Home Recommended Products Contact Us
Resources & Links
Fatherlessness Statistics
Child Support
Legal Resources
Search This Site
Bad Judges List
Free Templates
Restraining Orders
Judicial Abuse Stories
Father's Stories
Legal Help & Referrals
Constitutional Rights
Table of Contents
Terms & Conditions
Signup for Newsletter
Search Site

Child Support is a For Profit Business For States and Denying Custody to Fathers Drives Profit Higher

Why Parenting Time Motions Fail
Written by Lary Holland   
Thursday, 16 March 2006
TO EDITOR/STAFF WRITER: (Released Statewide)

RE: Why Parenting Time Motions Fail and Child Support Motions Succeed.

After a Friend of the Court Citizen Advisory Committee meeting an attorney indicated that it seemed that their parenting time motions seem to fail more frequently than child support motions succeed. This was a brilliant observation and I wanted to take a quick moment and tell you why.

For every three dollars ($3.00) that your local court spends on Child Support Enforcement the court receives two dollars ($2.00) by way of federal block grant money. Additionally to make up the difference of the remaining one dollar balance the local courts have been able to use what is known as federal incentive grants from the federal government, which has made it possible to “profit” from operating a “successful” child support enforcement program.  An immense gain by the state is to be had by operating a "successful" child support enforcement program which means that a child cannot have substantially equal time with both parents. In order to maximize federal money the states create the appearance of an absentee parent for purposes of the Child Support Enforcement welfare program. Successful also means maximizing the number of participants the state has in its Child Support Enforcement welfare program by including the middle-class at the sole expense of the U.S. Tax Payer.

See 42 USC 655; “Payment to States”;
See 42 USC 658a; “Incentive payments to States”;

In a parenting time conflict, there is disincentive to allow children to have substantially equal time with their parents because then the parents do not fit wholly into the above welfare program model as being absent. The more parenting time provided, typically, child support is reduced or abated. A reduction in participants is a reduction in the justification of federal monies to the state. Normally the reduction of expenditures is encouraged by government but in this case the opposite holds true because there is a profit derived from the excess influx of funds. Because of lack of eligibility requirements there is immense waste in the new Child Support Enforcement Bureaucracy. In 2006 alone, 4.2 BILLION of our Social Security Fund, nationally, is being invested into this program which is a huge disincentive for the states to allow substantially equal parenting time with both parents.

The huge mass of money out of your social security also is the reason that the State is so eager to incorporate all the middle-class into their Child Support Enforcement welfare programs; that means higher support awards and an appearance of more need for federal money now that there is widespread expanded group participation.

The new welfare abuser is not the people, but the states who have shaped their participant numbers to create the appearance of need for a program that lacks eligibility requirements. The reality is that there are many fit, willing, and competent parents that are trapped in a welfare system against their will and they are being prevented from parenting their children because the state wants to maximize their federal funding and make them look absent.

Last Updated ( Tuesday, 09 May 2006 )