 longer holds this view). Because it is not an entitlement program, but rather a collection program, IV-D did not create an individual right, nor an enforceable right, see Blessing v. Freestone.
Major reform of child support was completed in 1984 by Congress to protect those women and children who were at risk of falling back into public assistance once they had left welfare, if they did not receive child support form the father. Up to this point, the OCSE was collecting no money for non-welfare cases. Additional enforcement measures were introduced in 1984 in enhance IV-D collections. Available evidence showed a high rate of payment but Congress decided to create the US Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE). In the mid 1980s OCSE promoted itself as an essential element in the economy fighting a foe so sinister and destructive that it threatened the nation…they found the “right hook.” While the 1984 amendments expanded the scope of federal involvement for the two specific classes it intended to protect, there is no evidence that they expanded the class to include the wealthy and affluent.
Congressional records support the constitutional limitations of the program confining the law to only two classes of individuals for which there is a compelling state interest. There is no opposition to government intervention when there is a genuine legitimate government interest. The private class was never discussed, because the private class was never an intended recipient for the government collection of child support. The program was designed strictly as a punitive program to force the willful non-payer to pay child support according to their ability to pay, in order to reduce a taxpayer burden.
The purpose and intent of the IV-D program was clear. It was designed to be a welfare off-set program. The IV-D program was set up as a collection agency for the purpose of cost recovery or cost avoidance to lower cost to the taxpayer and reduce the financial burden on the government for those mothers and children who were dependent on the government for their basic needs. The U.S. House Ways and Means Committee Green Book, 2000, clearly indicates the IV-D program was meant for two classes of single parent families: 1) those on welfare, and 2) those formerly on welfare and at risk of being back on welfare if they don’t receive their child support payment.
The purpose and intent of the program was to prevent women and children from falling into poverty when they were abandoned by the chief or sole wager earner, (assumed to be the dad), resulting in their dependence on the government. And who is funding this program? The taxpayer. This program was based on the belief that men were the sole financial providers and women were incapable of taking care of themselves financially. The IV-D program was designed to protect those roles.
This altered thinking can distort public policy, resulting in usurpation of congressional intent. The IV-D system has instead become a paradise of position power for all man-haters and money grubbing bureaucrats hungry for control.
The program is now costing taxpayers billions instead of saving millions. The program is now destroying families by escalating the conflict and driving the father away, rather than bringing dads back to their families. The program is providing taxpayer subsidies for one parent at the exclusion of the other parent who receives no similar subsidies.
Once the program was expanded to increase enforcement, analysts at the Cato Institute, known for its objective analysis, characterized the federal child support enforcement program as "big brother" government intrusion that threatens privacy rights.
The IV-D program has been expanded to include any and all private cases where there is no compelling state interest. The Minnesota DHS testifies and documents a consistent message, “the feds make us do it.” These unexamined assumptions have become problematic. There are six major problems with this program, which include: 1) There are NO eligibility standards being used by the state/county agency for Title IV-D welfare services. The application requires no evidence of financial need (this is the only welfare program that is not means-tested). The applicant requires no evidence of an existing child support order nor does it require previous private attempts to collect before asking for government assistance. The application requires no evidence of a collection problem or arrears (no proof of a problem required) before the government intervenes; 2) There is NO disclosure of applicant’s income required or requested on the Title IV-D welfare application; 3) There is NO process in place by the state/county agency to notify the other responsible parent and let them take charge of the child before the government does, even if one fit parent is willing and able to provide in lieu of public assistance; 4) There is NO application approval process in place by state/county agency – so every applicant gets approved and is encouraged, even solicited, regardless of need or circumstance; 5) There is NO investigation or verification of the accuracy of information provided on the application; 6) There is NO process in place to CLOSE the file when one parent objects claiming their statutory right pursuant to 42 USC 1301 (d).
To the dismay of most citizens, music icon Michael Jackson would qualify for IV-D welfare services if he lived in Minnesota. Our tax dollars would be spent to prosecute the mother of his children for child support. If that example seems too unrealistic, a person (generally the custodial mom) could be sitting in a $2 million home in North Oaks (or the most prestigious neighborhood in your area) making $200,000 a year (as an attorney or some other lucrative field), regularly receiving $5000 a month child support (from the father), and she could sign up for IV-D because she decided that she really "deserves" to get $8000 a month child support because she “thinks” and claims the fathers income warrants it. If you think this is rare, think again. There are examples in every county. We believe that is taxpayer fraud, and is contrary to why child support legislation was created.
This overreach of authority has become the accepted norm even though there is no basis in law. No one has questioned this program. Most citizens are not aware of the misapplication of the program. Most citizens don’t realize that the overreach of government authority can even be questioned. Most citizens do not know they are not required by federal law to be in the IV-D program unless the custodial parent and child(ren) are on public assistance. Most magistrates (better known as the DHS collection police) seize jurisdiction in private cases, like an assumable mortgage.
Does Congress require the taxpayers of Minnesota to fund a welfare program for affluent, wealthy, self sufficient upper class families, where the state has no public interest? This current practice is no only bad policy but unconstitutional.
Like caged birds singing the company tune, the PR machine went into full gear with the phrase “deadbeat dad.” The IV-D child support enforcement system was set up to locate and collect from dads who had abandoned their families, leaving women and children at the mercy of public assistance. Those who have promoted the overreach of IV-D authority have done so by marketing two of their favorite arguments: 1) the exaggerated child support arrears problem, 2) the powerful ploy to demonize and punish all deadbeat dads and beat them into submission or jail; and somehow argue that is in the “best interest of children.” This powerful attack and persuasive pitch displays that to win in politics is to say the lie often enough that it becomes fact. The truth is, there are very few deadbeats. We must stop allowing emotions to govern the law of the day.
What is a deadbeat dad? A well known attorney, and former Speaker of the House in Minnesota, has defined this person as willful non-payers who has the money but is not providing for the basic needs of his children and leaving them to public assistance. His research also shows the true stereotypical deadbeat amounts to no more than 15% of the uncollected child support debt, and the remaining arrears are accumulated because the debtors are simply incapable of ever paying that debt.
Much has been written about the “dead broke” dad, but promoters of the deadbeat dad theory quickly dismiss those facts (of unemployment, inability to self-sustain, impoverished due to child support, etc) as rhetoric from “angry men just hiding their assets.” However, in a widely distributed and often quoted report, the General Accounting Office has found that 66% of the non-custodial parents in arrears don’t pay because they can’t afford to pay.
Additionally, the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study, a joint project of Princeton and Columbia universities support this. The project studied poor, unwed parents and their children in 20 cities over a five-year period beginning at the birth of their children. The study's results so far strongly contradict the stereotypes about low-income unmarried fathers. Researchers found the new nurturing fathers want to be involved in their children's lives and support their new families. Clearly, many fathers end up not paying child support not because they don't want to, but because they lack sufficient skills to earn the money to do so.
The deadbeat dad myth trails the history of child support. Child support was set up to locate and collect squeeze payments from those who had abandoned their families. Those who abandoned their families disappeared and were nowhere to be found. They were abdicating their financial and moral responsibility, as well as their emotional support, leaving the family completely void of a very important role in the family unit.
During the 1970’s, fathers groups, unclear who the law was meant for, were offended by the term “abandoned,” so Congress changed the term to “absent,” without every changing the real definition of the father they were targeting. Then, at some point, the term “absent” was changed in the law to “non-custodial parent.”