Little Hoover Report
This AP article appeared in the San Diego Union-Tribune
REGION UPDATE
Child support called lax
From the Union-Tribune News Services
14 May 1997, Wednesday
SACRAMENTO--Fewer than one in eight California children who are entitled to financial help from an absent parent actually get that aid, according to a state watchdog sharply critical of child support enforcement efforts.
Every child counts, and California has been committed to enforcing child support since the days when cases were rare and the numbers few," said Richard R. Terzian, chairman of the Little Hoover Commission. "(But) today, one in three children are born out of wedlock. Four in 10 children are not living with both of their biological parents....3.5 million in California require child support services," he said.
Terzian's comments were contained in a letter to state lawmakers announcing the commission's study released yesterday on enforcing child support collections.
Letter to the San Diego Union-Tribune
Gina Lubrano
Reader's Representative (readers.rep@uniontrib.com)
San Diego Union Tribune
P.O. Box 191
San Diego, CA 92112-4106
Dear Ms. Lubrano:
Your 5/14/97 issue (Child support called lax) includes an incomplete statistic that through omission encourages a wholly false conclusion.
The article fails to mention that the "fewer than one in eight" applies only to a very highly selected group. By failing to point out what that group is, you promote and encourage the false and defamatory notion that the group is "all fathers." This is irresponsible and prejudicial journalism.
The group from which the "one in eight" statistic was derived includes mostly women receiving AFDC: welfare mothers, in common terms. Poor mothers usually procreate with poor fathers. Thus, the realistic interpretation of the "one in eight" statistic is: "fewer than one in eight children of *poor* *fathers* actually receive the child support they are owed."
This distinction is routinely ignored by reporters at your publication. We hope this is due to carelessness or lack of knowledge. We request that you make a sincere effort to make them aware of the reality of these statistics to prevent future misstatements like the one cited.
Another distinction routinely ignored in reporting is that between *owed* child support and *un-owed* child support. Child support is only owed when there is a court order in place. The Census Bureau reports consistently show that 75% of child support dollars owed are paid. Here, the group could be said to include "all fathers." The 25% of owed child support that goes unpaid does indeed include some "deadbeats", but also includes fathers who have fallen on hard times, fathers who have been sent to prison, and even dead fathers.
Now as to the *un-owed* child support. Un-owed child support can only be estimated, and these estimates have so far been based on wildly optimistic assumptions about fathers involved. In fact, the author of the most widely publicized un-owed support study, Elaine Sorensen of the Urban Institute, has acknowledged some of her errors, although the "34 Billion Owed By Deadbeat Dads" headline has never been retracted or corrected: "How is the current system unfair to lower income fathers? In most cases, their child support orders are in excess of their ability to pay." [see attached article from the Washington Post].
There are many reasons why support orders may not be in place. The Census Bureau asked the mothers why no orders were in place; here are the mothers' answers from GAO/HRD-92-39FS
NONCUSTODIAL FATHERS' RESIDENCE
| Reasons for lack of award | IN-STATE | INTERSTATE | "OTHER" |
| Final agreement pending | 6% | 7% | 2% |
| Other financial agreement made | 7% | 4% | 3% |
| Wanted support but: | > | ||
| Did not pursue award | 21% | 19% | 13% |
| Father financially unable to pay | 17% | 12% | 10% |
| Unable to locate father | 7% | 17% | 34% |
| Unable to establish paternity | 3% | 2% | 2% |
| Other | 17% | 15% | 17% |
| Did not want support | 22% | 24% | 19% |
| TOTAL | 100% | 100% | 100% |
When the mother "did not want support" from the father, is the father a "deadbeat?" Fabricators of outrage statistics say "yes".
When the mother "did not pursue" an award, is the father a "deadbeat?" Fabricators of outrage statistics say "yes".
When the mother says "Father financially unable to pay" is the father a "deadbeat?" Fabricators of outrage statistics say "yes".
Is a father a "deadbeat" when he does not even know he has a child? Fabricators of outrage statistics say "yes".
Totaling it up, fully half of the cases in which there are no orders have nothing to do with the father. It can be seen that most of these involve the mother declining to cooperate.
Dishonestly lumping all *un-owed* child support into the "deadbeat" bin has resulted in a variety of legislative weapons (such as driver's license suspension) which are then used against men who lose their jobs and temporarily cannot pay their support. False outrage statistics have driven legislators to try and solve the wrong problems. Fathers who lose their jobs must now go to court to try to get their support modified before the go to the unemployment office, or risk having their license suspended.
It is true that some real deadbeats are being caught. But, in a panic to make their own statistics look better, child support enforcement offices prefer to go after the easy targets rather than trying to arrest the deadbeat dads living in homeless shelters.
The idea that we can force poor fathers to support two households is pathologically misguided. It is destined to consume untold resources before ultimately being doomed to fail.
I look forward to a reply in this matter at your earliest convenience.
Sincerely,
Jay Bowden
COPS Member
Attachments:
Subject: Deadbeat Dads? Look Closer, Copyright 1996 by Christian Science Monitor
Bureaucratic fiats on how much is owed don't tell the whole story.
Deadbeat dads are the special targets of politicians hungry for the perfect scapegoat. Child-support enforcement must be tougher and toughter until all of these deadbeat dads are made to feel the lash, and all will be well.
I have put hundreds of these deadbeat dads in jail, and I have collected child support from tens of thousands of them. I was the primary or only trial attorney in three child-support enforcement offices for eight years, and then I ran the Oklaholma child-support enforcement program for three years.
The read deadbeat dad is seldom a model citizen, but he is even more seldom then the mythical monster described by politicians. Most deadbeat dads are frightened, angry, and depressed men who fall into several overlapping categories:
Remarried Supporter
A large percentage of deadbeat dads remarried and are supporting several
step-children or biological children from a second marriage. Often this
family is poorer than the household of his ex-wife, who may have married
a more successful breadwinner. It is also common for the ex-wife of a deadbeat
dad to have remarried another deadbeat dad, who is supporting her and her
children.
Men in Poverty
Many deadbeat dads are homeless, and an even greater percentage are
poor. Because the calculation of a woman's income excludes many of the
social welfare benefits she receives, the statistical picture of women
in poverty is highly misleading. Not only are many deadbeat dads destitute,
it is often their failures as providers which led their ex-wives to divorce
them. I prosecuted one deadbeat dad who had been hospitalized for malnutrition
and another who lived in the bed of a pic-up truck. Many times I prosecuted
impoverished men on behalf of ex-wives who had remarried successful men
and were living in comfortable conditions.
Fathers Helping Mother
Men who provide non-monetary support are deadbeat dads according tot
he child-support system. Mothers and fathers often work out agreements
for child support that involve dad fixing the car, buying groceries, baby-sitting
the children, orgetting clothes for the children.
These men may be unemployed, but they want to help their children. Sometimes they are concerned that monetary suppot doesn't benefit the children, but the mother's newest boyfriend -- or that it goes to buy drugs or alcohol. None of the non-monetary support counts, even if the mother and father want it to count and even if they agree in writing that it should count.
Fathers Paying Child Support
Child support is "paid" only when it's paid in a bureaucratically acceptable
form. In a child-support program, the jargon for other means of payment
is a "shoe box full of receipts" -- which means a father who was paying
his support, but not through court or the program.
I had thousands of these cases. In one, the mother signed an affidavit that the dad had never paid. But when confronted with receipts acknoledged that he had always paid support. Why would she do that? she was on welfare; her child support became the property of the state and federal government. If she keeps the child support, it is welfare fraud.
Why would concerned fathers pay child support directly to the mother? The bookkeeping in child support offices is atrocious. The mother could be confused with another woman or the paying father with another man.
Men with actual custody
Yes, even men who are raising in their homes the very children for
whom child support is sought are deadbeat dads. If a court order says that
the mother has custody and is entitled to child support, and if the mother
gives the father the children because she cannot control them or has other
problems, then he is still liable for child support.
Most of the fathers I prosecuted said that they would raise their children with no help from the government and with no help from mom, if given the chance.
Men who can't find their children
Even the inability to find children to support is no excuse. The mother
may leave the state with their young children and not tell the father where
she is for five years. The child-support system can, and does, go in and
collect five years of delinquent child support from this deadbeat dad.
In some cases, of course, the mother has a very good reason because of
domestic abuse, but in other cases it is the father's allegations of child
abuse by the mother which prompt her to tun.
Fathers who love their kids, but won't work for them
This is different, of course, from mothers on welfare who won't support
their kids. The former are creeps and the latter are victims of society.
The sad fact, however, is that children have precisely one set of parents,
and if the parents can provide emotional support, that is at least as valuable
as economic support. Many deadbeat dads love their children just as much
as the mothers on public assistance who don't support their children either.
The social costs of driving dad into another state or putting him in jail
are seldom considered in the calculus of child-support enforcement benefits.
Child-support resistors. Let's take the case of the "worst deadbeat dad in the country." He fit none of the above categories. He had money; he knew where his children were; he had no excuse. And he was almost half a million dollars in arrears on child support. But how much child support was this man ordered to pay each month? $5,000? $10,000? There are middle-class men who are obligated to pay half of their take-home pay as child support. Mandatory child-support guidelines remove from parties and even courts the power to determine what support is fair and reasonable.
The guidelines are based on an "income sharing" model which presumes what the needs of the children are (instead of actually examining the needs of the children). The result? A growing class of men who - on principle - would rather go to jail than pay support.
There are solutions:
Permit mothers to receive directly and to keep any child support she gets without turning any of it over to the government. This will help families because it will let them keep all the support paid, and it will remove the child-support program with its slow, error-prone distribution of child-support payments.
Allow courts to consider all the children a man is supporting. It is absurd to ignore the impact of child-support enforcement on step-children and second biological families.
Let parents reach agreements on support and custody. If the mother feels that dad's willingness to provide day care while she works or goes to school should offset some child support, who does it hurt? If an incorrigible young man needs to live with dad a year to get his life in order, let the parents agree to waive dad's child support.
Base child support upon the actual needs of the child, not the theoretical needs of a statistical average child. Each situation is different, and it should produce different results.
Finally, recognize that the primary value of fathers to children is not as "finanacial objects." If there is one clear need today, it is for fathers to be closer to their children. Fathers are as irreplaceable in the lives of children as mothers. We recognize that mother who - for whatever reason - do not financially support their children still have a vital role to play in the lives of the children. The same is true of fathers.
Bruce Walker is executive coordinator at the District Attorney's Council in Oklaholma City, Oklaholma.
Attachment 2: Article
This woman is the author of the study from which the "$34 Billion Owed by Deadbeat Dads" headline was misquoted. Does this look like an about-face?
Elaine Sorensen (Washington Post, November 15, 1995)
A Little Help for Some "Deadbeat" Dads
The latest census figures show that "deadbeat" dads owe more than $5 billion in child support to 2.3 million custodial mothers and their children.
As a part of its welfare reform legislation. Congress therefore proposes to increase child-support enforcement. Some of the provisions of this bill would deny means-tested benefits such as food stamps and Medicaid to noncustodial fathers who are more than two months behind in their child support.
On the face of it, this appears to be a good policy. Congress wants to send a message to nonpaying parents that the government doesn't condone their behavior. The more fundamental goal-to augment child support collections - is also of course, worthy.
But the costs of this legislation would exceed its benefits. The perverse effect would be not to increase child support collections significantly but to plunge more children further into poverty and alienate noncustodial fathers from the child support system.
To understand the effects of this provision, it is important to know whom it targets. Based on urban Institute estimates from U.S. census data, as many as 700,000 noncustodial fathers could be affected either because they have a child-support order but don't pay up or because they don't have a child-support order. Fathers not yet in the formal child support system will ask themselves why they should cooperate with authorities if doing so could jeopardize their benefits.
This bill is aimed at a group of fathers whose ability to pay child support is already quite limited. The median personal income of these fathers was $430 a month in 1990 (the poverty line for a single individual that year was $567 a month). Almost two-thirds of these fathers were not working at the time of the census survey. Nearly 40 percent of the noncustodial fathers potentially affected by this legislation are receiving supplemental security income (SSI) or Medicaid, which means they are disabled and unable to work or are medically needy. About half are receiving food stamps or are in public housing. The feast 10 percent of nonpaying fathers who are receiving public assistance are collecting Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), Although these fathers have children living - elsewhere, it is also worth noting that about 60 percent of them are living with children. This legislation would push one group of children further into poverty in an effort to improve the economic circumstances of another - group of children, which would not achieve our ultimate goal of reducing child poverty.
Poor fathers should be expected to pay child support; but their child support orders should be set at levels commensurate with their ability to pay. The proposed legislation adds a layer of: unfairness to the child-support system, which is already unfair to this population. Fathers who perceive gross inequities in the child support system will turn their backs on it and choose not to comply, taking with them potential sources of increased child support.
How is the current system unfair to lower income fathers? In most cases, their child support orders are in excess of their ability to pay. Noncustodial fathers who become unemployed or disabled cannot simply walk into a support enforcement office and have their orders adjusted downward as the result of their change in status. The process for adjusting orders is quite bureaucratic-information must be verified, forms reviewed, and in many states a judge must approve the modification. This takes time and, often, money.
There also is a reluctance to reduce child support orders on the assumption that incomes will eventually improve. But in the meantime arrearages accumulate. According to U.S. census data, only 4 percent of noncustodial fathers who were paying child support under an order received downward adjustment when their earnings felt by more than 15 percent between one year and the next.
Until this aspect of the child support system is improved, government should begin to think of more positive ways to enable these fathers to pay their child support obligations. One suggestion is to offer a safety net to poor fathers daring hard times as long as they cooperate in establishing a repayment plan for the past due child support. Such repayment plans should reflect noncustodial fathers current income in accordance with the child support guidelines in the relevant state.
The child-support system needs to be more flexible regarding changes in the economic circumstances of noncustodial fathers. Some of them have experienced a hardship and have become eligible for means-tested benefits. Offering flexibility to these fathers will increase the chance that they will pay child support later when they are better able to do so.
The writer is a senior research associate at the Urban Institute.
The San Diego Union-Tribune printed this "clarification" after speaking with Jim Mayer of Little Hoover (916) 445-2125.
CLARIFICATION
A May 14 Associated Press story on a study by the Little Hoover Commission said it found "fewer than one in eight California children who are entitled to financial help from an absent parent actually get that aid." In fact, the "one in eight" applies to welfare children and to children whose parents ask the district attorney for help in getting financial aid from an absent parent. (970531, A-4)
I wrote another letter to the San Diego Union-Tribune. This letter was not printed or responded to.
1971 Galveston Street
San Diego, CA 92110
June 5, 1997
The clarification printed in your 31 May 1997 issue of the AP story regarding child support enforcement fails to correct the false "dads don't pay" message of the original article.
The Census Bureau reported that for 1991, 67% of child support dollars owed were payed (Series P60-187). That's two-thirds. The one-third of dollars owed that goes unpaid does include some "deadbeats" (willful non-payment), but it also includes the destitute, disabled, imprisoned, and those who are paying but not through the bureaucratic channels.
The group that was selected to manufacture the "only one of eight children are receiving support" line includes mostly poor fathers. Keep in mind that the state held out by the Little Hoover as the model they suggest California follow (Massachusetts) was (through extraordinary suspension of due process rights) only able to increase the "one out of eight" to "two out of eight."
The Little Hoover report also says "California [already] has the toughest enforcement tools in the nation." Finding willful non-payers is good. Criminalizing poor fathers is misguided. False statistics promote false beliefs, like the idea that by squeezing poor fathers, we can force them to support two households. The reality is that mom must work also.
Groups like the American Coalition for Fathers and Children work to debunk false dadbashing statistics. Call them at 1-800-978-DADS.
Sincerely
Jay C. Bowden
I also asked Jim Mayer (of Little Hoover), since he acknowledged that the AP article was in error, to write a generic "To whom it may concern" letter stating that the AP article was in error to have quoted that statistic out of context. He declined to do so. I would encourage anyone who wants to call him and try to change him mind. (916) 445-2125 or see http://www.lhc.ca.gov/lhc.html