Myths That Must Be Stopped and Counter Arguments
There are and have been several
myths that need to be stopped if the parental rights movement is to succeed.
Many of these continue because today’s so-called advocates will not take the
time to do research and rely on Google and other search engines expecting that
what they see on the first page is the correct answer to their question.
Search engines pick the most popular answer, not the best.
I will briefly discuss some arguments that are often used against changes to the law.
Federal Incentives
It is well past time for everyone to understand how Federal Incentives and Child Support work. For years it has been claimed, FALSELY, that child support was high and done that way to increase the amount of money that states received and that the states their funds based on the amount that they collect.
The real amount they MAKE (implying a profit)
from federal incentives is ZERO!
This myth has gone on for years and is one of the biggest ever told because
people do not understand federal incentives and what the incentives pay for and
are based on. The Federal Incentives pay the states a portion of their cost
towards the administrative costs poof running the child support program.
Percentages differ slightly from state to state but they are generally a little
over 50% percent.
I will use Ohio's numbers on child support.
Ohio spent $575 Million on administrative costs to collect
child support; they received $278 Million in Federal incentives. That is
a LOSS of $197 Million. The total amount collected was $3.2
Billion in child support that either went directly to the other party in a
pass-thru order or towards the reimbursement of TANF funds.
Common sense shows they made no money through federal incentives.
I am going to back this will Nebraska Numbers.
Total CS Collected and Distributed - $200,318,373
Totals collected through Wage withholding - $124,565,727
Incentive payments – $4,651,764
Approximate amount spent to collect by the state - $10,025,353
Cost-effectiveness for NE - $3.90 which means that they can only collect 80% of the total available pool made available by the Federal government.
Maximum allowable % of the federal pool – 57% (NE actual is 46.4%)
The following is from the US GAO report that explains expenditure and reimbursement. (The original reimbursement rate was 66% and was then reduced to 58% max)
Total CS Collected and Distributed - $200,318,373
Totals collected through Wage withholding - $124,565,727
Incentive payments – $4,651,764
Approximate amount spent to collect by the state - $10,025,353
Cost-effectiveness for NE - $3.90 which means that they can only collect 80% of the total available pool made available by the Federal government.
Maximum allowable % of the federal pool – 58% (NE actual is 46.4%)
The following is from the US GAO report that explains expenditure and reimbursement. (The original reimbursement rate was 66% and was then reduced to 57% max)
The general CSE federal matching rate is 66%. This means that for every dollar that a state spends on its CSE program, the federal government will reimburse the state 66 cents. So if the state spends $1 on its program, the federal share of that expenditure is 66 cents and the state share of that expenditure is 34 cents. The algebraic formula for this relationship is represented by .66/.34=x/1. Thereby, if the state share of the expenditure is $1, the federal share is $1.94 (i.e., the federal share is 1.94 times the state share), and the total expenditure by the state is $2.94 ($1+$1.94). Similarly, if the state share of expenditures amounted solely to the incentive payment of $504 million, the federal share would amount to 1.94 times that amount, or $978 million, translating into $1.482 billion in CSE expenditures/funding.
Now anyone still wants to tell me that the state is making money off child support? They are losing 43 cents on every dollar they spend.
These numbers are from the most current Federal Child Support Report dated as of 2014. I have to use the actual numbers from 2012 rather than 2013 because the latter is not complete.
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/css/resource/fy2013-preliminary-report
Poundage fees are not associated with federal incentives and are a state issue, Ohio recently admitted that this was a tax. The small fee that is added is based on the amount of the child support order and is designed to recover costs associated with the collection and distribution of child support.
You cannot change a system of law if you do not understand it completely. Understanding it takes a complete and thorough reading of existing laws and policies.
I have broken this down more completely and refuted the false claims that many have been using for years.
Addition False Statements Made About Federal Incentives
Do the states make a profit on these incentives?
No, they do not. They are reimbursed for administrative costs associated with the collection of child support. They receive a maximum of 57 cents for every $1.00 they spend.
Is there an increased incentive for denying equal custody?
No, there is only a clause for establishing paternity.
Where does the funding come from for these incentives?
While many falsely claim that the funding comes from Social Security nothing could be further from the truth. The funds come from a pool created from the General Fund.
What was the purpose of the federal government’s involvement in doing this?
The original purpose of the Federal involvement was to recover the high cost of TANF (welfare) costs.
Do the states get a matching amount of the amount of child support they collect?
No, they do not and we challenge anyone to show wear any state gets that in their State Budget.
FYI – For Ohio that would be $3 Billion and that would have to show in the state budget.
Is there a custody clause in Title IV?
No, again. A paternity establishment clause yes.
Equal Custody Automatically Means No Child Support Paid
Wrong again and while it is possible to have a zero-child support order under current law it must be approved by the courts.
Child support is a touchy issue for many legislators and telling them that there should be no child support in equal custody will have you out the door quickly. The message sent when you say this is that you do not want to support your child at all.
Child support was created to ensure that a child had similar financial support within both households. The guidelines tables were created with this in mind and while many think that the amount paid is excessive, that perception comes from the fact that their order was not properly calculated in the beginning.
It is the duty and obligation of every parent to support their child in the best manner possible financially and that does mean both parents. You had a household before the dissolution of your relationship where you may have had the opportunity to be a stay-at-home mommy or daddy but you have ended that and are now in the real world where the only one responsible is yourself. When that relationship ended, the responsibility of your ex-partner to support you ended and the only one that they are and will ever be responsible for in the end is their children. So it is getting a job time, like it or not.
Like it or not “child support” is here to stay and any misguided thoughts of eliminating it disintegrated that thought when the Federal Government changed the law and decided that it was time to attempt to reclaim the massive expenses of TANF. One more part of the proof of the failure of this Nation’s war on poverty.
There is a way to gain support from legislators that I have been using and it is successful. What you need to do is tell them that support orders should be automatically deviated based on time with the child. This change in child support law has been embraced by review councils nationwide and the ability to deviate from the stated tables contained within every state law. Doing this automatically is a time saver for the Courts and a motion and hearing savings for the parties.
Equal Custody Laws Force Everyone into Equal Time-Sharing and Other Things You Will Hear
This argument will come up in discussions with legislators and you need to be prepared. For years they have been falsely told that a change to what is often called equal custody laws will force all families that dissolve their relationship into equal time for both parents. This is the misnomer that the judges use to claim that only they have the right to decide the issues of a family that is in what we call a “Custody Battle”.
In writing and custody laws for various states, as I have done and discussed with legislators, I have focused on the fact that the current laws have a lack of baseline in determinations. This is the primary reason that children have now been placed back into the middle of an adult battle which was the main guiding thought behind the no-fault divorce. Some claim that we should eliminate no-fault divorce, which will never happen as it has become too ingrained in the fabric of society. That lack of baseline is the main reason behind the winner-takes-all mentality that exists in divorces.
You will hear that anyone that wants these laws changed is only disgruntled about the outcome of their case and the judges will claim that is because they got it right. I always answer this with a sly snicker and a wink and explain that I had equal custody and still want it changed and that this is one of the biggest myths about changing the law. I have described the law as one where you walk into court you will be treated as no more of a criminal than someone who owes a parking ticket and end up getting the death sentence.
We need to focus on the fact that the legal term, “Best Interests of the Child” is legally undefinable and that under current policies and law, there has been serious damage done to society. If the state cannot define it, how can a judge who knows nothing about the personal life of a family and their values, be expected to determine what the best interests of the child and the family are? Those decisions must remain in the hands of the family involved.
A word of caution must be issued in the false argument that many claim that their Constitutional right to equal custody is violated by current law. That argument is a false one as you do not have a Constitutional right, you have a fundamental right. I have previously addressed this in this article. As it was explained to me by a Senator the Constitutional argument is far too complex for the busy schedule of a legislator and we have reduced this to a simple question that is a conversation starter: “Why do we remove fit parents from the lives of a child every day? This method is currently in use in numerous states and grabbing the attention needed to change the law.
"Presumptions of Equal Custody are automatic and solve the problem"
If this were true then please explain why Ohio with a presumption of equal custody since before 1984 still awards custody by the state's admission 70% to females and 30% to males. Research shows that the real numbers for Ohio run consistent with Census Bureau numbers of 85% in favor of mothers. A study was done in one county that showed 100% in favor of mothers 15 years ago.
Nebraska has a presumption of equal custody yet custody awards are still in favor of females consistent with Census Bureau numbers.
South Dakota added a presumption of equal custody and the group that did it came out the day after it was signed into law and admitted that it would not do what they thought it would do.
For those who think all, it takes to correct the law & create equal parenting, consider this.
In criminal law, there exists a presumption of innocence. If true, why does everyone charged with a crime not walk free?
Presumptions fall far short of what you are told is the goal.
Unmarried Fathers Should Have Equal Custody at Birth of the Child
So, guys, this is not going to happen. Under the current legal system, there exists a presumption that an unmarried mother has all rights over the child until a father establishes both paternity and custodial rights. This is fair and proper as there is no proof that the man that claims to be the father is the father. That child did not come out of your body Dad.
Until a father proves or legally acknowledges by an admission that he is the father of the child, the birth mother has all the rights to the child. Your name as the father on the birth certificate grants no legal rights and is nothing more than ink on a page. The same holds about your paying child support, it coveys no special rights.
While some have claimed that there should be automatic DNA testing of a child born to an unwed mother, that will not happen due to expense and the liberty interest issues that it presents. I will not allow a database to be created that infringes upon the rights of a person simply because he may or may not have impregnated a child without marrying the mother.
I have equated the establishment of paternity to the registering of a marriage license for the unmarried father. Once that step is taken, then the law is required to extend the same rights to the father that it does in a divorce and the same laws for custody determination apply. If you are an unmarried father and want equal custody of the child then it is best that you stand up and support the changes that we have proposed for the custody laws.
The System is Corrupt!!!
I hear this most often when a court decision goes against a parent. Rather than blame or take responsibility for the fault in their argument, they scream corruption.
Black’s Law on corruption:
Illegality; a vicious and fraudulent intention to evade the prohibitions of the law. The act of an official or fiduciary person who unlawfully and wrongfully uses his station or character to procure some benefit for himself or for another person, contrary to duty and the rights of others. U. S. v. Johnson (C. C.) 20 Fed. 082; State v. Ragsdale. 59 Mo. App. 003; Wight v. Rindskopf, 43 Wis. 351; Worsham v. Murchison, 00 Ga. 719; U. S. v. Edwards (C. C.) 43 Fed. 07.
Take personal responsibility for your case. This is your life and the life of your child. This is not because the system “makes money” off your child (see Federal Incentives), this is because you made a poor argument or your attorney did. You control your attorney, not the other way around. I have seen too many parents make the mistake of not getting their attorney on board or taking the attorney’s advice even though they know it is bad. If you are unsure about what you are being told, ask someone else. Just like with a doctor, attorney advice should be subject to a second opinion if you think it is wrong.
I ask a simple question of those who make this claim. Can you show the actual passing of a bride to “fix” the outcome of a case? While we have seen some cases across the land, the majority when asked will say that they cannot show a money trail.
Legislative Director
440-281-5478
legislation@ohiofamilyrights.com
