Unleash the Bill Collectors on Deadbeat Dads

Unleash the Bill Collectors on Deadbeat Dads

By Gary S. Becker
July 18, 1994
BusinessWeek

More than one in five U.S. children live in poverty. This is mainly because
of a spectacular growth in the number of families headed by unmarried
mothers, compounded by low or nonexistent child-support payments by
noncustodial fathers. Fortunately for the children, as well as the mothers,
it is possible to greatly increase the number of fathers who meet their
obligations.

It is far too easy for fathers to dump the financial as well as the
emotional burdens of raising children on mothers. More men will hesitate to
father children if they know they'll have a tougher time evading the duty to
support them. Children can benefit emotionally as well as materially when
their fathers support them. And if more dads were forced to pay up, they
might be more likely to spend time with their kids -- since they would no
longer be avoiding detection.

A 1993 Urban Institute study estimates that incomes of many one-parent
families would rise above the poverty level if all child-support obligations
were met. But the American Fathers Coalition -- a group of child-support
payers -- claims the delinquency figures are inflated by mothers' failure to
report the payments they receive. This coalition also believes fathers
sometimes fall into arrears because child-support awards are excessive.

This group makes some valid points, but it is still important to improve
compliance with child-support obligations. Congress passed legislation in
1984 and 1988 requiring states to make stronger collection efforts, with the
Federal government footing most of the bill. It is now easier to garnishee
wages, even when fathers have moved to other states, and to jail those who
refuse to pay. Computer systems allow states to keep better track of where
fathers live and how much they owe.

PATERNITY WARDS
As part of his welfare-reform package, President Clinton recently proposed
stiffening these laws by establishing national clearinghouses to track
interstate cases, by denying occupational permits and driver's licenses to
fathers who don't pay up (some states already have such rules), and by
requiring hospitals to establish and record who the father is for every baby
born.

Although federal laws and state efforts have increased the numbers of
fathers who pay up, statistics compiled by the Health & Human Services
Dept.'s Office of Child Support Enforcement show that state agencies are
collecting money in less than 19% of their child-support cases. Many fathers
continue to successfully avoid detection by state governments -- in some
cases by fleeing to another state.

One reason for the low figure is that state collection agencies concentrate
on helping mothers on welfare, including efforts to establish the identity
of the fathers. States emphasize welfare cases because public spending is
reduced when families receive enough child support to go off welfare.

But many women not on welfare are also failing to get the support due them.
Some women who were not being helped by state agencies have turned to
private collectors to track down the fathers of their children. These
collectors have often been quite successful: They may garnishee the wages of
fathers or get local authorities to jail deadbeats until they pay up.

BOUNTY HUNTERS?
Private collectors usually charge a small nonrefundable fee, but their main
source of revenue is a contingency payment that usually ranges from
one-quarter to one-third of what they collect. This may seem like a big cut,
but these fractions are not out of line with fees charged by companies
collecting other kinds of debt. Yet some children's advocacy groups oppose
the involvement of for-profit collection companies, because they hate to see
large sums being siphoned off that should be going to the children. But
mothers usually turn to private companies only after they fail to get what
is due them through ordinary channels. And after all, 67% of what is
collected privately is a lot better than 100% of nothing.

Private collectors often succeed where state agencies fail, because
government officials lack financial incentives to track down fathers who are
in arrears. Therefore, state agencies should take a cue from what some
mothers are doing: Hire private companies to locate and collect from
recalcitrant fathers.

Private collectors hunting down deadbeat fathers for state governments may
evoke the notorious bounty-hunter system of the Old West, but it would be an
effective response to the failure of state agencies. Privatization of state
collection efforts has precedents in other kinds of debt: States have hired
private companies to collect unpaid traffic fines, for example.

Congress should adopt most of the President's recommendations to strengthen
the government's hand in collecting child support. But the laws already on
the books would be much more effective in reducing the number of children
raised in poverty if state governments and more mothers hired private
collectors to track down deadbeat fathers.

"Fighting for kids" adf wrote in message
...
Unleash the Bill Collectors on Deadbeat Dads

By Gary S. Becker
July 18, 1994
BusinessWeek

More than one in five U.S. children live in poverty. This is mainly
because
of a spectacular growth in the number of families headed by unmarried
mothers, compounded by low or nonexistent child-support payments by
noncustodial fathers. Fortunately for the children, as well as the
mothers,
it is possible to greatly increase the number of fathers who meet their
obligations.

It is far too easy for fathers to dump the financial as well as the
emotional burdens of raising children on mothers. More men will hesitate
to
father children if they know they'll have a tougher time evading the duty
to
support them. Children can benefit emotionally as well as materially when
their fathers support them. And if more dads were forced to pay up, they
might be more likely to spend time with their kids -- since they would no
longer be avoiding detection.

A 1993 Urban Institute study estimates that incomes of many one-parent
families would rise above the poverty level if all child-support
obligations
were met. But the American Fathers Coalition -- a group of child-support
payers -- claims the delinquency figures are inflated by mothers' failure
to
report the payments they receive. This coalition also believes fathers
sometimes fall into arrears because child-support awards are excessive.

This group makes some valid points, but it is still important to improve
compliance with child-support obligations. Congress passed legislation in
1984 and 1988 requiring states to make stronger collection efforts, with
the
Federal government footing most of the bill. It is now easier to garnishee
wages, even when fathers have moved to other states, and to jail those who
refuse to pay. Computer systems allow states to keep better track of where
fathers live and how much they owe.

PATERNITY WARDS
As part of his welfare-reform package, President Clinton recently proposed
stiffening these laws by establishing national clearinghouses to track
interstate cases, by denying occupational permits and driver's licenses to
fathers who don't pay up (some states already have such rules), and by
requiring hospitals to establish and record who the father is for every
baby
born.

Although federal laws and state efforts have increased the numbers of
fathers who pay up, statistics compiled by the Health & Human Services
Dept.'s Office of Child Support Enforcement show that state agencies are
collecting money in less than 19% of their child-support cases. Many
fathers
continue to successfully avoid detection by state governments -- in some
cases by fleeing to another state.

One reason for the low figure is that state collection agencies
concentrate
on helping mothers on welfare, including efforts to establish the identity
of the fathers. States emphasize welfare cases because public spending is
reduced when families receive enough child support to go off welfare.

But many women not on welfare are also failing to get the support due
them.
Some women who were not being helped by state agencies have turned to
private collectors to track down the fathers of their children. These
collectors have often been quite successful: They may garnishee the wages
of
fathers or get local authorities to jail deadbeats until they pay up.

BOUNTY HUNTERS?
Private collectors usually charge a small nonrefundable fee, but their
main
source of revenue is a contingency payment that usually ranges from
one-quarter to one-third of what they collect. This may seem like a big
cut,
but these fractions are not out of line with fees charged by companies
collecting other kinds of debt. Yet some children's advocacy groups oppose
the involvement of for-profit collection companies, because they hate to
see
large sums being siphoned off that should be going to the children. But
mothers usually turn to private companies only after they fail to get what
is due them through ordinary channels. And after all, 67% of what is
collected privately is a lot better than 100% of nothing.

Private collectors often succeed where state agencies fail, because
government officials lack financial incentives to track down fathers who
are
in arrears. Therefore, state agencies should take a cue from what some
mothers are doing: Hire private companies to locate and collect from
recalcitrant fathers.

Private collectors hunting down deadbeat fathers for state governments may
evoke the notorious bounty-hunter system of the Old West, but it would be
an
effective response to the failure of state agencies. Privatization of
state
collection efforts has precedents in other kinds of debt: States have
hired
private companies to collect unpaid traffic fines, for example.

Congress should adopt most of the President's recommendations to
strengthen
the government's hand in collecting child support. But the laws already on
the books would be much more effective in reducing the number of children
raised in poverty if state governments and more mothers hired private
collectors to track down deadbeat fathers.

What's with these old stories?

Just posting articles that are relavant to the issues at in the group. You
all say that deadbeats dont exsist that they are all just men trying their
hardest to pay their support. These articles show otherwise.

"Chris" wrote in message
news:gykrb.10217$0K6.6349@fed1read06...

"Fighting for kids" adf wrote in message
...
Unleash the Bill Collectors on Deadbeat Dads

By Gary S. Becker
July 18, 1994
BusinessWeek

More than one in five U.S. children live in poverty. This is mainly
because
of a spectacular growth in the number of families headed by unmarried
mothers, compounded by low or nonexistent child-support payments by
noncustodial fathers. Fortunately for the children, as well as the
mothers,
it is possible to greatly increase the number of fathers who meet their
obligations.

It is far too easy for fathers to dump the financial as well as the
emotional burdens of raising children on mothers. More men will hesitate
to
father children if they know they'll have a tougher time evading the
duty
to
support them. Children can benefit emotionally as well as materially
when
their fathers support them. And if more dads were forced to pay up, they
might be more likely to spend time with their kids -- since they would
no
longer be avoiding detection.

A 1993 Urban Institute study estimates that incomes of many one-parent
families would rise above the poverty level if all child-support
obligations
were met. But the American Fathers Coalition -- a group of child-support
payers -- claims the delinquency figures are inflated by mothers'
failure
to
report the payments they receive. This coalition also believes fathers
sometimes fall into arrears because child-support awards are excessive.

This group makes some valid points, but it is still important to improve
compliance with child-support obligations. Congress passed legislation
in
1984 and 1988 requiring states to make stronger collection efforts, with
the
Federal government footing most of the bill. It is now easier to
garnishee
wages, even when fathers have moved to other states, and to jail those
who
refuse to pay. Computer systems allow states to keep better track of
where
fathers live and how much they owe.

PATERNITY WARDS
As part of his welfare-reform package, President Clinton recently
proposed
stiffening these laws by establishing national clearinghouses to track
interstate cases, by denying occupational permits and driver's licenses
to
fathers who don't pay up (some states already have such rules), and by
requiring hospitals to establish and record who the father is for every
baby
born.

Although federal laws and state efforts have increased the numbers of
fathers who pay up, statistics compiled by the Health & Human Services
Dept.'s Office of Child Support Enforcement show that state agencies are
collecting money in less than 19% of their child-support cases. Many
fathers
continue to successfully avoid detection by state governments -- in some
cases by fleeing to another state.

One reason for the low figure is that state collection agencies
concentrate
on helping mothers on welfare, including efforts to establish the
identity
of the fathers. States emphasize welfare cases because public spending
is
reduced when families receive enough child support to go off welfare.

But many women not on welfare are also failing to get the support due
them.
Some women who were not being helped by state agencies have turned to
private collectors to track down the fathers of their children. These
collectors have often been quite successful: They may garnishee the
wages
of
fathers or get local authorities to jail deadbeats until they pay up.

BOUNTY HUNTERS?
Private collectors usually charge a small nonrefundable fee, but their
main
source of revenue is a contingency payment that usually ranges from
one-quarter to one-third of what they collect. This may seem like a big
cut,
but these fractions are not out of line with fees charged by companies
collecting other kinds of debt. Yet some children's advocacy groups
oppose
the involvement of for-profit collection companies, because they hate to
see
large sums being siphoned off that should be going to the children. But
mothers usually turn to private companies only after they fail to get
what
is due them through ordinary channels. And after all, 67% of what is
collected privately is a lot better than 100% of nothing.

Private collectors often succeed where state agencies fail, because
government officials lack financial incentives to track down fathers who
are
in arrears. Therefore, state agencies should take a cue from what some
mothers are doing: Hire private companies to locate and collect from
recalcitrant fathers.

Private collectors hunting down deadbeat fathers for state governments
may
evoke the notorious bounty-hunter system of the Old West, but it would
be
an
effective response to the failure of state agencies. Privatization of
state
collection efforts has precedents in other kinds of debt: States have
hired
private companies to collect unpaid traffic fines, for example.

Congress should adopt most of the President's recommendations to
strengthen
the government's hand in collecting child support. But the laws already
on
the books would be much more effective in reducing the number of
children
raised in poverty if state governments and more mothers hired private
collectors to track down deadbeat fathers.

What's with these old stories?

"Fighting for kids" adf wrote in message
...
Just posting articles that are relavant to the issues at in the group.
You
all say that deadbeats dont exsist that they are all just men trying their
hardest to pay their support. These articles show otherwise.

You believe everything you see in print?


"Chris" wrote in message
news:gykrb.10217$0K6.6349@fed1read06...

"Fighting for kids" adf wrote in message
...
Unleash the Bill Collectors on Deadbeat Dads

By Gary S. Becker
July 18, 1994
BusinessWeek

More than one in five U.S. children live in poverty. This is mainly
because
of a spectacular growth in the number of families headed by unmarried
mothers, compounded by low or nonexistent child-support payments by
noncustodial fathers. Fortunately for the children, as well as the
mothers,
it is possible to greatly increase the number of fathers who meet
their
obligations.

It is far too easy for fathers to dump the financial as well as the
emotional burdens of raising children on mothers. More men will
hesitate
to
father children if they know they'll have a tougher time evading the
duty
to
support them. Children can benefit emotionally as well as materially
when
their fathers support them. And if more dads were forced to pay up,
they
might be more likely to spend time with their kids -- since they would
no
longer be avoiding detection.

A 1993 Urban Institute study estimates that incomes of many one-parent
families would rise above the poverty level if all child-support
obligations
were met. But the American Fathers Coalition -- a group of
child-support
payers -- claims the delinquency figures are inflated by mothers'
failure
to
report the payments they receive. This coalition also believes fathers
sometimes fall into arrears because child-support awards are
excessive.

This group makes some valid points, but it is still important to
improve
compliance with child-support obligations. Congress passed legislation
in
1984 and 1988 requiring states to make stronger collection efforts,
with
the
Federal government footing most of the bill. It is now easier to
garnishee
wages, even when fathers have moved to other states, and to jail those
who
refuse to pay. Computer systems allow states to keep better track of
where
fathers live and how much they owe.

PATERNITY WARDS
As part of his welfare-reform package, President Clinton recently
proposed
stiffening these laws by establishing national clearinghouses to track
interstate cases, by denying occupational permits and driver's
licenses
to
fathers who don't pay up (some states already have such rules), and by
requiring hospitals to establish and record who the father is for
every
baby
born.

Although federal laws and state efforts have increased the numbers of
fathers who pay up, statistics compiled by the Health & Human Services
Dept.'s Office of Child Support Enforcement show that state agencies
are
collecting money in less than 19% of their child-support cases. Many
fathers
continue to successfully avoid detection by state governments -- in
some
cases by fleeing to another state.

One reason for the low figure is that state collection agencies
concentrate
on helping mothers on welfare, including efforts to establish the
identity
of the fathers. States emphasize welfare cases because public spending
is
reduced when families receive enough child support to go off welfare.

But many women not on welfare are also failing to get the support due
them.
Some women who were not being helped by state agencies have turned to
private collectors to track down the fathers of their children. These
collectors have often been quite successful: They may garnishee the
wages
of
fathers or get local authorities to jail deadbeats until they pay up.

BOUNTY HUNTERS?
Private collectors usually charge a small nonrefundable fee, but their
main
source of revenue is a contingency payment that usually ranges from
one-quarter to one-third of what they collect. This may seem like a
big
cut,
but these fractions are not out of line with fees charged by companies
collecting other kinds of debt. Yet some children's advocacy groups
oppose
the involvement of for-profit collection companies, because they hate
to
see
large sums being siphoned off that should be going to the children.
But
mothers usually turn to private companies only after they fail to get
what
is due them through ordinary channels. And after all, 67% of what is
collected privately is a lot better than 100% of nothing.

Private collectors often succeed where state agencies fail, because
government officials lack financial incentives to track down fathers
who
are
in arrears. Therefore, state agencies should take a cue from what some
mothers are doing: Hire private companies to locate and collect from
recalcitrant fathers.

Private collectors hunting down deadbeat fathers for state governments
may
evoke the notorious bounty-hunter system of the Old West, but it would
be
an
effective response to the failure of state agencies. Privatization of
state
collection efforts has precedents in other kinds of debt: States have
hired
private companies to collect unpaid traffic fines, for example.

Congress should adopt most of the President's recommendations to
strengthen
the government's hand in collecting child support. But the laws
already
on
the books would be much more effective in reducing the number of
children
raised in poverty if state governments and more mothers hired private
collectors to track down deadbeat fathers.

What's with these old stories?

Divorced Dads: Shattering the Myths
Authors: Sanford L. Braver, Diane O'Connell

Deadbeat dads: Divorced fathers pay 90 percent of the child support they
have been ordered to pay. Fully employed divorced fathers pay all that is
due. In addition, they pay visitation expenses. [Depending on the extent of
the research providing the result, fathers (all fathers including never
married) pay 70-80 percent of what they have been ordered to pay. The low
end  70 percent  relies on recipient surveys that do not account for money
that is paid but withheld as repayment for welfare, and possible bias. In
all cases, the primary cause of non-payment is that the person ordered to
pay is unable to pay.]


The No-Show Dad: The rate of contact between fathers and their children
following divorce shows "paternal devotion and tenacity [that] is entirely
at odds with the more popular image of the runaways, absentee, or
disappearing dad."


Standards of Living: Women with children are, as a group, better off
financially following divorce than men. That's right, it's not the other way
around.


Terms of Divorce: Far from being docile, easily manipulated victims of a
male dominated divorce system, women have always fared well in negotiations
and settlements. Men are far more likely to be the biggest losers in the
process.


Emotional Issues of Divorce: Women are happier after divorce than men. Given
the results related to the other myths, this is likely to cause the least
surprise. They have the children, they are better off financially, they
drive better cars, their situation is less likely to interfere with new
relationships and remarriage ....


Who leaves the marriage ... and why it matters: " ... women initiate the
preponderance (63 - 75%) of modern divorces ..." It matters because it
vindicates the finding that men do less well then women after divorce,
because the blame heaped on men for divorce should be addressed, and because
the myth serves to further unlevel the playing field of domestic relations
law and politics on which fathers are already disadvantaged.

"Chris" wrote in message
news:HEprb.11960$0K6.11380@fed1read06...

"Fighting for kids" adf wrote in message
...
Just posting articles that are relavant to the issues at in the group.
You
all say that deadbeats dont exsist that they are all just men trying
their
hardest to pay their support. These articles show otherwise.

You believe everything you see in print?


"Chris" wrote in message
news:gykrb.10217$0K6.6349@fed1read06...

"Fighting for kids" adf wrote in message
...
Unleash the Bill Collectors on Deadbeat Dads

By Gary S. Becker
July 18, 1994
BusinessWeek

More than one in five U.S. children live in poverty. This is mainly
because
of a spectacular growth in the number of families headed by
unmarried
mothers, compounded by low or nonexistent child-support payments by
noncustodial fathers. Fortunately for the children, as well as the
mothers,
it is possible to greatly increase the number of fathers who meet
their
obligations.

It is far too easy for fathers to dump the financial as well as the
emotional burdens of raising children on mothers. More men will
hesitate
to
father children if they know they'll have a tougher time evading the
duty
to
support them. Children can benefit emotionally as well as materially
when
their fathers support them. And if more dads were forced to pay up,
they
might be more likely to spend time with their kids -- since they
would
no
longer be avoiding detection.

A 1993 Urban Institute study estimates that incomes of many
one-parent
families would rise above the poverty level if all child-support
obligations
were met. But the American Fathers Coalition -- a group of
child-support
payers -- claims the delinquency figures are inflated by mothers'
failure
to
report the payments they receive. This coalition also believes
fathers
sometimes fall into arrears because child-support awards are
excessive.

This group makes some valid points, but it is still important to
improve
compliance with child-support obligations. Congress passed
legislation
in
1984 and 1988 requiring states to make stronger collection efforts,
with
the
Federal government footing most of the bill. It is now easier to
garnishee
wages, even when fathers have moved to other states, and to jail
those
who
refuse to pay. Computer systems allow states to keep better track of
where
fathers live and how much they owe.

PATERNITY WARDS
As part of his welfare-reform package, President Clinton recently
proposed
stiffening these laws by establishing national clearinghouses to
track
interstate cases, by denying occupational permits and driver's
licenses
to
fathers who don't pay up (some states already have such rules), and
by
requiring hospitals to establish and record who the father is for
every
baby
born.

Although federal laws and state efforts have increased the numbers
of
fathers who pay up, statistics compiled by the Health & Human
Services
Dept.'s Office of Child Support Enforcement show that state agencies
are
collecting money in less than 19% of their child-support cases. Many
fathers
continue to successfully avoid detection by state governments -- in
some
cases by fleeing to another state.

One reason for the low figure is that state collection agencies
concentrate
on helping mothers on welfare, including efforts to establish the
identity
of the fathers. States emphasize welfare cases because public
spending
is
reduced when families receive enough child support to go off
welfare.

But many women not on welfare are also failing to get the support
due
them.
Some women who were not being helped by state agencies have turned
to
private collectors to track down the fathers of their children.
These
collectors have often been quite successful: They may garnishee the
wages
of
fathers or get local authorities to jail deadbeats until they pay
up.

BOUNTY HUNTERS?
Private collectors usually charge a small nonrefundable fee, but
their
main
source of revenue is a contingency payment that usually ranges from
one-quarter to one-third of what they collect. This may seem like a
big
cut,
but these fractions are not out of line with fees charged by
companies
collecting other kinds of debt. Yet some children's advocacy groups
oppose
the involvement of for-profit collection companies, because they
hate
to
see
large sums being siphoned off that should be going to the children.
But
mothers usually turn to private companies only after they fail to
get
what
is due them through ordinary channels. And after all, 67% of what is
collected privately is a lot better than 100% of nothing.

Private collectors often succeed where state agencies fail, because
government officials lack financial incentives to track down fathers
who
are
in arrears. Therefore, state agencies should take a cue from what
some
mothers are doing: Hire private companies to locate and collect from
recalcitrant fathers.

Private collectors hunting down deadbeat fathers for state
governments
may
evoke the notorious bounty-hunter system of the Old West, but it
would
be
an
effective response to the failure of state agencies. Privatization
of
state
collection efforts has precedents in other kinds of debt: States
have
hired
private companies to collect unpaid traffic fines, for example.

Congress should adopt most of the President's recommendations to
strengthen
the government's hand in collecting child support. But the laws
already
on
the books would be much more effective in reducing the number of
children
raised in poverty if state governments and more mothers hired
private
collectors to track down deadbeat fathers.

What's with these old stories?

Key word "CLAIMS", cant prove.
"cigon" wrote in message
...
t. But the American Fathers Coalition -- a group of child-support
payers -- claims the delinquency figures are inflated by mothers'

No, but when I can see information that backs it up..yep. In the case of
these articles, there are figures and studies that back them up.


"Chris" wrote in message
news:HEprb.11960$0K6.11380@fed1read06...

"Fighting for kids" adf wrote in message
...
Just posting articles that are relavant to the issues at in the group.
You
all say that deadbeats dont exsist that they are all just men trying
their
hardest to pay their support. These articles show otherwise.

You believe everything you see in print?


"Chris" wrote in message
news:gykrb.10217$0K6.6349@fed1read06...

"Fighting for kids" adf wrote in message
...
Unleash the Bill Collectors on Deadbeat Dads

By Gary S. Becker
July 18, 1994
BusinessWeek

More than one in five U.S. children live in poverty. This is mainly
because
of a spectacular growth in the number of families headed by
unmarried
mothers, compounded by low or nonexistent child-support payments by
noncustodial fathers. Fortunately for the children, as well as the
mothers,
it is possible to greatly increase the number of fathers who meet
their
obligations.

It is far too easy for fathers to dump the financial as well as the
emotional burdens of raising children on mothers. More men will
hesitate
to
father children if they know they'll have a tougher time evading the
duty
to
support them. Children can benefit emotionally as well as materially
when
their fathers support them. And if more dads were forced to pay up,
they
might be more likely to spend time with their kids -- since they
would
no
longer be avoiding detection.

A 1993 Urban Institute study estimates that incomes of many
one-parent
families would rise above the poverty level if all child-support
obligations
were met. But the American Fathers Coalition -- a group of
child-support
payers -- claims the delinquency figures are inflated by mothers'
failure
to
report the payments they receive. This coalition also believes
fathers
sometimes fall into arrears because child-support awards are
excessive.

This group makes some valid points, but it is still important to
improve
compliance with child-support obligations. Congress passed
legislation
in
1984 and 1988 requiring states to make stronger collection efforts,
with
the
Federal government footing most of the bill. It is now easier to
garnishee
wages, even when fathers have moved to other states, and to jail
those
who
refuse to pay. Computer systems allow states to keep better track of
where
fathers live and how much they owe.

PATERNITY WARDS
As part of his welfare-reform package, President Clinton recently
proposed
stiffening these laws by establishing national clearinghouses to
track
interstate cases, by denying occupational permits and driver's
licenses
to
fathers who don't pay up (some states already have such rules), and
by
requiring hospitals to establish and record who the father is for
every
baby
born.

Although federal laws and state efforts have increased the numbers
of
fathers who pay up, statistics compiled by the Health & Human
Services
Dept.'s Office of Child Support Enforcement show that state agencies
are
collecting money in less than 19% of their child-support cases. Many
fathers
continue to successfully avoid detection by state governments -- in
some
cases by fleeing to another state.

One reason for the low figure is that state collection agencies
concentrate
on helping mothers on welfare, including efforts to establish the
identity
of the fathers. States emphasize welfare cases because public
spending
is
reduced when families receive enough child support to go off
welfare.

But many women not on welfare are also failing to get the support
due
them.
Some women who were not being helped by state agencies have turned
to
private collectors to track down the fathers of their children.
These
collectors have often been quite successful: They may garnishee the
wages
of
fathers or get local authorities to jail deadbeats until they pay
up.

BOUNTY HUNTERS?
Private collectors usually charge a small nonrefundable fee, but
their
main
source of revenue is a contingency payment that usually ranges from
one-quarter to one-third of what they collect. This may seem like a
big
cut,
but these fractions are not out of line with fees charged by
companies
collecting other kinds of debt. Yet some children's advocacy groups
oppose
the involvement of for-profit collection companies, because they
hate
to
see
large sums being siphoned off that should be going to the children.
But
mothers usually turn to private companies only after they fail to
get
what
is due them through ordinary channels. And after all, 67% of what is
collected privately is a lot better than 100% of nothing.

Private collectors often succeed where state agencies fail, because
government officials lack financial incentives to track down fathers
who
are
in arrears. Therefore, state agencies should take a cue from what
some
mothers are doing: Hire private companies to locate and collect from
recalcitrant fathers.

Private collectors hunting down deadbeat fathers for state
governments
may
evoke the notorious bounty-hunter system of the Old West, but it
would
be
an
effective response to the failure of state agencies. Privatization
of
state
collection efforts has precedents in other kinds of debt: States
have
hired
private companies to collect unpaid traffic fines, for example.

Congress should adopt most of the President's recommendations to
strengthen
the government's hand in collecting child support. But the laws
already
on
the books would be much more effective in reducing the number of
children
raised in poverty if state governments and more mothers hired
private
collectors to track down deadbeat fathers.

What's with these old stories?

"Paul Fritz" wrote in message
...
Divorced Dads: Shattering the Myths
Authors: Sanford L. Braver, Diane O'Connell

Deadbeat dads: Divorced fathers pay 90 percent of the child support they
have been ordered to pay. Fully employed divorced fathers pay all that is
due. In addition, they pay visitation expenses. [Depending on the extent
of
the research providing the result, fathers (all fathers including never
married) pay 70-80 percent of what they have been ordered to pay. The low
end  70 percent  relies on recipient surveys that do not account for
money
that is paid but withheld as repayment for welfare, and possible bias. In
all cases, the primary cause of non-payment is that the person ordered to
pay is unable to pay.]

Ha ha.. this is a joke right? Thats why there is SOOOO much owed in back
child support and the amounts continue to rise. Non-payment is that the
person ordered to pay is unable to pay? ha ha.. thats the best joke ive
heard yet. Jumping from job to job avoiding payments, tracking across state
lines to avoid payment, not sending ANYTHING at all instead of what they
can, yeah thats really a good reason!!!


The No-Show Dad: The rate of contact between fathers and their children
following divorce shows "paternal devotion and tenacity [that] is entirely
at odds with the more popular image of the runaways, absentee, or
disappearing dad."

Ha.. funny joke again. Im laughing at these good job finding the best
jokes on the internet today.

Standards of Living: Women with children are, as a group, better off
financially following divorce than men. That's right, it's not the other
way
around.

Ha.. now thats funny. Especially when after the divorce most women end up
in a poverty situation and on top of that we add the non-support from daddy
.....hmm


Terms of Divorce: Far from being docile, easily manipulated victims of a
male dominated divorce system, women have always fared well in
negotiations
and settlements. Men are far more likely to be the biggest losers in the
process.

Ha again. Hardly.. Men are just sore because they have to give up their
material things when they "think" they should get everything.

Emotional Issues of Divorce: Women are happier after divorce than men.
Given
the results related to the other myths, this is likely to cause the least
surprise. They have the children, they are better off financially, they
drive better cars, their situation is less likely to interfere with new
relationships and remarriage ....

Women are happier after divorce becasue they finally got smart and got rid
of a pos. They dont have to put up with the mans **** anymore. Drive
nicer cars?? ha ha.. thats funny. Most Single MOthers I know do NOT drive
nice cars and if they do its usually because their parents help them out.
better off financially? Majority live in poverty.. I guess if thats being
better off financially then whoppee!!! Their situation is LESS LIKELY to
interfere?? yeah thats why most single mothers are seen by other men as
having baggage.. lol. Man this stuff you post is so funny.


Who leaves the marriage ... and why it matters: " ... women initiate the
preponderance (63 - 75%) of modern divorces ..." It matters because it
vindicates the finding that men do less well then women after divorce,
because the blame heaped on men for divorce should be addressed, and
because
the myth serves to further unlevel the playing field of domestic relations
law and politics on which fathers are already disadvantaged.

It matters because women are finally standing up for themselves and not
putting up with mens ****. Thats why it matters!!! Poor victims Fathers..
give me a break.

"Chris" wrote in message
news:HEprb.11960$0K6.11380@fed1read06...

"Fighting for kids" adf wrote in message
...
Just posting articles that are relavant to the issues at in the group.
You
all say that deadbeats dont exsist that they are all just men trying
their
hardest to pay their support. These articles show otherwise.

You believe everything you see in print?


"Chris" wrote in message
news:gykrb.10217$0K6.6349@fed1read06...

"Fighting for kids" adf wrote in message
...
Unleash the Bill Collectors on Deadbeat Dads

By Gary S. Becker
July 18, 1994
BusinessWeek

More than one in five U.S. children live in poverty. This is
mainly
because
of a spectacular growth in the number of families headed by
unmarried
mothers, compounded by low or nonexistent child-support payments
by
noncustodial fathers. Fortunately for the children, as well as the
mothers,
it is possible to greatly increase the number of fathers who meet
their
obligations.

It is far too easy for fathers to dump the financial as well as
the
emotional burdens of raising children on mothers. More men will
hesitate
to
father children if they know they'll have a tougher time evading
the
duty
to
support them. Children can benefit emotionally as well as
materially
when
their fathers support them. And if more dads were forced to pay
up,
they
might be more likely to spend time with their kids -- since they
would
no
longer be avoiding detection.

A 1993 Urban Institute study estimates that incomes of many
one-parent
families would rise above the poverty level if all child-support
obligations
were met. But the American Fathers Coalition -- a group of
child-support
payers -- claims the delinquency figures are inflated by mothers'
failure
to
report the payments they receive. This coalition also believes
fathers
sometimes fall into arrears because child-support awards are
excessive.

This group makes some valid points, but it is still important to
improve
compliance with child-support obligations. Congress passed
legislation
in
1984 and 1988 requiring states to make stronger collection
efforts,
with
the
Federal government footing most of the bill. It is now easier to
garnishee
wages, even when fathers have moved to other states, and to jail
those
who
refuse to pay. Computer systems allow states to keep better track
of
where
fathers live and how much they owe.

PATERNITY WARDS
As part of his welfare-reform package, President Clinton recently
proposed
stiffening these laws by establishing national clearinghouses to
track
interstate cases, by denying occupational permits and driver's
licenses
to
fathers who don't pay up (some states already have such rules),
and
by
requiring hospitals to establish and record who the father is for
every
baby
born.

Although federal laws and state efforts have increased the numbers
of
fathers who pay up, statistics compiled by the Health & Human
Services
Dept.'s Office of Child Support Enforcement show that state
agencies
are
collecting money in less than 19% of their child-support cases.
Many
fathers
continue to successfully avoid detection by state governments --
in
some
cases by fleeing to another state.

One reason for the low figure is that state collection agencies
concentrate
on helping mothers on welfare, including efforts to establish the
identity
of the fathers. States emphasize welfare cases because public
spending
is
reduced when families receive enough child support to go off
welfare.

But many women not on welfare are also failing to get the support
due
them.
Some women who were not being helped by state agencies have turned
to
private collectors to track down the fathers of their children.
These
collectors have often been quite successful: They may garnishee
the
wages
of
fathers or get local authorities to jail deadbeats until they pay
up.

BOUNTY HUNTERS?
Private collectors usually charge a small nonrefundable fee, but
their
main
source of revenue is a contingency payment that usually ranges
from
one-quarter to one-third of what they collect. This may seem like
a
big
cut,
but these fractions are not out of line with fees charged by
companies
collecting other kinds of debt. Yet some children's advocacy
groups
oppose
the involvement of for-profit collection companies, because they
hate
to
see
large sums being siphoned off that should be going to the
children.
But
mothers usually turn to private companies only after they fail to
get
what
is due them through ordinary channels. And after all, 67% of what
is
collected privately is a lot better than 100% of nothing.

Private collectors often succeed where state agencies fail,
because
government officials lack financial incentives to track down
fathers
who
are
in arrears. Therefore, state agencies should take a cue from what
some
mothers are doing: Hire private companies to locate and collect
from
recalcitrant fathers.

Private collectors hunting down deadbeat fathers for state
governments
may
evoke the notorious bounty-hunter system of the Old West, but it
would
be
an
effective response to the failure of state agencies. Privatization
of
state
collection efforts has precedents in other kinds of debt: States
have
hired
private companies to collect unpaid traffic fines, for example.

Congress should adopt most of the President's recommendations to
strengthen
the government's hand in collecting child support. But the laws
already
on
the books would be much more effective in reducing the number of
children
raised in poverty if state governments and more mothers hired
private
collectors to track down deadbeat fathers.

What's with these old stories?

"Fighting for kids" adf wrote in message
...
Key word "CLAIMS", cant prove.

"cigon" wrote in message
...
t. But the American Fathers Coalition -- a group of child-support
payers -- claims the delinquency figures are inflated by mothers'

OK, FFK here's a little info from Family Law Quarterly, Vol. 33 No. 1 1999
on the 1999 Child Support Symposium.

I can back up those "claims" you scoff at. Here are some of them...


"The available evidence indicates that there is a systemic problem in which
existing child support guidelines overburden obligors. For example, the
State of Florida found that traditional means of collection were
unsuccessful and hired two private contractors, Lockheed Martin IMS and
Maximus, Inc., to pursue nearly 200,000 "deadbeats." Lock-heed was assigned
101 ,325 cases of which it closed 37,270.



Over fourteen months, Lockheed was paid $2.2 million and "managed to collect
$137,839 in child support payments." Maximus was assigned 89,560 cases of
which it closed 46,692. Maximus was paid $2.25 million and "got 12 deadbeats
to cough up $5,867."[6] According to one news story: "What Maximus and
Lockheed Martin learned in the process of tracking down non-paying parents
is that most who don't make child support payments are, in a word, broke.
You can't give what you don't have." [7]



Similarly, when the state of Maryland decided to get tough with "deadbeat
dads" by suspending 9,000 driver's licenses, only about 800 were able to
make sufficient progress on their arrearages to get their licenses restored.
In modern America, the ability to drive a car to work, to the grocery store,
to just about anywhere, is an indispensable part of simple survival. There
were not many trophy wives or shiny red Porsches among the 91 percent who
were unable to make sufficient payments simply to regain the freedom to
drive.



Professional research into the status of' child support obligors is just now
beginning to receive funding. Elsewhere in this issue, Professor Sanford
Braver reports on some of his research. Similarly, the team of Laura Lein
(University of Texas) and Katherine Edini (Rutgers University) recently
found:



Many of the absent fathers who state leaders want to track down and
force to pay child support are so destitute that their lives focus on
finding the next job, next meal or next night's shelter . . . . The
initial findings are sobering, filled with descriptions of life
in the streets or cheap motels, rummaging for food as restaurants
are closing and seeking shelter, often a week or a day at a time.




What we are finding with the men is that in lots of different areas, there
are pressures, in terms of their housing, in terms of their job stability,
in terms of trying to be a father, in terms of education and health. There
are problems in every domain. [9]



Evidence has been building over the past decade that the obligations imposed
on noncustodial parents are unsustainable but, for many of those years,
little notice was paid. For example, in 1991, the U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS) touted a program under which obligors were rounded
up and told that they could either go to jail or charge their arrearages on
their credit cards.



The description of the program made no mention of the constitutionality of
debtors' prison or the morality of driving people into 18 percent revolving
credit card debt to pay obligations that supposedly had been established on
the basis of ability to pay. The description merely noted that the success
of the program in pilot studies was limited because "the majority of
obligors-most of them from non-AFDC families" -were already so poor that
they "had neither charge cards nor checking accounts." [10]



The most widely cited claims about child support noncompliance are those
derived from U.S. Bureau of the Census surveys. These figures purport to
show that approximately 50 percent of child support orders are paid in full,
approximately 25 percent are paid in part, and approximately 25 percent are
unpaid. These figures are given as the principal justification for the
punitive child support measures undertaken by the federal and state
governments during the past decade. The problem is that the cited figures do
not accurately reflect the reality of child support compliance and utilized
a methodology that would receive no credence in any other setting.



The Census Bureau asked only the custodial mothers whether payment was
received. It did not compare those responses with noncustodial reports of
how much was paid or with court records of how much was owed. The Census
Bureau also failed to quantify or correct the under-reporting of the amount
of child support actually received by surveyed welfare recipients who feared
a risk of benefit reduction or termination if they disclosed the receipt of
more than thc $50 disregard amount in child support cases .



In other contexts the Department of Health and Human Services has admitted
that welfare recipients typically understate their income in federal
surveys. [11] Finally, the survey lumped together as "partial compliance"
all situations where the delinquency was as little as the late payment of a
single installment and counted as "non-compliance" all cases where the
obligor was unemployed, disabled, imprisoned, or even dead-the ultimate
"deadbeats."



In a 1992 study, the General Accounting Office reviewed the Census Bureau
data and reported that, when custodial mothers were asked tile reasons why
they had not received child support payments, 66 percent of the mothers
themselves (in both in-state and interstate cases) gave the reason as
"father unable to pay." [12]

-----------------------------------------

[6] Kathleen Parker, Deadbeat Dads More Myth Than Reality, Orlando Sentinel,
Jan.24, 1999, at G3.



[7] Id.



[8] Paul Valentine, Md. Cleans Up on Child Support in Update on the News,
Wash. Times, June 9,1997, at B5.



[9] Polly Ross Hughes, Many Dads Who Don’t Pay Child Support Are Destitute,
HOUSTON CHRON., Dec. 20, 1998, at 1.



[10] U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Charge It, Please, CHILD
SUPPORRT REP., 1991, at 6.



[11] Welfare Dependency: Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Social
Security, and Family Policy, Committee on Finance, United States Senate,
102d Cong. 4 (1991) (Statement of JoAnne Barnhart, Assistant Secretary for
Family Support).



[12] General Accounting Office, Interstate Child Support: Mothers Report
Receiving Less Support from Out-of-State Fathers, GAO/HRD-92-39FS, January
1992 at 19.

Ive seen this on some sites, one in particular called ANCPR which tries to
use tables that show how the CP makes out in the end. It basically takes
the support for the child out of the NCP's income and then adds this amount
to the CP's income coming out with the ending income of the CP's income
higher. IT fails however to take the expenses of raising a child out of the
CP's income, probably because it would show the CP worse off financially in
the long run.

It then uses this low income fathers income and ordered support as an
example of how ordered child support makes them poor and unable to afford
care for themselves. It fails again however to show that the CP most likely
makes not much more and has the expenses of raising a child taken out of
their income, in the end they BOTH end up in a poverty situation.

No one said having a child is cheap, when you look at the "average" American
one would find that they are living beyond their means, essentially buying
their needs through credit not based on what they can afford.

I have no sympathy for someone who is 50,000 behind on support, or makes no
payments at all for months at a time or even years. It isn't about moving
from job to job, its about evading child support. Its about making
sacrifices for your children which apparently the NCP isn't willing to make.


"Dusty" wrote in message ...

"Fighting for kids" adf wrote in message
...
Key word "CLAIMS", cant prove.

"cigon" wrote in message
...
t. But the American Fathers Coalition -- a group of child-support
payers -- claims the delinquency figures are inflated by mothers'

OK, FFK here's a little info from Family Law Quarterly, Vol. 33 No. 1 1999
on the 1999 Child Support Symposium.

I can back up those "claims" you scoff at. Here are some of them...


"The available evidence indicates that there is a systemic problem in
which
existing child support guidelines overburden obligors. For example, the
State of Florida found that traditional means of collection were
unsuccessful and hired two private contractors, Lockheed Martin IMS and
Maximus, Inc., to pursue nearly 200,000 "deadbeats." Lock-heed was
assigned
101 ,325 cases of which it closed 37,270.



Over fourteen months, Lockheed was paid $2.2 million and "managed to
collect
$137,839 in child support payments." Maximus was assigned 89,560 cases of
which it closed 46,692. Maximus was paid $2.25 million and "got 12
deadbeats
to cough up $5,867."[6] According to one news story: "What Maximus and
Lockheed Martin learned in the process of tracking down non-paying parents
is that most who don't make child support payments are, in a word, broke.
You can't give what you don't have." [7]



Similarly, when the state of Maryland decided to get tough with "deadbeat
dads" by suspending 9,000 driver's licenses, only about 800 were able to
make sufficient progress on their arrearages to get their licenses
restored.
In modern America, the ability to drive a car to work, to the grocery
store,
to just about anywhere, is an indispensable part of simple survival. There
were not many trophy wives or shiny red Porsches among the 91 percent who
were unable to make sufficient payments simply to regain the freedom to
drive.



Professional research into the status of' child support obligors is just
now
beginning to receive funding. Elsewhere in this issue, Professor Sanford
Braver reports on some of his research. Similarly, the team of Laura Lein
(University of Texas) and Katherine Edini (Rutgers University) recently
found:



Many of the absent fathers who state leaders want to track down and
force to pay child support are so destitute that their lives focus on
finding the next job, next meal or next night's shelter . . . .
The
initial findings are sobering, filled with descriptions of
life
in the streets or cheap motels, rummaging for food as restaurants
are closing and seeking shelter, often a week or a day at a time.




What we are finding with the men is that in lots of different areas, there
are pressures, in terms of their housing, in terms of their job stability,
in terms of trying to be a father, in terms of education and health. There
are problems in every domain. [9]



Evidence has been building over the past decade that the obligations
imposed
on noncustodial parents are unsustainable but, for many of those years,
little notice was paid. For example, in 1991, the U.S. Department of
Health
and Human Services (HHS) touted a program under which obligors were
rounded
up and told that they could either go to jail or charge their arrearages
on
their credit cards.



The description of the program made no mention of the constitutionality of
debtors' prison or the morality of driving people into 18 percent
revolving
credit card debt to pay obligations that supposedly had been established
on
the basis of ability to pay. The description merely noted that the success
of the program in pilot studies was limited because "the majority of
obligors-most of them from non-AFDC families" -were already so poor that
they "had neither charge cards nor checking accounts." [10]



The most widely cited claims about child support noncompliance are those
derived from U.S. Bureau of the Census surveys. These figures purport to
show that approximately 50 percent of child support orders are paid in
full,
approximately 25 percent are paid in part, and approximately 25 percent
are
unpaid. These figures are given as the principal justification for the
punitive child support measures undertaken by the federal and state
governments during the past decade. The problem is that the cited figures
do
not accurately reflect the reality of child support compliance and
utilized
a methodology that would receive no credence in any other setting.



The Census Bureau asked only the custodial mothers whether payment was
received. It did not compare those responses with noncustodial reports of
how much was paid or with court records of how much was owed. The Census
Bureau also failed to quantify or correct the under-reporting of the
amount
of child support actually received by surveyed welfare recipients who
feared
a risk of benefit reduction or termination if they disclosed the receipt
of
more than thc $50 disregard amount in child support cases .



In other contexts the Department of Health and Human Services has admitted
that welfare recipients typically understate their income in federal
surveys. [11] Finally, the survey lumped together as "partial compliance"
all situations where the delinquency was as little as the late payment of
a
single installment and counted as "non-compliance" all cases where the
obligor was unemployed, disabled, imprisoned, or even dead-the ultimate
"deadbeats."



In a 1992 study, the General Accounting Office reviewed the Census Bureau
data and reported that, when custodial mothers were asked tile reasons why
they had not received child support payments, 66 percent of the mothers
themselves (in both in-state and interstate cases) gave the reason as
"father unable to pay." [12]

-----------------------------------------

[6] Kathleen Parker, Deadbeat Dads More Myth Than Reality, Orlando
Sentinel,
Jan.24, 1999, at G3.



[7] Id.



[8] Paul Valentine, Md. Cleans Up on Child Support in Update on the News,
Wash. Times, June 9,1997, at B5.



[9] Polly Ross Hughes, Many Dads Who Don't Pay Child Support Are
Destitute,
HOUSTON CHRON., Dec. 20, 1998, at 1.



[10] U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Charge It, Please, CHILD
SUPPORRT REP., 1991, at 6.



[11] Welfare Dependency: Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Social
Security, and Family Policy, Committee on Finance, United States Senate,
102d Cong. 4 (1991) (Statement of JoAnne Barnhart, Assistant Secretary for
Family Support).



[12] General Accounting Office, Interstate Child Support: Mothers Report
Receiving Less Support from Out-of-State Fathers, GAO/HRD-92-39FS, January
1992 at 19.