Kenya N. Rahmaan

September brings a close to not only August but also the end of Child Support Awareness Month across the United States. In light of the many agencies who make claims that the system is there to assist both parents, it only seems appropriate to point out how the child support system rarely offers assistance to non-custodial parents (NCPs) in August or during any other month. While it is no surprise that agencies release statements and articles to the press touting success in assisting custodial parents or CPs with an array of child support issues, most are boasting about their tireless efforts in helping NCPs, too. These statements may have surprised many since most NCPs only report the enforcement tactics and punishments they endure when they find themselves unable (for whatever reason) to make payments.

Whether the agencies such as one in Ohio that offered to extend an amnesty program or the agency in New Mexico describing its employment program, most can agree that child support operations are rarely beneficial to these parents. Even when the federal government enacts new guidelines for states to implement in attempting to protect the constitutional rights of parents, those in control choose to ignore the rules in the pursuit of collecting a payment. These violations continuously go unchecked. There must be accountability for these agencies.

Take, for instance, new case closure information added to the Federal Register, titled Flexibility, Efficiency, and Modernization in Child Support Programs, specifying what cases can qualify for closure. Previously, the guidelines for closing a Title IV-D child support case were strictly enforced and followed by nearly every jurisdiction. Ohio’s Department of Job and Family Services (ODJFS) lets parents know that one of the following is justified reasons for requesting a case termination:

• gets married,
• is emancipated by court order,
• enlists in the armed services,
• gets deported,
• dies,
• has a change in legal custody,
• or reaches the age of 18 and graduates from high school.

Until 2016, requests for case termination would automatically get denied, barring a special circumstance request approved by an agency official. If there are arrears or outstanding debt on the case, termination of the case will not necessarily erase that debt. The Bradley Amendment, enacted in 1986, is an amendment to the Social Security Act, which prohibits retroactively modifying child support arrears (Every CRS Report, 2000). The draconian law prohibits arrears from being increased or decreased, no matter the circumstances, leaving tens of thousands of NCPs in lifetime debt to the government and the CP.  

Based on the usual acceptable reasons, unsurprisingly, low-income parents found themselves drowning in insurmountable debt long after the child support order had been terminated. Over the years, the government introduced policies to relieve NCPs of child support debt. Sadly, the government implemented for parents entering or re-entering a two-parent household with the other parent. According to David Gray Ross of the Office of Child Support Enforcement (1999), even if the parents marry or remarry, families with Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) arrearages are required to make payments to the state as a result of the TANF requirements of assigning child support payments. Not only could he have been worried about the legal ramifications that could arise when forcing married parents to repay grants disguised as loans, but officials also voiced concern about the garnishments being better spent directly on the children.

TANF arrears, Ross went on to write, could worsen the economic situation for low-income families, thereby reducing their ability to maintain a self-sufficient two-parent household. Two states initiated debt-forgiveness programs, but soon, nearly every jurisdiction offered some form of compromise for arrears to reunite parents. The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) released a report in 2007 specifically discussing debt compromise programs, as well as the importance of the overall purpose of the child support program. The report stated that some states utilize debt compromise programs to reduce or eliminate possibly uncollectable debt. The process occurs when a state settles a portion or all of the debt owed to the state by the non-custodial parent.

There was no longer a prerequisite for parents to be a two-parent household to qualify for relief from arrears. Likewise, since most child support debt, historically, is owed by low-income parents, these programs help struggling parents by giving them a fresh financial start debt-free. Almost every jurisdiction offers some form of compromise program claiming availability to NCPs. Five of these states, including Florida and Louisiana, report approving compromises on rare occasions, while Montana, Tennessee, and five others do not have a program. The failure to implement programs or the refusal to offer the programs already implemented shows gross neglect of the needs of low-income indebted NCPs.  

A child support case categorized as a Title IV-D case can be closed by the child support agency if less than $500 is owed. To clarify, according to OCSE (2013), a Title IV-D case is a case in which a state provides child support services as directed by the state or tribal child support program that Title IV-D of the Social Security Act authorizes. There are two essential distinctions between Title IV-D and non-Title-IV-D cases. Title IV-D cases require that custodial parents sign over rights to any child support collected on their behalf to the government to recover welfare benefits. In non-Title IV-D cases, the custodial parent determines whether the child support case should be closed and arrears be forgiven instead of the state making the decision. As with all child support cases, exceptions can apply based on the circumstances.

The latter is critical since the Feds updated the Federal Register to include Paragraph (b)(9), which added a case closure criterion to permit a state to close a case where there is no current support order and all arrearages are owed to the state. Not only are states failing to notify qualifying parents that this option is available, but they are also reluctant to discuss debt reduction programs with parents. Consider that the amount of current support due in FY2019 was nearly $33 billion compared to approximately $118 billion allegedly owed in arrears. Also, since a little over $23 billion of the debt was declared TANF arrears, states could greatly benefit NCPs by simply erasing those arrears. The costs used to enforce those cases that should be closed could be used to collect child support from absent parents willfully failing to provide for their children.

Since none of the TANF arrears collected would ever reach the child, it makes little, if any, sense to keep punishing NCPs for a debt that they, technically, do not owe to the state or otherwise. Remember that most of the arrears consist of missed payments and late fees, interest charges, and other penalties tacked on by the government. With so much evidence proving the financial damage that owing child support debt and dealing with enforcement tactics cause low-income NCPs, it is appalling to read or hear government officials claiming to care about and assist these same parents. Most cannot sustain a basic living income, which is another guideline that officials are supposed to consider when setting child support amounts but continuously ignore.

Jessica Pearson and Esther Ann Griswald (2001) revealed that approximately half of the states interviewed for a study on child support arrears allowed for debt compromise of state-assigned arrears when it is “in the best interest of the state.” The best interest of the state, not surprisingly, is not one easily located on the World Wide Web. Most people are conditioned to believe that the ‘best interest’ only applies to the well-being of children when child support cases and family court are an issue. Finding out what that meant in forgiving permanently assigned child support debt took a little digging.

The most appropriate explanation, arguably, was found on the Middle Tennessee State University website, which explains ‘best interest of the state’ or ‘compelling state or governmental interest’ as:

interest is an element of the strict scrutiny test by which courts exercise judicial review of legislative and executive branch enactments that affect constitutional rights, such as those found in the First Amendment (Ronald Steiner).

Presenting procedures that allow states to erase permanently assigned arrears certainly does not, nor should it ever, require a ‘strict scrutiny test’ since these monies are allegedly owed to recover welfare benefits. There are several constitutional problems with forcing NCPs to pay for public benefits they still need to receive and, more than likely, never contracted to repay. Welfare benefits are grants, not loans, and do not require repayment.

Secondly, welfare reform meant changes to requirements that CPs were forced to meet to receive the benefits. One of the most significant mandates is that the recipient must participate in some form of a work program. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities or CBPP (2013), states must require a recipient to engage in work activities and must impose sanctions (by reducing or terminating benefits) if the individual does not meet the requirements without good cause. Based on this mandate, the CP is working in exchange for benefits, so neither parent owes a debt to the state. This transaction eliminates the mirage that a parent could possibly be a debt owed in the first place.

Finally, for those who claim that recipients should repay benefits to recover welfare costs, they must consider just how much of the Federal and state budgets spent on safety net programs. The debate concerning the right to affordable or even accessible healthcare in America is not a new one by any means. More people tend to agree that if any US citizen deserves said benefits, whether their parents can afford to pay or not, they are children. Since the child support program is supposed to focus on children, it is best to focus on the cost of the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) instead of healthcare provided for low-income people as a whole.  

According to the Congressional Budget Office or the CBO, 2019 approximately $449 billion, or .4% of the total $1.1 trillion budget, was spent on healthcare programs like Medicare. When identifying CHIP costs, the amount decreases to approximately $17.5 billion nationally (Medicaid.gov). As many agree, the US is one of the wealthiest nations in the world, and contributing a small fraction of tax dollars for the better health of children is a small investment with a potentially huge return. This money does not affect NCPs who no longer have open child support cases, and forgiving arrears would have absolutely no effect on CHIP recovery costs.

The argument of recovering the costs of welfare programs, mainly cash benefits, awarded to low-income and poor families is critical to determining how much tax money is spent on these programs. While many believe that a considerable amount of tax dollars are spent on welfare expenditures, the costs of financing public programs and public services only account for a small budget. In 2019, a mere 12% or $518 billion supported programs that provide aid (other than health insurance or Social Security benefits) to individuals and families facing hardships (Barnes et al., 2022).  

Identifying states with the highest reported amounts of TANF arrears and how they spend annual TANF block grants will provide further evidence of how it is in the best interest of the NCPs to erase permanently assigned arrears, especially since the money is supposed to recover dollars spent on safety net programs. To be clear, safety net programs include, based on the CBPP (2020), the following:

• the refundable portions of the Earned Income Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit,
• programs that provide cash payments to eligible individuals or households, including Supplemental Security Income for the elderly or disabled poor, and unemployment insurance,
• various forms of in-kind assistance for low-income housing assistance, child care assistance, and help meeting home energy bills,
• and various other programs, such as those that aid or neglect children.

The state of Texas has reported the highest annual arrears continuously. At the end of FY2018, the Lone Star State claimed that NCPs owed a whopping $1.72 billion in TANF arrears to the report to Congress. Looking at how lawmakers spent TANF money during the same year, and because of the repayment method, every penny of the TANF Block Grant was spent. In 2018, the state spent less than 7% of the estimated $862 million allocated to the TANF program. More specifically, child care and tax credits received 0%, while national spending was only 17% and 9%, respectively.

Also, Texas spent only .4% compared to the national amount of 3% on work support and supportive services for parents (CBPP, 2020). Since states receive grant money to incorporate work programs for NCPs to assist their efforts in making timely payments, more block grants should be used to support those parents. States must spend more money on work programs for non-custodial parents, which can be accomplished easily if the officials erase all permanently owed arrears.

To make matters even worse, when states keep old debts open for enforcement and collection purposes, the government pockets money not passed through to the families. In fact, as of 2018, Texas had managed to save an astonishing $328 million in unspent TANF Block grant funds (CBPP). Couple this with the estimated $80,933,998 incentive monies and the $9.04 returned to the state for every $1 spent on child support operations (OCSE, 2018), and the best interest is very well protected. It is time for state and federal child support agencies to recognize that it takes more than words to help NCPs and families.

In recent years, there have been numerous articles released by the OCSE stating that most child support arrears are owed by low-income and poor NCPs. This is a direct result of child support being determined with imputed income and ordered by default judgments. States have received specific guidelines from the Federal government discouraging the use of both practices unless unavoidable. Child support enforcers recognize the problems that NCPs face when tackling open cases with high amounts of debt, so after decades of doing it wrong, it is time for them to get things right.

It is unethical to force parents to pay for a grant not only they did not agree to repay, but it does not require repayment. Most of these parents would not be considered as a ‘deserter’ who had abandoned their children simply because they did not reside within the same household as their children. The common law theory is clear that for a third party, in this case, the government, to recover from financially supporting abandoned children, they must have been abandoned.  

By clearing NCPs of arrears on old cases that should be closed based on the permanently assigned status, the states are free to use resources to pursue true absconders. The guidelines state that a parent must have the ability, yet they refuse to pay child support. It has been made evident that the majority of parents suffering from child support punishments are indebted to the system due to the inability to pay and not willfully failing to pay. It’s time to hold the agencies and government accountable for the claim that they care about NCPs.

Barnes, M., Bauer, L., Edelberg, W., Estep, S., Greenstein, R., & Macklin, M. (2022, March 9). The social insurance system in the US: Policies to protect workers and families. Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-social-insurance-system-in-the-u-s-policies-to-protect-workers-and-families/

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. (n.d.). Financing. Medicaid.gov: the official U.S. government site for Medicare | Medicaid. Retrieved August 15, 2024, from https://www.medicaid.gov/chip/financing/index.html

Congressional Budget Office. (2019). The budget and economic outlook: 2019 to 2029. https://www.cbo.gov/publication/54918

Every CRS Report. (2000, July 27). The Bradley amendment: Prohibition against retroactive modification of child support arrearages. Every CRS Report – EveryCRSReport.com. https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/RS20642.html

Federal Register. (2020, June 9). Child support. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/06/09/2020-12188/child-support

Office of Child Support Enforcement. (2022, March 11). FY 2019 Annual report to congress. https://www.acf.hhs.gov/css/resource-library?f%5B%5D=report_type%3A612&f%5B%5D=type%3Areport&sort_by=combined_publication_date&sort_order=DESC&items_per_page=50

Ohio Department of Job and Family Services. (n.d.). End a support order. Retrieved August 15, 2024, from https://jfs.ohio.gov/child-support/child-support-overview/child-support-services/end-a-support-order

Pearson, J., & Griswold, E. A. (2001, March). New approaches to child support arrears: A survey of state policies and practices. Center for Policy Research. https://centerforpolicyresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/NewApproachesChildSupportArrears.pdf

Ross, D. G. (1999, March 22). Policy supporting two parent families/Compromise of arrearages. Office of Child Support Services. Retrieved August 15, 2024, from https://www.acf.hhs.gov/css/policy-guidance/policy-supporting-two-parent-families/compromise-arrearages

Schott, L., & Pavetti, L. (2013, February 26). Changes in TANF work requirements could make them more effective in promoting employment. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. https://www.cbpp.org/research/changes-in-tanf-work-requirements-could-make-them-more-effective-in-promoting-employment

Steiner, R. (2023, September 20). Compelling state interest. The Free Speech Center. https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/compelling-state-interest/

United States Department of Health and Human Services. (2007). State use of Debt compromise to reduce child support arrearages. Office of Inspector General. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GOVPUB-HE-PURL-gpo67813/pdf/GOVPUB-HE-PURL-gpo67813.pdf