Family Court, Child Support, & SSA Title IV-D Reform

Nationally, the “Family Court System” has become a money and power driven monster alienating nearly everybody that comes into contact with it. Established in 1975, under a then new “Part D”, of “Title IV of the Social Security Act”, this government program, usually called the "Title IV-D" program ­ is a Federal/State partnership whose primary mission is to enforce child support obligations against non-custodial parents. These provisions, including the later “Bradley Amendment” of 1976, under the color of public interest, the well being of children specifically, are in need of serious revisions of amendment if not outright elimination.

Title IV-D of the Social Security Act, among other related matters of practice regarding "Child Support" and the family court apparatus, is a perversion of justice and repugnant to the Constitution.

The state family courts, and their state Title IV-D sub-component agencies, however superficially well-intentioned, again at face value, do not seem to spend resources tracking down true “deadbeat” parents; parents who never were involved with their children, who never contributed or supported towards their genuine interests, and or who don’t as a matter of unemployment generate income to go after, as likely a matter of being more work than they’d prefer, with less of a return or no return for said efforts. Rather family courts and these Title IV-D sub-component agencies seem to prefer going after a more low-hanging-fruit; represented often by a non-custodial parent who IS active in the life of their child, or was prior to state intervention, and who IS supporting their child financially, once proceedings are initiated against the termed non-custodial parent by an often vindictive or greedy termed custodial parent; often only as a means of damaging the non-custodial parents quality of life, or worse, rather than out of genuine demonstrated need or interest of the child(ren).

What is happening to too many innocent people, typically non-custodial parents who DO support their children are, or were up until state involvement, actively involved in the lives of their child(ren) is a crime and nothing is being done about it. Often; spiteful or narcissistic custodial parents abuse the system of child support solely as a mechanism to to punish another party, rather than a need for a financial support from a non-custodial parent already providing in many cases just that... and all under the color of law, with the family courts and their Title IV-D sub-components to do their de-facto bidding.

These family courts will often then go after the non-custodial parent for more than half their gross income, not NET, even in cases where the custodial parents income is close to, matches, or even exceeds that of the non-custodial parent. They, the court, will not account for the fact that under their “lawful” schema, that they are often robbing the non-custodial parent / then termed obliger of their means to live, to produce a tangible income, and then proceed to award that ordered, or seized wage garnishment, pay to the custodial parent / then termed obligee without care or concern, at least with force of law, as how that state ordered / seized pay is then spent by the custodial parent.

The family courts and their Title IV-D sub-components predicate all of this, again, in the name of being in “the best interest of the child”. Even IF a family court judge is willing to acknowledge the aforementioned, they will tend to immediately take the stance of having somehow been offended, and again cite that the sole consideration of the court is "the best interest of the child"... without further, apparent, regard for the fact that the issue is entirely more complex than that. In the short term, at face value, this fashion of operating has the appearance of magnanimity again "in the best interest of the child", but strategically it creates an impossible situation that in many cases IS NOT in the interest of anyone involved, least of all the child.

It is somehow “just” that it is against the law, a felony, for the then obliger to fail to pay even if they genuinely cannot; as per the 1986 Bradley Amendment, which in effect re-creates debtors prison. If the non-custodial parent obliger cannot afford to live at this point, after having, often the case, over half their NET income taken by the state; I.E. cannot pay his, or her rarely, rent, utilities, mandated and various insurances, food, water, and other debt bearing obligations, then in the eyes of the family court, the state, that all of this is the non-custodial parent obligers problem and he, or rarely she, is subject to numerous consequences including being jailed in a modern day de-facto debtors prison. Non-custodial parents are often encouraged by the family court and specifically their Title IV-D sub-component agency to enter into bankruptcy proceedings to alleviate their other debt bearing obligations, which in turn affects their credit, and possibly employment, which in turn affects their ability to pay this princely ransom to the state, much less maintain the stability personally or financially to act in and contribute to the best interest and welfare of their child(ren). In the event the non-custodial parent is in an employment position, for instance, wherein he or she holds a governmental security clearance, subject to revocation for credit related issues for example, this necessity or consequence, of having entered into bankruptcy proceedings, or of having a state family court or their Title IV-D agency influence their credit rating could in theory affect their ability to retain gainful employment.

A non-custodial parent who has effectively all of their tangible, NET income seized and redistributed by the state or its relevant sub-components, can often not effectively continue to persist in life but under the worst possible conditions, affecting their well beings, mental health, and ultimately their ability to effectively generate income and to provide financial and other support for their child(ren) could effectively be eliminated. Thus this mechanism is in obvious direct conflict with its predicated purpose of being “in the best interest of the child”.

An incarcerated non-custodial parent does not generate an income, and can not be with, or support, I.E. act in, or provide for, the best interest of his or her children. Too many non-custodial parents, not surprisingly, end up taking their own lives as a result of their lives and livelihoods effectively being ruined. A dead non-custodial parent obviously can not be with their child(ren) and does not generate an income, and can not be with, or support, I.E. act in, or provide for, the best interest of his or her children.

Further there is no provision, or effective law, that provides criminal penalty for the misuse of these funds paid to the custodial parent / obligee. The state family courts, and their title IV-D sub-component agencies extract these payments from non-custodial parents through threat of force and incarceration, under the color of law, under the pretext of acting in “the best interest of the child”. Yet there is NO / ZERO legal penalty under ANY provision or law if a custodial parent then utilizes said payment for purposes inconsistent with “the best interest of the child” or in many cases spends that extracted funding on that which has nothing to do with the child at all. The state family courts and their Title IV-D sub-components are aware of this, and simply put do not care.

The state family courts, and their Title IV-D sub-components, thus are clearly NOT in good faith acting in “the best interest of the child”and fulfilling their stated mission... unless “that”, “the best interest of the child” is simply a smokescreen for some other interest. So long as the non-custodial parent in their equation pays up, they don’t care what the custodial parent does with the payment extracted, or it seems for the welfare of the child. All too often as a further matter, if a custodial parent, for instance, violates a family court order by not allowing the child(ren) their court order mandated parenting time or other scheduled activity, the Title IV-D entity takes no action, or limited action at best and only when forced to if the non-custodial parent petitions the court. On the other side of the equation, if a non-custodial parent deviates even slightly from that same order, the Title IV-D entity tends to "go after them with full effect of the law” without any such petition or request by part of the custodial parent. It is generally only when a non-custodial parent can not pay, or does not pay, that these state courts and Title IV-D entities seem to have issue.

In many cases it seems these entities almost encourage the progressive alienation of the non-custodial parent by the custodial parent, because these same entities “in the best interest of the child” don’t actually want that non-custodial parent to have a relationship with their child(ren) that might compromise even a small part of their ever growing funding stream at some point in time. It seems they are NOT in the business claimed, of serving the public good and acting “in the best interest of the child”, but some other interest chiefly funding.

There are a vast number of instances, even ONE would be unacceptable, wherein an often vindictive custodial parent is actually only utilizing this mechanism to punish the non-custodial party for some trespass, real or imagined, and does not actually NEED support financially; often then utilizing these funds as extra disposable income wherever and however they like.

In any other instance, a welfare recipient suffers under penalty of law the misuse of received benefits / funding. If a person, for instance, who is defrauding the state under a welfare program and supporting their, for example, narcotics addiction with said state sponsored funds can be prosecuted for a criminal offense... it is a gross injustice that a custodial parent could effective do the same with impunity, and with the full backing of a state agency turning a blind eye.

The family court judges, their Title IV-D sub-component agency personnel; none of them want to hear about it, any of these issues, ever, not from “grumbling obligers” and “deadbeats”, especially those who HAD been actively involved in their children's lives and supporting them before the state stepped in on behalf of the custodial party, besides, they have federal grant money under Title IV-D to go after, many might argue their true primary care and concern, and all under the predication of "the best interest of the child". The lawyers involved don't really care, beyond that they are paid by both parties to pretend to, as this monster puts dollars in their pockets; "Its the law”, they will say, or “its just the way it is”, and petitioning the lawmakers is often a “good luck” proposition at best.

Nobody wants to hear about it, or acknowledge it, because as often with most debacles beyond the obvious and simple; “if it’s not a problem for me, it’s not a problem for me”. That and because at a superficial face-value, this “system” appears to most who aren't intimate with it as a legitimate “in the interest of a,b,c” styled program, it becomes the matter of how dare anyone challenge it, how dare anyone argue that these state entities with a pretext towards a particular interest are not actually acting in that interest beyond maintaining a facade, or “in the best interest of children” again as they always predicate, and it becomes a “pay no attention to the man behind the curtain” issue.

Never mind the ethical and legal debacles, Title IV-D costs taxpayers billions in an attempt to recover millions. it is grossly inefficient and cumbersome, from a financial point of view it is a complete failure.

The whole of the “Family Court System” is compromised at best, corrupt at worst. The 1976 Bradley Amendment, and chiefly the Social Security Act Title IV-D is a monster. The state family courts and their Title IV-D sub-compartment agencies predicate their operation under the color of acting in the "best interest of the child". In practice, despite however hopefully well-intentioned, it seems that what is actually happening is that the court, and their respective sub-component Title IV-D “agencies” are looking after their Title IV-D grant funding and their own interests.

People are losing their children, their homes, their jobs and livelihoods, their freedom, and in too many cases, their lives. If even one person were to suffer such gross injustices as are commonplace with this schema, many more than one have, it is beyond fair to call for its immediate reform of Title IV-D, the family courts, and the whole child support schema and or its outright elimination.

Title IV-D was never enacted into positive law, family court judges are acting under 'color of law', legislating from the bench, and the collection of Title IV-D funds going to fund the compromised at best, corrupt at worst, family court system is in conflict of interest. The Separation of Powers Doctrine is also being violated.

Parents are labeled 'non-custodial parents, obligors, and plaintiffs' despite having been charged with no crime, afforded due process, or being given a trial by a jury of their peers. It is not about gender, or being a 'deadbeat' parent. It is about what is right and just. It is about decriminalizing simply being a parent.

Title IV-D, among aforementioned issues and consequences, infringes on basic parenting and civil rights and at the least fosters the grounds for, if not already present, a hostile relationship between the parents involved. It is outdated, improper, unlawful and a conflict of interest in paying states with federal dollars for each child support award. Therefore, upon this precipice citizens are not receiving fair equitable due process of law, no 4th or 14th amendment rights, bias, punitive separations, and no civil rights. Hence one parent is in essence erased.

Title IV-D has caused great grief to those families trying to get a "fair hearing" in family court. The family court judges, attorney ad litems, psychologists benefit from Title IV-D funding. The funds are given to the states on collection of child support. There is generally no incentive to grant the "best capable parent" custody, generally the mother unless an unreasonably extreme, glaringly undeniable, issue presents itself against the favor of the mother; but rather to examine which parent, i.e. the father, can pay child support and most importantly, how much.

This is important, additionally, as every dollar of child support collected is matched by Title IV-D funding. The funding going to the States are not used to enforce visitation rights of the non-custodial parent, but going into areas of the State that are not accounted for. Again, nor are these funds used to enforce ANY, there is no provision or law requiring it, state oversight regarding how the custodial parent then utilizes their state awarded funds, “in the best interest of the child” or otherwise, funds which were compelled by court order, under threat of penalty, incarceration, and force, (or garnished) by the state, from the non-custodial parent. This is an outrage, as nobody has to account for these funds and how they are spent. Second, there are numerous accounts from all over the United States about Child Protective Service entities taking children into custody and adopting them out for the incentive funds which range from $4,000 to $8,000 a child. This is important, as it will not matter how much someone spends on legal fees or the quality of their attorney. This is about federal funding going to each state, not to benefit our children as predicated, but actually for increased state revenue. The civil rights of families and children have been denied due process. Unless we have accountability for the Family Courts actions and where the money is being spent, this will get worse.

“The federal incentives drive the system. The more divorces, and the higher the child-support guidelines are set and enforced (no matter how unreasonable), the more money the state bureaucracy collects from the feds. Follow the money. The less time that non-custodial parents (usually fathers) are permitted to be with their children, the more child support they must pay into the state fund, and the higher the federal bonus to the states for collecting the money. " - Phyllis Schlafly

Title IV-D and Michigan: Is Michigan a safe place to move your family? Is Michigan a family friendly state? Does the greed for Title IV-D federal incentives create a state that desires or encourages the outcome of a custodial and non-custodial parent? Why have other states passed “shared parenting” legislation yet Michigan, is still using child custody laws from the 1970s?

A perfect example of the state of Michigan destroying the life of an innocent man all for the greed for Title IV-D federal incentives. Robert Parker, Jr Case

Michigan has the largest number of families in Title IV-D per capita in the nation exceeding California by over 2 to 1.

Michigan also has the largest ratio of Title IV-D cases per minor child in the nation. Surpassing California by 236 percent: 41.52% vs. 17.63%

(c) Petition2Congress, all rights reserved. For web site support: email or call (202) 600-8357