More proof that child support enforcement alienates fathers and children

www.ANCPR.com
One-Click-Link for Unsubscribing at bottom.

Hello,

We have added two new pages to the already immense number of pages at
www.ancpr.org. The pages a

http://ancpr.org/howdoes.htm
http://ancpr.org/right_track.htm

Both these are very interesting, and extremely valuable for anyone doing
research on child support policy.

The second link is actually a recent paper (very long paper - 60 pages)
by none other than the Policy Studies Incorporated . These people are
very sensitive to the fact that the entire system, that was created
largely from their consulting work with the federal and state
governments in the 80's and 90's, is completely breaking down. They
wouldn't put it quite that way, of course, but when you see them even
obliquely admitting to some problems, you know the problem is really
immense. For example, the issue that child support enforcement actually
alienates fathers from their children. We have been using this
vocabulary for some years now, and it is very strange to see them
actually admitting that this is the case, in addition to using our exact
wording. Here is a small quote from the abstract:

This report begins with a review of the importance of child support
to single parent families in the post-welfare reform era. Then, two
major problems with the child support system are discussed: 1) the low
payment rate on current support obligations; and 2) the possibility that
the child support system alienates some fathers from their children.
This report proposes that these problems stem from how noncustodial
fathers, and particularly low-income noncustodial fathers, are treated
initially when the child support obligation is established and in the
first months thereafter. Then, this report discusses three major areas
where state child support programs could improve in working with
low-income noncustodial parents to get them started on the right track:

Both the papers linked above seem to indicate similar conclusions, and
they both seek to tweak the system of child support enforcement in order
to make it more "friendly" and kinder, and gentler, so to speak. This
won't work. Child support is fundamentally wrong on two counts. 1. It
is based on the fundamentally wrong proposition that you can replace a
parent with money. 2. It is a policy that violates the very fundamental
concept of right and wrong that all people share, no matter what culture
or period of history you look at. The principle is that you don't take
something from someone, and then make them pay you for enjoying what is
his already! To illustrate: Let's say you took a television out of
WalMart without paying for it. Then after having it in your home for 9
months, you sent a letter to WalMart complaining that their television
had increased your electric bill, and that it required repairs, and that
you wanted WalMart to pay their fairshare of support of this television.
What do you think WalMart would say?

Let us re-iterate ANCPR's position: You should never confuse paying
child support with supporting your children. The two are not related.
Child support is a single mother household enabler. That is what it
was designed, as a social policy, to do. Is it any wonder then that the
institutionalization of the child support industry, and the
establishment of child support as an entitlement for single parents who
are able to manipulate the court system to give them sole custody has
the effect of alienating fathers?

Lowell Jaks, ANCPR