Kenya N. Rahman  Sadly, in the world of social justice, particularly in child support and family court reform, victories are trickery.  For example, the recent Missouri SB35 recognizing shared parenting was signed into law last month.  Director of Americans for Equal Shared Parenting, Mark Ludwig, led the charge, and one of the most significant changes is that rebuttable presumption will be added to the state law when judges determine child custody arrangements.  The rebuttable presumption will help with an award of equal or approximately equal parenting time to each parent in the best interest of the child.  As you read through the entirety of the bill, there is NO mention of Title IV-D, or child support amounts being determined during the hearing at all.    If, in fact, Title IV-D was connected to shared parenting, as Ludwig claims repeatedly, indeed, there would be a mention of at least child support payments or results of Title IV-D to such a significant bill.  Secondly, as the ‘Equal Shared Parenting Barbie’ points out in her post, there was a change to the license suspension guideline about child support delinquency.  According to the Dadvocate (2023), Missouri became one of the first states to end immediate and unfounded license suspension for delinquent child support.  Ending unfounded license suspensions would be groundbreaking, especially during a time of financial recovery.  The claims were accurate.    The Shared Parenting Barbie is correct that Missouri did include a clause in SB35 that outlines the suspension process for parents allegedly delinquent on child support.  However, the amendments are not new regulations to how states are supposed to revoke license privileges.  The Missouri.gov website reports (2023) that the act provides that the hearing to determine whether the suspension of a business, occupational, professional, recreational, or other license is appropriate when an obligor is not in compliance with a child support order shall comply with due process.  The key words in this bill and end every regulation that applies to child support enforcement is due process.  Missouri cannot claim to pass a new bill concerning compliance with due process rights when the jurisdiction already had provisions in place for years.    In the EveryCRSReport (2011), §30-454.1000 states that there are both notice and review requirements in Missouri and that,    

• notice is served in person or by certified mail,
• the suspension is effective 60 days after notice,
• and a review hearing must be requested within 60 days of notice.

    The “new” bill in the Show Me state says nearly the same, although the legislators and the shared parenting posse are trying to pass it off as a new accomplishment.  The court of the Director of the Family Support Division shall consider and issue written findings of fact and conclusions of law within 30 days of the hearing (Missouri Senate).   It is the right of all paying parent to have their ability to pay support obligations examined before any enforcement action is executed against them.   The law says that the hearings must consider the  

• obligor’s current and past ability to pay the support,
• his or her need for transportation,
• and his or her need for the license for continued employment (Missouri Senate).

   However, in the most recent issuance of the Final Rule in 2016 by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), officials made clear that all disciplinary actions initiated by child support agencies could only proceed after it was determined that the paying parent could pay but refused.   Just like civil contempt of court charges for failure to pay child support is meant to be coercive, the same applies to license suspensions.  According to the Essentials for Attorneys in Child Support Enforcement 4th Edition manual (2021), the hope is that once an obligor receives notice of the state’s intention to affect the license, the individual will contact the agency and negotiate payment of the outstanding debt.  Unfortunately, like everything else with the child support system, no accountability results in no rules being followed, and coercive tools turn into hostage and ransom situations.    

    The story’s moral is that when lobbyists replace grassroots advocates, the messaging is altered, and what looks like victories are recycled policies with new rhetoric.  https://youtu.be/5HAEV-Vh3Cw  Not only are the words unique and spectacular, but the messengers look different and may present themselves with fun or cute names to make the project more appealing to new and old supporters.  The task in front of everyone is to differentiate between what is truth and what is fiction.  The distinction is crucial because when progress is highjacked and messaging is repackaged, a mission that had moved five steps ahead will find itself back to square one.  And people who only see the Barbies cheering and the pom poms bouncing up and down don’t realize that nothing has changed except the wording, the people, and who is getting paid.    References:

Every CRS Report – EveryCRSReport.com. (2011, April 11).  Child support enforcement and driver’s license suspension policies.  Retrieved October 6, 2023, from https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R41762.html#_Ref290034531

Missouri Senate.  (2023, August 28).  SB35 – Modifies provisions relating to child custody and child support enforcement.  Retrieved October 6, 2023, from https://senate.mo.gov/23info/BTS_Web/Bill.aspx?SessionType=R&BillID=44511

Office of Child Support Enforcement.  (n.d.).  Essentials for attorneys in child support enforcement.  https://www.acf.hhs.gov/css/training-technical-assistance/essentials-attorneys-child-support-enforcement. https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ocse/essentials_for_attorneys_11.pdf