be the determining factor 
when deciding whether or not our most needy citizens will eat or starve.  Not to
mention, there have been reports of case workers demanding cooperation with child
support in exchange for food stamps.

This does not and should never apply to parents who are only applying or enrolled
in an FSP.  Another provision that some states choose to adopt is to have a distinct
child support cooperation requirement for FSP participants.  Wisconsin is currently
the only state with that specific language written into the law.  According to The
Department of Workforce Development (1999), if an adult food stamp applicant or 
recipient fails to cooperate without good cause, the individual is not eligible 
for food stamps.

Applicants should understand all of the critical stipulations added to the federal
statutes and their rights and the rights of their children when refusing to cooperate
with child support enforcement is the chosen path.  During the disqualified period,
the rest of the household continues to receive assistance.  The strict child support
cooperation requirement may be directly linked to the increase in child poverty 
in Wisconsin.  Gilman Halsted of Wisconsin Public Radio (2015) reported that there
was a 5 percent increase in the number of children living in poverty from 2008-2013.

With such a significant increase in child poverty, it is the responsibility of the
state legislators to ensure that food stamp cases are not deemed ineligible due 
to the head of household failing to cooperate with child support enforcement.  The
children should remain eligible for food stamps even when the adult refuses to sue
for child support.  There are a total of three states that have a distinct child
support enforcement cooperation requirement and a CD clause in place.  Florida, 
Mississippi, and Michigan all enforce sanctions or loss of benefits when people 
do not comply with suing the nonresidential parent for child support.

In West Michigan alone, one in four kids is affected by hunger (24 Hour News 8 Web
Staff, 2015).  Children are faring no better in Florida.  Recent studies show that
the state has more than 3.4 million residents, including 1.1 million children, who
are food insecure (Florida Association of Food Banks, 2014).  These numbers are 
quite alarming.  Florida could possibly experience a significant reduction if child
support cooperation requirements were removed from the eligibility criteria.

In 2013, No Kids Hungry in Mississippi reported that 27% of kids in Mississippi 
struggle with hunger. The number has ballooned due to several barriers in Mississippi
and in many other states across the country.  In addition to slow employment growth,
TANF time limit restrictions, and the overwhelming number of ‘working poor’ Americans,
there was the passing of the 2014 Farm Bill.  The conference agreement included 
a SNAP benefit cut which would save $8.55 billion over ten years and shrink benefits
for about 850,000 households in 17 states,

Congressional Budget Office or CBO (as cited by the Center on Budget and Policy 
Priorities, 2014).  The results have proven extremely disastrous for Mississippi.
Eleanor Goldberg of the Huffington Post (2014) wrote that inefficiencies in the 
way SNAP is run in Mississippi are of paramount concern.  Surely, the child support
cooperation requirements are part of that concern.   Essentially, the families who
are already struggling will face challenging situations because of the Farm Bill
and the additional restrictions that are mandated by the state in order for a family
to receive food stamps.

The average SNAP recipient in Mississippi receives about $4 a day (Goldberg, 2014).
This bill will only prove disadvantageous to the children of the state.  Child support
is supposed to assist the family so that they do not have to rely on government 
assistance, as well as provide overall security for our children.  When the government
implements and enforces mandates that force participation in the child support program
in order to receive aid to purchase basic human necessities, the children will ultimately
suffer.  The observation becomes apparent when observing child hunger statistics
in the states that have distinct child support cooperation requirements as law and
enforce CD cases for the most vulnerable families.

Finally, some states require child support cooperation when a parent (or individual)
in charge of the decision-making for the child(ren) applies for state-funded child
care.  There is no mystery that childcare costs can be astronomical in the United
States.  Childcare prices range from about $3,583 to $18,773 a year, according to
BabyCenter.com, which leaves many parents with one option: childcare assistance.
Many are faced with the tough decision of choosing whether working is economically
feasible when considering childcare expenses.

The child support cooperation requirement is mandated in approximately 14 states
for parents seeking public assistance to offset childcare costs.  The states have
enacted laws or policies that require custodial parents to use the services of the
state’s child support enforcement program (Roberts, 2005).  Texas requires child
support cooperation in exchange for state-subsidized child care.  The child care
program is operated through The Texas Workforce Commission.  According to the Commission’s
webpage, those eligible for childcare assistance include children under the age 
of 13 whose parents are receiving or transitioning off public assistance or whose
families are low-income. There is no specific information concerning the requirement
of child support participation, but it is the law.

This requirement can certainly cause an unwanted and unnecessary barrier for parents
seeking employment assistance and are forced to sue the other parent for child support.
Forcing parents to choose between filing a lawsuit against someone or being denied
resources to need employment assistance is a cruel way to empower these parents 
to become self-sufficient, let alone leave the welfare system completely. Some states,
like Texas, may be vague in explaining the child support cooperation requirements
in the information provided to the public, but other states pretend that the criteria
relating to receiving subsidized child care include child support cooperation in
its statutes.  New Mexico has been exposed for doing just that to applicants.

Caseworkers have been allegedly forcing survivors of domestic violence to sue for
child support or be denied child care assistance.   The State of New Mexico Children,
Youth, and Families Department or CYFD is distinct on the eligibility requirements
that a person must meet in order to receive subsidized child care.   Eligibility
is determined by gross monthly income and family size (CYFD).  It is reprehensible
that in November and December of 2015, the agency was accused of forcing survivors
to sue for child support.

Based on a report by KRWG (2015), the OLE’s Working Parents Association had heard
from dozens of women who said applications for state childcare assistance came with
conditions. The conditions did not include family size or income levels but rather
criteria not identified in the federal or state statutes.  The county officials 
were requiring domestic violence survivors to get restraining orders against their
former partners and to sue abusers for child support.  Imaginary mandates could 
have had dangerous, or even worse, fatal results.

This breach of ethical and legal boundaries is extremely disturbing.  Every parent
in the state of New Mexico and across the nation needs to be aware of the actual
laws and mandates when applying for childcare services.  They should know whether
or not the caseworkers are supposed to be forcing them to comply with child support
enforcement or if they are trying to increase performance measurement criteria so
that the maximum amount of incentive money is paid to the state by the federal government.
After applying for child care, the parent must supply a plethora of information 
in order to be approved for the subsidy.

According to CYFD, the documentation needed is as follows:

 * **Current proof of earned and unearned income (including child support income)
   for applicant and biological parent, stepparent, and/or legal guardian living
   in the household, if applicable**
 * **School schedule, if applicable, for applicant and biological parent, stepparent,
   and/or legal guardian living in the household (if applicable)**
 * **Verification of birth for all applicant children**
 * **Proof of residency**
 * **Name, address, and phone number of the child care provider selected (for new
   registered home providers, the provider’s social security card and picture ID
   are needed).**

Clearly, within the guidelines and required actions and/or documentation, there 
is no mention of filing restraining orders or suing for child support.  The head
of the New Mexico CYFD has approved the adding of a new box to childcare assistance
forms that parents can check off to indicate to state workers that contacting a 
former abuser for support would endanger families (KRWG, 2015).  However, this extra
box is not necessary because there is nothing on the actual application questioning
whether child support enforcement is either wanted by parents or mandated by the
government.

The caseworkers need to be retrained to understand the specific guidelines as they
relate to public programs and child support cooperation requirements.  Those hired
to operate the system are making it much more difficult for the most vulnerable 
by constructing their own rules and regulations.  This is not only illegal, but 
it can be quite it is detrimental to the well-being of children and individuals,
and the information being delivered by local, state, and federal caseworkers is 
both accurate and legal.  Just as applicants can face stiff penalties, financially
and with possible prison sentences, our public employees should be in jeopardy of
facing such punishments when lying to their clients.

It is the mission of the state and federal governments to recover welfare costs 
by using the child support system.  However, people should not be denied benefits
because of inflexible laws and blatant lies used in the scheme of increasing government
revenues.  Our government is made up of elected officials and our employees, and
as such, they must comply with the guidelines of their employee handbook just like
all other employees.  Bending the truth or withholding important information that
can and will hinder families from not only gaining self-sufficiency but also hindering
a family from getting food should be a crime.

It is time to force the government to follow the same rules that every person in
America is expected to follow.  We must reform the child support system, but in 
the meantime, we have to force the representatives of the local governments to follow
the law when processing all applications requesting state assistance.  The officials
must be held accountable when executing the federal and state-funded programs. Our
children deserve better.

References:

24 Hour News 8 Web Staff. (2015, May 27). Go orange day to raise awareness for childhood
hunger | WOODTV.com. Retrieved from http://woodtv.com/2015/03/27/go-orange-day-to-
raise-awareness-for-childhood-hunger/

Babycenter.com. (n.d.). How much you’ll spend on childcare | BabyCenter. Retrieved
from http://www.babycenter.com/0_how-much-youll-spend-on-childcare_1199776.bc

Center of Budget and Policy Priorities. (2014, February 3). Summary of the 2014 
farm bill nutrition title: Includes bipartisan improvements to SNAP while excluding
harsh house provisions | Center on budget and policy priorities. Retrieved from 
http://www.cbpp.org/research/summary-of-the-2014-farm-bill-nutrition-title-includes-
bipartisan-improvements-to-snap

Department of Workforce Development. (1999). _Child support cooperation requirements_(
99-44). Retrieved from http://dcf.wisconsin.gov/memos/ops_memos/bwf/1999/pdf/99-
044.pdf

Florida Association of Food Banks. (n.d.). Hunger facts | Florida association of
food banks. Retrieved from http://www.fafb.org/hunger-facts/hunger-facts

Georgia Food Bank Association. (2016). _Georgia food bank association | Surprising
facts about hunger in georgia_. Retrieved from http://georgiafoodbankassociation.
org/make-a-difference/surprising-facts-about-hunger-in-georgia/

Goldberg, E. (2014, March 27). 25 percent of people in mississippi can’t afford 
food. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/25/hungriest-states_n_5028586.
html

KRWG.org. (2015, December 12). New mexico child support forms add safeguard for 
abuse victims | KRWG. Retrieved from http://krwg.org/post/new-mexico-child-support-
forms-add-safeguard-abuse-victims

No Kid Hungry Campaign. (2013). No kid hungry in mississippi. Retrieved from https://
www.nokidhungry.org/pdfs/NoKidHungryMISSISSIPPI_June2013.pdf

Price, R. (2014, September 4). Ohio rates among the worst states when it comes to
hunger problems | The columbus dispatch. Retrieved from http://www.dispatch.com/
content/stories/local/2014/09/03/food-insecure-kids.html

Roberts, P. (2005). _Child support cooperation requirements and public benefits 
programs: An overview of issues and recommendations for change_. Retrieved from 
Center for Law and Social Policy website: http://www.clasp.org/resources-and-publications/
files/0252.pdf

State of New Mexico Children, Youth and Families Department. (n.d.). Child care 
assistance | CYFD. Retrieved from https://cyfd.org/child-care-services/child-care-
assistance

Survey shows more wisconsin children living in poverty | Wisconsin public radio.(
2015, July 21). Retrieved from http://www.wpr.org/survey-shows-more-wisconsin-children-
living-poverty

Texas Workforce Commission. (n.d.). Child care services | Texas workforce commission.
Retrieved from http://www.twc.state.tx.us/jobseekers/child-care-services

United States Department of Agriculture. (2015, August 21). Supplemental nutrition
assistance program (SNAP) | Food and nutrition service. Retrieved from http://www.
fns.usda.gov/snap/supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap