# States Need to Erase Government Owed Child Support Debt

- Link: https://thechildsupporthustle.com/states-need-to-erase-government-owed-child-support-debt/
- Published: 2024-08-15T12:57:04+00:00
- Author: MsRockMon

[⌊\"\"⌉⌊\"\"⌉[

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.

![\"\"](\"https://mlf648omfere.i.optimole.com/w:330/h:753/q:mauto/process:96500/
id:12c11636bed2dc3de84dd38153c434d3/https://thechildsupporthustle.com/wp-content/
uploads/2025/08/IMG_1174-2.jpegwp-content/uploads/2025/08/IMG_1174-2-1.jpegScreenshot-
2024-08-15-105950.png\")

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.

 [⌊\"\"⌉](https://thechildsupporthustle.com/states-need-to-erase-government-owed-child-support-debt/\"https://www.cbpp.org/research/family-income-support/cash-assistance-should-reach-millions-more-families\")

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.

References

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/](https://thechildsupporthustle.com/states-need-to-erase-government-owed-child-support-debt/\"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](https://thechildsupporthustle.com/states-need-to-erase-government-owed-child-support-debt/\"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](https://thechildsupporthustle.com/states-need-to-erase-government-owed-child-support-debt/\"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](https://thechildsupporthustle.com/states-need-to-erase-government-owed-child-support-debt/\"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](https://thechildsupporthustle.com/states-need-to-erase-government-owed-child-support-debt/\"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](https://thechildsupporthustle.com/states-need-to-erase-government-owed-child-support-debt/\"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](https://thechildsupporthustle.com/states-need-to-erase-government-owed-child-support-debt/\"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](https://thechildsupporthustle.com/states-need-to-erase-government-owed-child-support-debt/\"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](https://thechildsupporthustle.com/states-need-to-erase-government-owed-child-support-debt/\"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](https://thechildsupporthustle.com/states-need-to-erase-government-owed-child-support-debt/\"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/](https://thechildsupporthustle.com/states-need-to-erase-government-owed-child-support-debt/\"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](https://thechildsupporthustle.com/states-need-to-erase-government-owed-child-support-debt/\"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GOVPUB-HE-PURL-gpo67813/pdf/GOVPUB-HE-PURL-gpo67813.pdf\")