# The Republican Opposition to Proposed Child Support Changes

- Link: https://thechildsupporthustle.com/the-republican-opposition-to-proposed-child-support-changes/
- Published: 2024-05-06T14:23:34+00:00
- Author: MsRockMon

 

[⌊\"\"⌉⌊\"\"⌉[Kenya N Rahmaan

The Obama Administration and the federal government have released the Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking or the NPRM. The government listed the Federal Register under
Volume 79, No. 221, and was made available on November 17, 2014. The register proposes
numerous changes to both state and federal child support regulations. The Republican-
controlled Congress has proposed a bill to stop the Administration from implementing
these changes. The proposed adjustments to the guidelines conveniently exclude any
mention of abolishing the license revocation process, ending charging interest, 
and other financial penalties to delinquent payments (among other issues). There
are some items listed that have caused the GOP to scream foul.

According to Congress.gov (2015), the bill, H.R. 2688, introduced on June 9, 2015,
would block any action from being taken to finalize or give effect to a certain 
proposed rule governing the Federal child support enforcement program. The specific
concerns that GOP leaders have outlined seem to be issues that help the non-custodial
parents or NCPs in their times of need and underscore the violation of individual
rights that the government is supposed to afford all American citizens. In a press
release offered by House and Senate lawmakers, which the lawmakers published in 
June 2014, four top-ranking Republicans accused the Administration of violating 
the law by excluding Congress in implementing the proposed rules.

The claim was that the Obama Administration was shaking the fundamentals of the 
child support and welfare laws from their foundation and that there were also other
crucial flaws with the proposed changes. Human Resources Subcommittee Chairman Charles
Boustany of Louisiana states that the President’s rule could potentially let delinquent
parents’ off the hook’ (Ways and Means Committee, 2015). No language within the 
Federal Register remotely suggests that parents would be excused from paying child
support or arrears. There is language, however, that could assist parents when faced
with adverse situations.

According to Chairman Dave Camp of House Ways and Means and Senator Orrin Hatch,
Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Finance (2014), one of the issues lawmakers
were challenging was that the NPRM makes Federal financial participation available
to the following:

 * the new job services program,
 * other expanded items,
 * and other allegedly de minimis items.

The other expanded items that the Republicans are against funding are all components
that would benefit the child and the parent. For example, the proposals by the Administration
would include minor transportation expenses such as public transportation money 
in the list of additional expenses. Parents could use bus fare to participate in
child support proceedings and related activities (Flexibility, Efficiency, and Modernization
in Child Support Enforcement Programs, 2014). Parents who cannot attend child support
hearings cannot defend themselves against their accusers if they do not have transportation
to the courthouse. They must have access to transport to and from the hearings, 
even at the government’s expense.

Many child support orders are obtained by default judgments. Based on the definition
provided by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services or HHS (2014), a default
judgment is a decision that a tribunal makes when the defendant fails to respond
or appears after proper notice. The tribunal, or the legal authority, can apply 
any amount and terms to the child support order with no exceptions. The fact that
the government officials are opposing changes that will provide money for transportation
to such hearings means that those officials do not mind denying people the right
to face their accusers in a court of law.

One of the other costs that the Republican opposition is arguing against is the 
alleged de minimis. De minimis costs include parenting time provisions entered as
part of a child support order and incidental to a child support proceeding (Flexibility,
Efficiency, and Modernization in Child Support Enforcement Programs, 2014). By law,
child support and visitation issues are separate and different fees can be charged
when heard before a judge. The Federal Register would like any additional fees traditionally
charged when deciding parenting time to be considered too insignificant to charge
the NCP for the time and money it may cost to process such requests.

The GOP would instead vote on a measure that would force parents to pay for those
nominal fees. Deciding on a parenting plan should be something that the government
encourages, but rather, it is something that our officials are trying to defeat.
The less money spent on trivial items means more money that a parent can spend on
their children.   Thirdly, Camp and Hatch are ordering a halt to creating a new 
job services program to assist unemployed and underemployed non-custodial parents.

According to PolicyLink.org (2015), Federal financial participation (FFP) is available
for job services for eligible non-custodial parents that are identified in the state
plan. Currently, only eight states in the entire country participate in the National
Child Support Noncustodial Parent Employment Demonstration or CSPED. The states 
are the recipients of the employment demonstration programs, which began in 2012
and ended in September 2017. The Department of Health and Human Services or HHS (
2015) reported that each grantee would receive $775,000 in 1115 demonstration funds
over five years.

The grantees are supposed to use the money to assist NCPs in many areas that hinder
them from finding and retaining long-term and adequate employment. Once the FFP 
is added, each grantee’s total amount of funding over five years is $2.3 million(
HHS, 2015). The GOP disagrees with this new jobs program proposal even though 42
other states were excluded from participating in such an important program. The 
Letter from Congress (2015) states that the NPRM creates a new job services program
not found in the list of allowable program types in the federal statute. While the
permissible program types offer limited assistance in a small number of states to
some parents, these programs barely scratch the surface when it comes to decreasing
the employment needs of low-income people, especially parents.

HHS (2015) has recently revealed that 70% of unpaid child support debt is owed by
parents with no or low reported income. The only acceptable public policy seems 
that the government helps these poor parents find gainful employment. Instead, the
Republican leaders believe that the NPRM goes too far by adding new eligibility 
criteria for this new program (Camp and Hatch, 2015). The new eligibility criteria,
which these leaders have called ‘particularly flagrant,’ reveal strict and specific
qualifications that an NCP must fulfill to be declared eligible for employment and
training programs.

According to the Flexibility, Efficiency, and Modernization in Child Support Enforcement
Programs (2014), the non-custodial parent must:

 * have a IV-D case
 * have a current child support order
 * be unemployed or not making regular payments
 * not be receiving Temporary Aid for Needy Families (TANF) assistance or assistance
   funded with state dollars counting towards TANF maintenance of effort (MOE)
 * not be enrolled in a Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Employment
   Training Program
 * not be receiving the same job services under Workforce Investment Act (WIA)
 * not receiving a Federal Pell Grant.

The GOP claims to have introduced H.R. 2688 to ensure that any changes are submitted
to legislators and voted on instead of becoming law through an Executive Order signed
by President Obama. Of course, it is no secret that the GOP has failed to support
many programs designed to assist those living in poverty in their time of need. 
For example, Nick Wing and Arthur Delaney of the Huffington Post (2015) reported
that Missouri State Representative, Rick Brattin (R), proposed banning food stamp
recipients from using their Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) to buy steak and seafood.

![\"\"](\"https://www.https://thechildsupporthustle.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/
08/IMG_1174-2.jpegwp-content/uploads/2025/08/IMG_1174-2-1.jpegwp-content/uploads/
2024/04/two-housholds-child-support.jpg.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Screenshot-
134.png\")

Banning low-income people from eating, arguably, healthy food is immoral and unethical.
If it is not illegal, it most certainly should be placed in that category. Singling
out items that may seem too expensive to be consumed by a poor taxpayer proves the
insensitivity many GOP leaders express when deciding on critical legislative decisions.
GOP leaders attempted to decrease the number of people receiving public assistance
across the country by mandating that applicants pass a drug test before being approved
for any benefits.

Consider states that have recently passed legislation to drug test public assistance
applicants and recipients. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures
or NCSL (2015), Utah passed H.B. 155 requiring individuals applying for cash assistance
to complete a written questionnaire screening for illegal drug use. Georgia, Tennessee,
and Oklahoma have implemented drug testing laws and Utah, and all states have Republican
governors. Florida is a state that has passed a drug testing law for TANF recipients,
which is ruled unconstitutional by two federal courts.

Governor Rick Scott signed an executive order requiring that state employees and
public assistance recipients submit to a random drug test. Stacy Singer of the Palm
Beach Post (2011) conveyed that hundreds of thousands of Floridians could have been
affected, forcing them to submit to drug tests or risk losing their public jobs 
and benefits. After a few years and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) involvement,
the higher courts have forced Governor Scott to surrender. The Huffington Post (
2015) reported that U.S. District Judge Mary Scriven in Orlando initially declared
the law requiring urine tests for the applicants to be unconstitutional search and
seizure. Scott has publicly announced that his Administration would not appeal the
ruling. The refusal to appeal does not mean, of course, that a new governor will
not attempt to pass legislation in the future to drug test TANF applicants and recipients.

This defeat for Scott has nothing to do with the fact that the 11th Circuit found
that only about 206 percent of Florida welfare applicants failed the drug test during
the four months the law was in effect (Huffington Post, 2015). Drug testing poor
people in need of a safety net is yet another illustration of the lack of compassion
displayed by the GOP. Suppose these officials are left to vote on passing an effective
employment program that will benefit low-income parents. In that case, voters must
consider all of the other programs that Republicans have attempted to disband over
the years.

A final issue that Republican leaders are challenging pertains to the Executive 
Order declaring new policies regarding the incarceration of NCPs and the state plan.
According to Camp and Hatch (2015), the NPRM creates a new condition requiring a
state to provide notice to both parties when a non-custodial parent (NCP) is incarcerated.
The current law does not include such a provision. In most states, the NCP must 
affirmatively request to have their orders modified (CLASP, 2015). Failure to automatically
adjust child support orders for incarcerated parents is one of the main reasons,
along with the fact that most states treat incarceration as voluntary unemployment,
that child support arrears become too unmanageable for parents upon release.

There is nothing in the child support federal statute that requires the state to
notify an incarcerated parent of any request for child support modifications. As
explained in the Flexibility, Efficiency, and Modernization in Child Support Enforcement
Programs (2014), states may elect to initiate a review of an order after being notified
that an NCP will be incarcerated for more than 90 days. Automatic child support 
reviews should already be a process written into the statutes considering most incarcerated
parents do not earn incomes. No national data specifies how much parents (some non-
biological) truly owe in arrears upon their release from prison; however, a few 
states have provided those statistics.

For instance, in a study conducted on 650 parental inmates in Massachusetts, there
was an average of over $10k in child support debt owed upon the day of entry. Without
modifications, and after completing the prison sentence, the released parents were
buried in child support debt. According to Jessica Pearson (2004), they (the parents)
will accumulate another $12,461 in child support debt, plus 12% interest ($6,254)
and 6% penalty charges ($3,128). By implementing the new statute found in §303.8,
parents will have a better opportunity of overcoming barriers upon their release,
thus being better providers for their children.

The GOP is more concerned that the current required contents of state plans are 
authorized in, and typically amended by, statute (Camp and Hatch, 2015). If the 
people in charge were actively seeking ways to assist parents and revise child support
laws to ensure a better system, perhaps the signing of an Executive Order would 
not have been necessary. The NPRM has introduced solid and viable solutions to pressing
issues that most NCPs, if not all low-income parents, experience. Since incarceration
is a possible punishment that could end a parent’s freedom for at least one day 
or even years (14 in Idaho), there must be stipulations on the law books to protect
the rights of an incarcerated NCP

The NPRM offers another protection to both imprisoned NCPs and free custodial parents,
which has garnered disapproval from some in the Republican Party. The Flexibility,
Efficiency, and Modernization in Child Support Enforcement Programs (2014) lists
a proposal stating that the state must provide notice when the agency learns that
a non-custodial parent is incarcerated to the incarcerated parent and the custodial
parent. The current law does nothing to specify any notice conditions of a jailed
parent. Because the Feds have no mandate forcing child support agencies to notify
parents of a significant change in circumstances, payments, arrears penalties, and
fees will continue to accumulate without any official notification about the debt
or the case to either parent. A significant change in circumstance is why a parent
can submit a modification request.

Under the new statute, both parents are informed of the right to request the state
to review and, upon request, to adjust the order (The Flexibility, Efficiency, and
Modernization in Child Support Enforcement Programs, 2014). By implementing this
seemingly minor process, the tariff parents allegedly owed, millions (perhaps billions)
of dollars, can be reduced across the nation. It is no secret that former President
Clinton and the Republican-led Congress are responsible for the atrocity called 
the Deadbeat Punishment Act of 1998. This attempt to recover welfare payments from
non-custodial parents has been an almost complete failure where low-income families
are concerned.

The government fares far better in collections and retention of child support payments
courtesy of the collection and distribution laws. The Obama Administration, following
federal guidelines, has proposed legitimate and desperately needed changes to the
unconstitutional child support system. These proposals offer minimal improvement
to the law. Yet, Republican officials would instead pass a law arguing against the
avenue used to implement the changes instead of having a serious discussion about
the benefits of a systematic facelift. This stall tactic will only prolong the passing
of much-needed improvements to the child support system and possibly eliminate others.

The delay will continue while children and parents suffer from the current child
support laws. Make no mistake, even with the possible improvements, the system remains
exceptionally flawed. The Child Support Enforcement agencies need a complete overhaul,
both state and federal. Parents should not be ‘nickel and dimed’ when going to court
over child support and visitation issues.

There should be no discussion about whether or not the state should halt the accumulation
of arrears for an incarcerated parent. The government needs to abolish laws allowing
the incarceration of poor parents and adding the burden of heavy debt on these parents.
In America, low-income and poor parents need more employment and training programs,
especially as the country continues to recover from the recession. Furthermore, 
child support agencies should notify people of any possible changes to child support
orders in writing.

Parents need notification, and incarceration should not bar them from that right.
People have the right to know when someone has named them in a lawsuit. Equally 
as important is knowing when a judgment changes for or against their best interest.
It is time to hold all politicians responsible for repairing the broken child support
system and the destroyed lives that directly result from failed child support policies.

References:

_Camp, D., & Hatch, O. (2014, December 22). Ways and means forms. Retrieved from_

_House of Representatives. (2015). H.R.2688 – 114th Congress (2015-2016): To block
any action from being taken to finalize or give effect to a certain proposed rule
governing the Federal child support enforcement program. | Congress.gov | Library
of congress. Retrieved from _

_Huffington Post. (2015, March 5). Rick scott gives up trying To drug test florida
welfare applicants. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/05/florida-
welfare-drug-testing\_n\_6807268.html_

_National Conference of State Legislatures. (2015, May 8). Drug testing for welfare
recipients and public assistance. Retrieved from http://www.ncsl.org/research/human-
services/drug-testing-and-public-assistance.aspx_

_NPRM: Flexibility, Efficiency, and Modernization in Child Support Enforcement Programs
| Office of Child Support Enforcement | Administration for Children and Families.(
2014, November 17). Retrieved from _

_Pearson, J. (2004, March 9). Building debt while doing time: Child support and 
incarceration. Retrieved from _

_PolicyLink. (2015, January 12). The new proposed child support rule: What it means
for low-income fathers. Retrieved from http://www.policylink.org/sites/default/files/
1%2012%2015-ChildSupportRule-Slides.pdf_

_Singer, S. (2011, March 11). Gov. rick scott’s drug testing policy stirs suspicion.
Retrieved from http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/business/gov-rick-scotts-drug-testing-
policy-stirs-suspicio/nLq8f/_

_U.S.  Department of Health and Human Services, & Office of Child Support Enforcement.(
2014, March). Changing a child support order. Retrieved from _

_U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, & Office of Child Support Enforcement.(
2015, March). The national child support noncustodial parent employment demonstration(
CSPED). Retrieved from _

_Ways and Means Committee. (2015). House, senate lawmakers announce bill to reaffirm
congress’ role in welfare policy – Ways and means. Retrieved from [http://waysandmeans.house.gov/house-senate-lawmakers-announce-bill-to-reaffirm-congress-role-in-welfare-policy/](https://thechildsupporthustle.com/the-republican-opposition-to-proposed-child-support-changes/\"http://waysandmeans.house.gov/house-senate-lawmakers-announce-bill-to-reaffirm-congress-role-in-welfare-policy/\")_

_Wing, N., & Delaney, A. (2015, April 21). A day in the life of a welfare recipient,
according to_

_GOP legislation. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/21/welfare-_

_Recipients-gop-legislation\_n\_7103126.html_