Topic: Ron Paul
The Federal Scheme to Destroy Father-Child Relationships Federal entitlement programs are decimating the lives of children and trampling on the rights of fathers to the care and companionship of their kids. We must dismantle the Federal-State entitlement nexus that deprives men of their civil liberties. Here is what every man in America should know.by Jake Morphonios
(Conservative Libertarian)
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Congress would feign admit its own dubious contribution to the suffering of America's children. Rather, these politicians promulgate the myth that they are helping children through federal and state welfare entitlement programs. It is, in fact, these very programs which are responsible for the out of control rampage against children. Here is how the scam works.
The federal government levies taxes against citizens to redistribute as welfare entitlements among needy applicants. Congress created the Social Security Act, a section of which is called Title IV. Title IV describes how tax dollars will be distributed among the States to subsidize their individual welfare programs. In order for States to tap into the federal treasure chest, containing billions of dollars, they must demonstrate that they are complying with Title IV mandates to collect child support revenues. In other words, to get money from the federal government, each State must become a child support collection and reporting agency.
Every unwed or single mother seeking welfare assistance must disclose on her application the identities of the fathers of her children and how much child support the fathers have been ordered by a family court to pay. She must also commit to continuously reporting the father's payments so that the State can count the money as "collected" to the federal government's Office of Child Support Enforcement. As with all bureaucracies, this process has developed into a monstrosity that chews up and spits out the very people it was designed to help.
States have huge financial incentives to increase the amount of child support it can report to the federal government as "collected". To increase collection efforts, States engage in the immoral practice of dividing children from their fathers in family courts. Have you ever wondered why family courts award custody to mothers in 80%-90% of all custody cases, even when the father is determined to be just as suitable a parent? It is because the amount of child support ordered by the State is largely determined by how much time the child spends with each parent. This means that the State "collects" less child support if parents share equal custody. By prohibiting fathers from having equal custody and time with their children, the State's child support coffers are increased and federal dollars are received.
Opponents try to paint loving fathers as "deadbeat dads" for daring to challenge the mother-take-all system of family law. This is nothing more than diversionary propaganda. The concern of fathers is not that they are unwilling to support their children financially. This is not an argument against paying child support. Any father that cares about his child will do everything in his power to provide for the child. The concern is, rather, that children are being separated from their fathers by family courts because the State stands to reap huge financial rewards as a result of the father's loss of custody. The higher the order of child support, the more money the State can collect - even if the amount ordered by the court far exceeds the reasonable needs of the child or if the father is required to take second and third jobs to keep up with outrageous support orders and escape certain incarceration. The truth is that most fathers don't care about the financial aspects of these family court verdicts nearly as much as they care about having their time with their children eliminated for nefarious government purposes.
The root of this evil is a State-level addiction to federal tax dollars being doled out as entitlement monies by a monolithic federal government. In the wake of this horror are millions of children drowning for lack of the care, guidance, and companionship of their fathers. Statistics and empirical evidence universally confirm that children forcibly separated from their fathers by family courts are considerably more likely to suffer anxiety and depression, develop drug addiction, engage in risky sexual activity, break the law, and commit suicide. This travesty must end.
Unconstitutional federal bureaucracy creates many of the societal ills it claims to be trying to solve. There are several steps incremental steps that could be taken to restore a child's right to the companionship of both parents. For example, citizens should insist that States abide by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. No father should be automatically deprived of his fundamental right to the custody of his children without due process of law. Being a male is not a crime. Absent a finding of true danger from a parent, family courts should order shared parenting rights and equal time sharing for divorcing parents. These rights are fundamental and should not be abridged. The automatic presumption of custody-to-the-mother is unconstitutional.
The history of America is brim with examples of the federal government denying basic rights to its citizens. Women were denied the right to vote until the women's suffrage movement secured the 19th Amendment to the Constitution. Black Americans also were denied the right to vote and suffered myriad other cruel and humiliating indignities under the law until the civil rights movement brought about desegregation, put an end to Jim Crow legislation and compelled the enactment of the 15th and 24th Amendments to the Constitution. In each of these examples, society was slow to recognize that a problem even existed or that some of our laws were unjust. It took considerable time, concerted effort, self-sacrifice and perhaps even divine providence to realign concurrent societal paradigms with the principles of liberty and justice for all.
Our generation is not exempt from similar assaults on liberty. While many just causes may stake claims for redress of grievances, one group, more than any other, pleads for immediate support. The need to defend the rights of this group of American citizens, reeling from the unjust consequences of state-sponsored oppression, is before us. It is time to stand up for the rights of children and demand their equal access to both parents.
- - -
Jake Morphonios is a civil rights advocate and North Carolina State Coordinator for Fathers 4 Justice - US. The political opinions of Mr. Morphonios do not represent those of Fathers 4 Justice. Neither Mr. Morphonios nor F4J-US provide legal advice or assistance with individual cases.
Fathers seeking support or information, or other parties interested in becoming involved in the father's rights movement may contact Mr. Morphonios at: jake.morphonios@nc.f4j.us
PLEASE THUMB THIS ARTICLE to help spread the word to others about this imporant issue.
If you liked this article, you may also want to read:
There is a very simple trick, used all too frequently in family courts, that will almost always ensure the immediate elimination of a man's constitutional rights. Read more to find out if it can happen to you.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 110 thumbs so far
2008 Jake Morphonios, all rights reserved.
Published: Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Last modified: Tuesday, March 11, 2008
The views expressed in this
article are those of Jake Morphonios only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Jake Morphonios is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Great article covering a very complex issue that most Americans are completely unaware. You do make a claim that I would like to clarify. You state, "It is because the amount of child support ordered by the State is largely determined by how much time the child spends with each parent." Yes, time allocated does impact the models used to calculate CS but, in many cases, imputed income is largest contributing factor to excessively high CS. In my case, the court granted me 50% time with my child but imputed my income $150k+, I had been involuntarily unemployed 4 months prior to final orders. The clear incentive is to make CS awards as high as possible but awarding time doesn't keep them from elevating CS to unreasonable levels.
Again, great article and thanks.
Dan
Excellent article, Jake. As a father who pays CS, I agree w/ every word you've written. The only thing I might add is to consider employment status when racking up back CS. In my case, I was in the Army when my ex and I broke up, and I had set up an allotment for an agreed upon amount for each pay period to be sent to them for support. Well, after I had ETS'ed out of the service I was out of work for a while and the back CS piled on. As a married couple, if a father provides for his family, even during hard times, he's not obligated to take additional jobs to make up for income lost...it's just lost. Not when you are a single dad, tho! Job lost? It doesn't matter...you still owe this much, every month, even if your kids are eating better than you are. When I went to court to finalize the divorce, not only was I hit w/ that, but the court decided that the amount that I had been paying w/ the allotments was not enough and hit me w/ and additional $6000.00 of instant back CS! In the single swing of the gavel, I was indebted by almost $10,000.00, and my drivers liscense was suspended instantly! Well, this forced me to become an outlaw. I had get to work (drive) to save up $2000.00 to pay a lump sum before I could re-instate my DL. If I got caught driving...well, that's just more money out the window. But somebody in the courts needs to understand that you can't impoverish one man to sustain a lifestyle for his children that is beyond his means of providing. If it were not for church groups and friends, I would have literally starved. My kids have lived w/ thier grandparents & mother the whole time and never even had to skip a snack. Not that I'd ever want them to want for anything, but where's the justice in that? If their mom and I were still married, we all would have had to just tighten the belts and make it through the rough times. Being divorced, they get to enjoy the same lifestyle while I become impoverished. Being a single dad is hard enough...why do they have to make it so much harder?
Posted By: Joel Johnston
Date: 2008-02-13 16:41:59
This is a very well written article that describes how the states are entitled to Title IV-d funding.
I would add that this funding goes directly to a single State agency which is their designated child support collection agency. This agency has responsibility for the funding of others in the state. This funding includes Court Commissioners who track the hours they spend on child support for reimbursement, family court prosecutors who are funded by child support agencies, sheriffs offices that have members of their staff totally funded for giving out CIVIL warrants.
Effectively, you have developed a police state - prosecutors, judges, police, all funded by a common agency to get the results they need to fund themselves. Communism at its best! Right here in the good ol' U S of A.
Posted By: Joel Johnston
Date: 2008-02-13 16:51:30
Sorry, at the risk of being viewed as a spammer, which I'm not, I have to add this additional comment. Two comments I read in this article talk about CS payments being set too high.
THis is not a coincidence. David Spring of the University of Washington in Seattle has just completed a very detail analysis of the child support table models that the states use. He goes into these models, exposing the plus, the minus of each, and demonstrates how they are too high.
In Washington State, they are easily 17%-40% too high due to faulty data provided individuals hired by Washington State to help develop their tables. Recently, Dr. David Betson of Notre Dame has had to recant some of his statements made about competing methods from his own, and his own method has been proven to be full of issues that would only add to the high child support already being paid. The entire report can be downloaded here and should be read by anyone involved in Child Support Workgroups in their state, activists, etc. [link edited for length]
Bah. This totally misses the core of the problem, which is not the problem of how the government deals with divorce, child support, and out-of-wedlock births, but the fact that those things exist to set up a so-called "need" for the government to intervene in the first place.
As a child in a divorced family, as a kid I saw firsthand what that does. I saw the family politics, I saw the court-issued support checks from my Dad in the mail that went who knows where, and only when I was an adult was I able to point out to my mother the BS of it all and make peace with my Dad into a loving relationship. That took 18 years.
The tenets of personal responsibility require that people not be having kids out of wedlock and that parents accept the responsibility for the children they have created. That responsibility is much more than financial--it is the actions of nuturing, loving, teaching, and guiding your children. My Dad was denied that by my mother and was driven away, and then she blamed him for it. How many other divorced families go through that selfish petty crap? Probably a huge majority.
Fix that problem and the government intervention becomes largely irrelevant and easier to fix. But until the root of the problem is dealt with, all the government reform in the world won't help.
Posted By: Joel Johnston
Date: 2008-02-14 11:24:03
Tannim brings up some great points here, but some points are missing that should change his view of things. Government intervention under Title IV-D requires the Government agencies "go after" parents that don't pay child support, but forbids them from doing anything when parenting time is denied. You can check with any local prosecutors office, they file 100's of contempt orders for non-payment of child support each week, but NEVER file one for denial of time on a parenting plan.
Federal Studies have shown that the longer a child is kept from a parent, the harder it is to collect child support - they become disenfranchised.
Seems the government knows that if parenting time is provided child support is paid more regularly, yet their own rules and regulations forbid this from happening. why? Makes no sense. It's impossible to have loving and nurturing relationship with ones children when the very government agencies that are supposed to protect that are given financial incentives to ensure it doesn't happen.
Title IV-D block grants are a menace to the American Family
This is so correct but another horror father's face is welfare that deceptive mother's enroll in. Myself a continuing up-to-date child supporter has now been charged with close to $14,000 back arrearages somehow calculated by welfare....even though I've followed everything in my court order....welfare doesn't wait for fair representation they just deduct from your paycheck without your consent. Of course, its overlooked where I had notified the ex's attorney of my job change but that doesn't get them very far or much money then. So now, I have to borrow lots of money, retain an attorney, while my paychecks give me $0.00 dollars on them and fight for the truth to prevail in court against an ex who hasn't let me see my kids for almost two years now (even though I'm entitled by the courts). Even with this welfare garbage, she still hasn't revealed the wereabouts of the kids but I can't wait til court....where she will be forced to do so.
Excellent article !! We need to shake up all Fathers across the Globe and wake them up in order to protect our future generations becoming slaves to extreme feminist and government sponsored legal terrorism.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
2008 Jake Morphonios, all rights reserved.