​A Quick Summary of Title IV-D
Funding and Incentives
By Doug Dante DougDante1@yahoo.com Updated: March 11, 2009
 


US CODE TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 7 > SUBCHAPTER IV > Part D > § 655.Payments to States

Provides for 66 percent payments to cover basically all expenses related to child support establishment, payment handling, etc. This is the big direct payment to the states from the federal government. The more work there is to do, the more the federal government repays the states. To maximize program income, the child support enforcement agency should maximize the number of cases, and the number of dollars and processing time per case. It is therefore necessary to discourage parents from making their own arrangements for payment, and to strongly encourage divorces or a breakup of cohabitation between parents. Joint custody laws have been shown to cut the divorce rate. It is unsurprising that most child support agencies often strongly oppose them, along with most family lawyers. From various newspaper articles, it seems that the Michigan Friend of the Court (Assists Michigan courts in enforcing child support and parenting time orders) sends to the federal government documentation for wages and benefits of full time equivalent employees. Each hour a that FOC enforcement officer works, 66% of his/her pay comes from the federal government (plus incentive payments based on performance). I do not believe that the FOC distinguishes between time spent collecting fines, which go to the FOC itself, and time spent collecting child support, which go to the parents who care for the children. Other states likely have equivalent billing mechanisms.
 
US CODE TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 7 > SUBCHAPTER IV > Part D > 658a. Incentive payments to States

$483,000,000 for fiscal year 2008 to be shared amongst all states. (2)(A) Each state's portion is based on its "incentive base amount" which is supposed to be calculated from its paternity establishment performance level, support order performance level, current payment performance level, arrearage payment performance level, and cost effectiveness performance level. All except the first are improved by getting higher child support orders per case, which means sole physical custody for the parent earning the least money. However, for states maximizing revenue, the state collections base, i.e. Support collected, is, I believe, the only value used to calculate performance (5)(A). There is what may be termed a “loophole” which is used by states to effectively get near 100% funding of child support enforcement. This was closed under the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, but was recently reopened for two years retroactive to October 2008 under the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (a.k.a. Stimulus Package). The “loophole” allows states to use federal incentive money to cover their 34% payment to get § 655 funds. In effect, the states only needed to pass the appropriate laws complying with Title IV-Maintain a certain performance level, and then the federal government will pay for most, if not all, of their child support enforcement efforts. In some cases, the states could even profit by collecting more in incentive payments than was required to cover their 34% base share.
 
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/arra_public_review(See Section 2104)
 
US CODE TITLE 42 > CHAPTER 7 > SUBCHAPTER IV > Part D > 669b.Grants to States for access and visitation programs
 
90% federal match or $100,000 per state minimum. It seems to me that most states are missing the boat on getting the most money here. This is may be because they're aware that strong enforcement of parenting time may be an inhibitor to a future divorces, which can reduce child support awards and therefore cut into program income.
 
It's not clear that these courts are respecting the disbursement laws in the 2005 Deficit Reduction Act, and may be using these additional payments, received by check, to pay themselves interest-like fines on arrears.
 
Also, in some case, courts in some states may be respecting the income limits, but evading the restrictions on disbursement by collecting that portion of child support which is intended to pay down arrears as fees. Local child support enforcement agencies then such as the Michigan Friend of the Court then have a financial incentive to find that parents have in the past failed to support their children for an extended period, or that they owe substantial fees such as lawyer fees as child support. As the paying parent will likely not be able to pay off these fees for a long time, the agency can then create an income stream as large as 5% of the parent’s net income (based on the amount collected for arrears), and disburse that to itself as interest-like fines on the arrears that parents owe, rather than to the child they are intended to serve. This creates a very strong incentive to add the legal bills of the other party or other fees onto the child support obligation of the paying parent, in order to establish large arrears up front which then help create large interest-like fines that then create a steady future pay stream for the agency. The establishment of these arrears also create a strong financial incentive to deny modifications of child support payments when parents lose their jobs, or to prevent parents who owe arrears but are actually the custodians of the children for whom they pay child support to modify their obligations to receive support instead, which is normally defined by law as being in the best interests of the children. For some local agencies who are adept at finding parents in arrears, these interest-like fines may represent a substantial income stream. For those income streams established before the 2005 Deficit Reduction Act, the agency's immediate loss of those income streams, caused by new federal laws requiring them to pass that money onto the children they serve, can be a bitter pill to swallow. It should come as no surprise that some parents have raised concerns that their local agency may be failing to follow the changes in the federal disbursement law. Local agencies may also fine parents for the cost of enforcing support obligations, including court costs, costs of police time, cost of agency time in enforcing obligations, the costs of prosecuting attorneys, and jail costs. These additional costs can sometimes create a conflict of interest for the agencies. However, finding the proper balance of enforcement in each case is a delicate matter, and we in the public should try to show reasonable deference to agencies and people who are honestly acting in what they believe is the best interests of children and parents, and who are doing their best to apply the law in a reasonable manner.
 
Undistributed Collected Funds
 
In some cases, child support collected is never disbursed to the parent who is caring for the child. Sometimes that parent “does not want the money”. Sometimes that parent fails to cooperate, and sometimes the money is just lost. Usually, the state keeps this money for itself, either through the general treasury or through the child support collection agency. These undistributed collected funds can add up to substantial income. States have a financial conflict of interest in providing this money to the children which are to benefit from it. This may include making it difficult for people to find out what funds are not being collected or disbursed, even for the paying parent or the child in question, and even after that child turns 18. For example, in Michigan, only the recipient can find the funds using his/her name and social security number.

Below, you will find snippets and the complete file of a report done by Congress which was taken from Wikileaks. It concerns the rising trend in nonmarital childbirths.  What I take from it, is:

1. The Government is working on the idea that, by making "child support enforcement" so bad, that it will deter out-of-wedlock births. Which is WRONG!
2. Because the idea is so WRONG, the rise in unwed births each year is greater and GREATER. Essentially destroying lives.

You decide for yourself...
From​ the report:
Child Support Obligation as a Deterrent
The Child Support Enforcement (CSE) program was enacted in 1975 as a
federal-state program (Title IV-D of the Social Security Act) to help strengthen
families by securing financial support for children from their noncustodial parent on a consistent and continuing basis and by helping some families to remain
self-sufficient and off public assistance by providing the requisite CSE services.
Over the years, CSE has evolved into a multifaceted program. Although
cost-recovery still remains an important function of the program, its other aspects
include service delivery and promotion of self-sufficiency and parental responsibility.
 CRS-50169

• Child support is paid until the child is age 18 (the age limit is higher is some states).
• Past-due child support (i.e., child support arrearages) are still owed even though the child has reached age 18 — in some states for an additional five to seven years, in some states to age 30.

 
Although P.L. 104-193 seeks to reduce pregnancies, birth data, and not pregnancy data, have become the indicator because birth data are more current and reliable.
The CSE program contains numerous measures to establish and enforce child
support obligations. Because strict child support enforcement is thought to deter nonmarital childbearing, the child support provisions are seen by some in Congress as another method of attempting to reduce nonmarital pregnancies. Child support enforcement measures include streamlined efforts to name the father in every case, employer reporting of new hires (to locate noncustodial parents quicker), uniform interstate child support laws, computerized statewide collections to expedite payment, and stringent penalties, such as the revocation of a drivers’ license and the seizure of bank accounts, in cases in which noncustodial parents owe past-due child support.
FALSE IDEA -> According to social science research, stronger child support enforcement may increase the cost of children for men and should make men more reluctant to have children outside of marriage.
In other words, by raising the cost of fatherhood to unmarried men, effective paternity establishment and child support enforcement deter nonmarital births.170 In contrast, stronger child support enforcement may reduce the
cost of children for women (making them more willing to have children outside of
marriage).
Another LIE ->  However, according to recent evidence, once a single woman becomes a mother, her chances of marrying anyone other than the father of her child are greatly reduced.172

Every day... children are stripped from their fathers -and some mothers-, unlawfully, or they never get to know their father. This is because the family court is dead-set on creating deadbeats. How do little girls, like the ones in the video below, grow up? What values, morals or ideas do they carry into their adulthood? Did you ever wonder why there are so many adult porn stars? Suicides? Criminals? Mentally insane?

The Family Courts do not know the "best interest of the child" since their actions are followed with a decline in the happiness and well being of children.

Millions of fathers, and children alike, have raged in defiance against the unethical and tyrannical system of the family courts to no end, even with such a decay in confidence by those unaffected by such a system, it remains stronger and more powerful than ever. Man's greatest fear is not pain or death, but rather, being forced to separate from his or her loved ones and being sucked into the family court machine to be rendered a financial slave for the crime of "having children."

All this pain... because top law-makers and the greedy hyenas who reside and operate within the judicial system, collecting Title IV-D money, "know what's best." This is purely fiction, they don't know what's best, only what's most profitable and their corrupt priorities will eventually condemn all mankind into the abyss by eradicating the one pillar upon which our species gains its strength, the family.

What if these were you kids? What if you were the victim of family court injustice? To be forced to give up your children and PAY the kidnapper ransom or you'll wind up in jail? Most of you reading this know EXACTLY how this feels and it feels DEAD WRONG.

This is a REAL problem and it needs to be corrected. NOW!

I do not ask for money on this site ever, but I am asking for you to help share this blog post and this video. It is important that we make people understand WHAT IS HAPPENING!  

I thank you for your support.
-Concerned Citizen​

Each year, there are:

• Over 1,000,000 abortions in the US  
• Nearly 150,000 children put up for adoption.

​
That's a total of 1,150,000 children that either cease to exist, or are placed inside the arms of non-biologically related parents. It also means that nearly 1.2 million women will not have to meet any obligations of being a mother. With an average of 3-4 million births per year in the US alone, this means that about 1 of 4 women have made a choice to not be a parent.

However, not one man, is EVER allowed to make that same choice, which we grant to nearly 25% of women. Is this fair?

Men are told, you MUST be a parent, whether you like it or not, and/or whether you can afford to or not. Women, and the legal system which aids them, DEMAND that a man must pay because he has a shared responsibility for the life he helped create, even if he never consented to it. If he doesn't, it's off to jail he goes and a life of dismal gloom lay ever before him.

This must change...

Either a man is entitled to the same reproductive choices as women or nobody, will have a choice. Women will not be able to place babies up for adoption, or legally abandon them, or God forbid abort them. Men will have the equal right to say, 'I did not consent to become a father and I hereby renounce my rights as a parent and shall have no future obligations to the child, should the woman choose to have and raise the child."

This is only fair.

Here is an excerpt from two very intelligent and reasonable female attorneys who feel the same way.

'When a female determines she is pregnant, she has the freedom to decide if she has the maturity level to undertake the responsibilities of motherhood, if she is financially able to support a child, if she is at a place in her career to take the time to have a child, or if she has other concerns precluding her from carrying the child to term. After weighing her options, the female may choose abortion. Once she aborts the fetus, the female's interests in and obligations to the child are terminated. In stark contrast, the unwed father has no options. His responsibilities to the child begin at conception and can only be terminated with the female's decision to abort the fetus or with the mother's decision to give the child up for adoption. Thus, he must rely on the decisions of the female to determine his future. The putative father does not have the luxury, after the fact of conception, to decide that he is not ready for fatherhood. Unlike the female, he has no escape route."
McCulley's male abortion concept aims to equalize the legal status of unwed men and unwed women by giving the unwed man by law the ability to 'abort' his rights in and obligations to the child. If a woman decides to keep the child the father may choose not to by severing all ties legally.
This same concept has been supported by a former president of the feminist organization National Organization for Women, attorney Karen DeCrow, who wrote that "if a woman makes a unilateral decision to bring pregnancy to term, and the biological father does not, and cannot, share in this decision, he should not be liable for 21 years of support...autonomous women making independent decisions about their lives should not expect men to finance their choice."

"Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty." -Thomas Jefferson



We must educate the public about the sleazy child support scheme.

​The reality is; the Family Courts are running a total racket… they are destroying families, destroying fathers, and most certainly, destroying children. The forced Child Support charges brought upon men are completely exaggerated and irrefutably reduce many men to total or near poverty. There is no accountability whatsoever, there is only extortion, and why you ask? It is because the more child support that a judge orders, the higher the kick back the State receives from the Federal Government. (Title IV-D Section 458)

The whole family court operation is a total violation of the US Constitution. Check amendments 5, 13, 14 just to start and then read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, articles 25 and 30. When you, or any of us, ignore the plights of the innumerable men, women and children who suffer daily, then we also inadvertently support such corruption because we do nothing, and we are no better than the lawyers, judges and greed-driven mothers that are the cause of such agony.

Children are the future…

Children DO NOT care about child support payments! Only covetous individuals crave money and control over their fellow man. The children want love from their parents and they need it more than ever in such a dismal world. Money is not equal to love.

Yet, there are women, aided by family court judges, who keep their children away from the father even though that man must pay nearly half of his paycheck to the mother. This is not right, for the father or the child. 

​If Mommy wants sole custody of her child... Mommy needs to get a job and support that child all by herself, for that is the price to pay for keeping children from their father. After all, as an equal and independent woman, she had all the options on whether to abort the fetus in the first days or month, or she also could have put the baby up for adoption as there are millions of stable couples looking to adopt, and she might even have opted to legally abandon the child, if she felt that she wasn’t ready to be a mother. Her body, her choice, her responsibility.

Men, receive none of the same options that women do, and that alone is not reasonable. Mothers don't have to be mothers if they feel they're not ready, but men must become forced into fatherhood? The "keep it in your pants" argument is not a valid argument, for obviously, the woman's consent was involved for sex to have been had, and on that subject, what about the women who "claim" to be on birth control, but are not? The women whom, as soon as they're pregnant, end the relationship and move on to become “single mothers” by choice? By "single mother" is meant, they sue for child support and accept Government assistance. Then, once Welfare runs dry, they repeat the cycle, or marry a different man where they can later file for divorce and ask for alimony? How about those Women? They are toxic and a big deal to do with why the child support laws and alimony laws do not work. What if a man wants no part in his child's life, for whatever reason? Should he be forced into fatherhood? Should he be forced to pay exorbitant amounts of child support? The answer to that should be no.. it's not the optimal choice for that man to make, but it should be his to make nonetheless. In the short term it seems cowardly, but in the long term, it will change things... You see, once women are told that they are not going to get free money just for having a baby, watch and see how fast the pregnancy statistics will decline.

Now, if we're talking about the children of divorced parents, that's a different story… However, 90% of men will unconditionally take care of their children, even though it means going into the poor house themselves. What men ought to have is a better system, if they choose to pay child support. Such as; pay the national average cost of raising a child, which is far lower than what the typical amount a judge is ordering. According to a documentary about divorce called, 'Divorce Corp,' in Scandinavia, child support is $150/month and that's it. There is no incentive for divorce or child custody and as a matter of statistics, Scandinavia beats the US in all around prosperity and health. US needs to follow suit.

The “people” need to become educated and quit pretending that because "men" complain about child support that they just don't want to pay child support. That is completely false and irresponsible for any of us to assume. Read the statistics on the number of suicides as a result of unfairness in the family court system and you'll understand what's really at stake. These "children" that the family courts, and ignorant citizens pretend to care about, are growing up fatherless. Even the children who grow up with child support paying fathers, tend to repeat the cycle of abandoning their own children due to being a witness to the custody wars and so on.

Child support needs reform... now. We can no longer do nothing.

We must, as Americans, as a People, Wake Up... now.

Always your friend,
Concerned Citizen

The first movement in this war, is to spread the information of the family court corruption.

We must do this, or we won't get the support from those who are not victimized. 
Here is a list of a few things you can do:

1: Create handouts with basic information and hand them out, stick them on cars and leave them at public information boards.

2: Talk to people and tell them what is happening, ask them to get involved.

3: Share youtube videos, petitions and information on social network sites.

4: Send them to this website and have them read the information here, I will gladly answer their questions.

5: Set-up local protests in front of the family courts in your districts.

6: Call your local representatives and alert them to the issues. Put pressure on them to act! Even if they're part of the scandal, the pressure will affect them.

There will come time, in the near future, when we're all going to get together and protest against this madness. Until then, put the spotlight on the problem. 

There are TWO major arguments that the general public and the courts love to toss around.

1: You have an OBLIGATION to support YOUR child, therefore you must PAY!
2: If you fall behind, then, you're a DEADBEAT DAD!

So you tell them, anyone who shoots this ridiculousness in your direction, you tell them this:

1: I DO have an obligation to support my child, but child support does NOT go to my child, it goes to his MOTHER. It supports HER. NOT the child.

​2: Falling behind in child support (mother support) debt does not make anyone lesser of a person. It just means they can't afford to survive AND pay the mother money that she's probably not using on the child.