In class, we discussed limitations of child support laws for low-income families. Most states have laws which collect child support payments from fathers whose children receive welfare benefits, in order to recoup the costs of welfare. We speculated on how such laws would affect the motivation of poor non-residential fathers to pay child support - or to pay money to their children "under the table."
In this article from the New York Times, the current atmosphere of child support laws is examined. Due to a new act passed by Congress last year, starting in 2009, $100 of child support will be passed through to families with one child and $200 for families with two children or more. However, critics argue that this change is too little, too late. A "groundswell" of bipartisan support could not encourage lawmakers to craft new laws to change child support in the recent session of Congress.
According to the article, how are families affected by recoupment of child support, such as through laws in Wisconsin? Why are politicians resistant to changing the law, and to allow all child support money to pass through to poor families?
61 comments:
Many families that are of a lower SES and in need of all the extra income they can receive are negatively impacted by the laws in Wisconsin. In Karla Hart’s case she is struggling to make ends meet and sees very little of the child support payment her child’s father makes monthly. More than half of her check she does not see because it goes to repay the federal costs of welfare. Karla is not alone in her struggle. If families were able to get all of their money, then maybe it is possible that so many single parents wouldn’t have to turn to welfare for support.
Some politicians are resistant to changing this law because it will force the need to make cuts in different areas because the funding will deteriorate. Another reason that some do not want money to go to the families is because of a term known as “double dipping.” This means that it was somewhat of an obligation for the parent not taking care of the child to repay the government for their help and if that money were to go to families as well it would be double dipping because it is going to two places. Although politicians are resistant I believe that the current law needs changing. Families need to have the chance to receive more money when living in a single parent household. The more money coming in, there will be less of a chance that the family will need to be on welfare.
I agree with 303 that these poor families need every possible dollar from their child support checks to support their children. Welfare is extremely expensive for the nation, however, it is not the responsibility of parents recieving child support to recoup these costs. They need to find another way to get the money back. Also, more fathers might be willing to give child support if they knew that all of their money was going to help their children. But instead, they know that some of it is going straight to the state of federal government and they choose not to give money and instead not support their children. This would not be the case if Pass-Through Laws did not exist in states. Children should not be penalized because the government wants to make up the costs of welfare, however, this is exactly what they are doing. Child poverty is an enormous epidemic in this country, and the little bit extra a child might recieve without the government taking it out, might help end it.
I agree with both of the previous posters. I find it ridiculous how Karla Hart only received 42% of her child support check. I was even surprised to find out that the state uping it to $100.00 for a single child was such progress. I understand the concept of "double dipping" that the first poster mentioned. And agree in many ways it wouldn't be fair for the parent to receive welfare and a child support check. Assuming of course that the parent was on welfare because they were missing the income of their partner. Regardless, it is not the obligation of the single parent to pay back the welfare debt. The money is supposed to go towards helping the children and 40% of a check is not going to support 4 children.
The money to recoup welfare amounts needs to be pulled from somewhere else. Not only is it essentially taking away from the children but it is pushing parents away from actually paying child support. Knowing that more than half is taken by the state and how little actually goes towards food, rent, clothes money would disillusion anyone from paying such quantities.
This article reallllllly angered me. First, the difference in money that Mrs. Hart received after the state got their grubby hands on it is ridiculous. If the state is going to take that much money, then the male figure in the family’s life needs to step up his game and supplement the amount that the state is taking away. Families are affected from this change because they are forced to make extremely important choices like paying the rent or giving money to their children for school. I believe politicians are resistant to the new law because the funding will decrease in other areas that the state needs funding in. I agree with the post above me that single families need to have more chances to earn money. The government is going back on American ideals of a strong family. By reducing money to families, their resources diminish which in turn leads to a lower SES. As an American ideal, helping others out is what we should strive to do. This law needs to be passed because it will only benefit the economy and society.
Pass through laws are having a major impact on the fate of children. Parents need just about every dollar they are able to obtain to ensure the well being of their children but because of pass through laws many of these children do not even receive child support money from their fathers. Why is this? One reason could be because the government takes out a portion of this money and fathers may decide not to pay child support due to the fact that all of their money is not going to their child. Who pays for this, sure this means the government loses out on some money but in the end the child pays the price because their fathers won’t pay child support is the government takes out money and then children are forced to suffer. I do not believe parents need to necessarily pay back the welfare they receive, but I think they need to do something to give back. Welfare is very expensive, and there needs to be a way to replenish it because it would be very difficult for a family coming off of welfare, to repay those costs since many stay of welfare for extended periods of time. I also think families with a single parent need to receive more money because they have less income coming in and it’s not right for them to get the same amount of money as those with two parents, it doesn’t balance out at all.
Many mothers face similar problems like Karla Hart who struggle to maintain a stable home environment for their children with the limited amount of money they receive from child support. Hart describes how her child’s father owes close to $230 a month for child support, but she only receives $97.22 of the payment, as most of the check goes to repaying the government for the cost of welfare. Hart describes how receiving more of the check could go into paying bills, rent, or electricity. Hart finds herself struggling to budget, as she hands her daughter nine dollars for a school activity, which shows the tight financial circumstances she is in with less child support aid. As blogger 341 states, the current child support system makes fathers more unwilling to pay child support because the majority of their money is not handed directly to the use of the child. Studies in Wisconsin show that more fathers paid the complete amount of child support and more frequently when all the money was passed along to mothers. This is a clear indication that children will fair better off, emotionally and financially, if states allow a total pass through system.
Many politicians are reluctant to change the law because of cuts implied for personnel and enforcement. As Vicki Turetsky described there was strong surge of giving more money to families, but the idea was later placed on the backburner as it would cut costs in personnel. Many politicians are still wrapped around the monetary figures. From 1996 to 2006, child support collections were doubled, which give many politicians the idea that the system should not be changed. This figure easily sways many to believe that nothing should be changed in the system, yet the priority should be the best interest of our children, and this clearly is not it. Perhaps, if we adapted a pass through system in all states it would reduce the dependency on government services. It would also help children and their fathers to develop a better relationship as they see their fathers more actively supporting them.
Families receiving child support are strongly affected by the implementation. As stated in the article, Ms. Hart was receiving a full child support check for more than eight years, and when it ended, she lost more than half her check. For someone who is relying on a child support check to pay the bills this is devastating news. At this point, Ms. Hart explained that she is going to have to somehow find the money she needs for rent. Money that she used to be able to compile with the help of the child support check. Interestingly enough, the money taken out of Harts check is going to repay the cost of welfare. This seems kind of contradictory because the government is taking money from the poor to put it back into a program that gives money to the poor. It puts an unnecessary strain on an already uncomfortable situation. Politicians are apprehensive about changing this law because they do not want to make cuts in other part of the national market, or perhaps, they are unsure where those cuts could come from. I believe that this law needs to be done away with. It does nothing help families rise out of poverty, and if anything, it perpetuates poverty and their dependence on welfare by taking away money the money they need.
Child support enforcement dillemma is something that is pretty tragic and frustrating all together. For mothers and children that are on welfare, this is even more sad. The law passed by congress to first recoup welfare money given to needy families before having it given to the mothers is one of the most horrible things I have heard. First of all, welfare checks are not designed to really help you make ends meet. The welfare checks are designed so that the payments issued are less than the lowest paying job; to make it a disincentive to working. So, there should be no problem with the needy families collecting welfare and child support payments. In the case of Ms. Hart, because of the lack of child support that she recieves due to federal deductions, she had to take a part time job even with ailing health. This is absolutely absurd! If the government keeps doing this, how can they expect people ever to get out of welfare and get back on their feet? The purpose of a government is to look after the country and a big part of this is the welfare of its people. Baisically, the laws in Wisconsin are not really helping the people on welfare as much as they should if they are recouping their money back from the other sources of income of needy families.
I agree with blogger 303 in the fact that law makers feel that given the families all of their child support payments "double dipping". Some politicians feel that giving welfare reciepients all of their child support payment as a kind of double compensation. They feel that the government has a right to withold some of the payments because it supported the children previously. However, I disagree with 341 on the fact that welfare is not extremely expensive for the nation, it only makes up a small percent of government budgets. I feel that this child support stems from law-makers viewing this situation on an individual level rather than a societal level. If politicians actually made social welfare as much of a priority as they should, there will be enough money to support all programs.
Families are affected tremendously by the recoupment of child support it is not actually helping them but rather taking away from what they need. If the government orders child support it means that they understand that the cost of raising children is very high and many mothers cannot afford this on their own. To take money away from the checks is contradicting everything that child support stands for. Karla stated that the money that was taken from her could have paid for another bill. How can these mothers have any hope of giving their children a better life when the money they deserve is being reduced greatly. Politicians are resistant to change the law because no one really knows where they can make the money up from. The economy is in such a bad state there is little wiggle room to change things around. Someone will untimely loose whether it is the mothers who are trying to provide for their children, the children themselves since they won’t be receiving the thing they need, or the government. I agree with blogger 353, this law does nothing to help these families. It takes away from everything that it has been put in place to do. It does not help them out of poverty but keeps them their going through the same things every month. Ms. Hart could not even given her daughter $9, and had to take it out of her rent just to provide for her daughter is a very difficult decision. Mothers want the best for the children and these mothers are making the ultimate sacrifices for theirs.
I did my policy paper on the topic of Child support enforcement. I learned a lot about the pass through laws and I am shocked that more states have not adopted this rule. Unfortunately, this government is greedy for money. Instead of taking time to help families who have lower-incomes and need more s support with the help of the child support payments they take it away. I am highly confused on why establish this law if they were just going to keep the money for themselves? This affects many families because it is suppose to promote financial and medical well-being for children but the families don't even see half the payments. The lady in the article said her daughter asked her for $9 for something at school and by just giving her that small amount of money she was unable to pay her bills. You can tell that she is struggling to make ends meet, putting food on her table for her daughter. It is one thing if your spouse is not sending in any money at all because of unemployment, imprisonment or neglect but if he is actually sending money in why can't the family who is need benefit from it? The politicians who are so resistant probably go home and have no problem putting food on their tables because if they were in the shoes of these mothers they would agree on the changes in the law. The only reason I can think of why the politicians are resistant to the law changes is because they will not receive as much money in their paychecks that they are use to. Budgets will be cut when trying to reform the pass through laws and most people are not willing to go through that. They are only concern about themselves and I hope they never have to encounter what these single parents go through. Or maybe they should experience a different lifestyle and see how it feels at the end to be begging for money instead of trying to cut it off for somebody.
I agree with Matthew to an extent but if these families were not in intense need of money they would not of applied for welfare. It makes common sense for them to pay back because welfare costs a lot of money, but you have to give them time to get on their feet and understand the situation they are in. Some custodial parents, as we have read in Secombe and Flat Broke with Children, are not single because they asked to be. All of them did not intentionally go out and say they want to survive on welfare, no, they are consequences of this backward system. However, I semi-agree with your statement about paying it back. Morally speaking, if we care about the well-being of our children, future leaders of society, why not just help the mother's raising them put food on their tables to eat. We aren't talking about buying a new toy from Christmas or a new outfit for the first day of school, we are talking about food; a necessity. We can put millions of money overseas abroad, but we can’t help the people that live right behind the White House. It is a shame how we can not even help out our mothers and children anymore. I understand people put themselves in these situations sometimes, but we should still help them overcome these situations that can happen to any of us. However, I like the fact that you pointed out that single parents should been given more money because they have less incomes, but I have a question. Do you think that single mothers should have to pay that money back, if they are given more money because they are not living with a partner to help them?
I did my paper on the Paternity Establishment policy and it was really interesting to look at percentages and numbers based on how many families were being affected by single parent families, in particular single mothers. A high percentage of these families are living in poverty to begin with, which forces them to turn to public assistance or welfare. When these single mothers get on welfare and have child support from the father, they still end up loosing as we saw in the article. Families are affected by recoupment of child support because welfare ends up taking a large percentage. A good example would be Karla Hart who is sick and her doctor advices her not to work but she still does because although she is getting child support it is not sufficient and she is putting her health at risk. Although there are important factors that play a role in this, politicians do not want to change the law and give all the child support money because they believe they funding will decrease and they will loose funding where they need it. I agree with you 353, that the government should really consider how poverty is influenced by child support enforcement and this policy. Instead of helping these single mothers out of poverty and dependence on welfare they are using this as a tool to allow them to stay on it and not have any upward mobility. It is really important to consider all assets to this problem and like we saw in the laws of Wisconsin and the families who are being affected, it is a growing issue. Although some bloggers here have referred to this as “double dipping” it is still important to consider the well being of the child in particular because every case is different.
Many families are affedted the recoupment of child suport. Instead of mothers and children recieving the child support money, the government uses it to pay welfare costs. Those families could use that money to pay bills they are behind on. Karla Hart is struggling to support her four children because the government basically takes most of her money. Karla is one of the many mothers in this situation. Politicians are resistant to changing the law, and to allow all child suport money to pass through to poor families because that means cutting funds in a different area and they do not want to do that, they might not even be sure of where to cut. These laws need to change i order for families to recieve the money they deserve. When they have their money, the mothers will be able to support their children.
Families are negatively affected by recoupment of child support, such as through the laws in Wisconsin. The government is recouping money because they have been paying for welfare. Families, mostly single-parent families, are already struggling to get by. Now, the government is taking money from fathers for child support as a type of repayment for government assistance. Families who need the extra child support money from fathers are being denied their access to it, which is making it even harder for those families to survive.
Politicians are resistant to changing the law and to allow all child support money to pass through to poor families. If more money is given to fund child support, cuts from other programs and organizations will be forced to happen. Funding child support is expensive, but necessary. Single-parent families need child support. Every bit of money helps keep them off of welfare, as student .303 stated. The government needs to help Americans for the benefit of the individuals and the nation as a whole. If people are helped to stay out of poverty, the economy will be more active and therefore, lifted out of recession. Individuals will be more productive in society, as well. If people are provided with educations and resources, they will be more likely to find a job and have something to contribute to society. Though funding child support would be expensive, it is necessary to better the future of America.
Pass through laws are extremely controversial because of the negative impact that the law has on the families that are involved. Child support is intended to help the families that are receiving it, but when the state interferes with that money, the original purpose is not going to be sought out. When the states use the money that is supposed to be for the families, it cheats the families out of what they are really entitled to. If the money is supposed to go to families then that is where is should go. As it was stated in the article, other bills and financial priorities cannot be met, especially when many families are so reliant upon this financial support.
Politicians are reluctant to change this law because giving the full amount of money that the fathers pay to the family would hinder one of the ways in which the states pays for the debt that they accrue for welfare. No matter what justification they use as to why these mothers do not receive the full amount, it is inexcusable and as Rachel stated, goes away from the intention of building stronger families and making mothers less dependent on public assistance. For those states that choose to cheat the families out of their child support money are doing nothing but making these living situations for the mothers and their families worse and also doing the total opposite what they wanted to do in the first place. Instead, these mothers will continue to be in the same place that they started before the policy was implemented; dependent upon public assistance and living in poverty.
Furthermore, these programs were originally intended to financially uplift the people in the population that it was geared towards serving; however, it is doing the exact opposite and making matters worse for the families involved. If the goal of the policy is to help the families then do it, help them instead of hurting them.
Agreeing with the posters 303, 301, and Rachael these families need all of the money that they are receiving from child support, and are being affected by the use of child support payments to repay welfare costs. According to the article, Ms. Hart’s child support payments were $229.40 for four children from the father, and after they had the cost of federal welfare deducted her payments were only $97.22. With her dependence on the check the amounts withdrawn force her to have to work and go against doctors orders which further harden her situation. This way of repayment doesn’t make sense either because you are withdrawing the cost of welfare from these families who are attempting you use the money to get out of their situation, which is probably welfare, which in turn gives you one progressive step forward, but two backwards at the same time. I feel that the government is resistant to changing the law because if the change the law and give more money to child-support patrons then they would have to make cuts from somewhere else and they might deem those programs as more important than this one. I also feel that the government has a belief of family, meaning that a family should be a mother, father, and children, but that belief is challenged with the idea of child support. So a law that would help child support would go against their beliefs, and take money away from government spending on more “important” aspects of the country.
In responses to 341, I have to agree recoupment of child support affect families in negative way. Families who are on welfare are already struggling and having trouble to make ends meet. Therefore, for state to have this recoupment pass through law, first will encourage father to not pay child support and affect children not to get the help they need. Most father are going to be encouraged not pay child support or work un-reported jobs, since there is the fear of child support payment will not be going to the child, which will also encourage fathers to work un-reported jobs and not ending paying child support at all. Moreover, Child poverty is an enormous crisis in this country, and the little bit extra a child might receive without the government taking it out will help the child in various ways. It is not fair for the child or mother to have these polices which in long term and short term that will work against these families. Politicians are against the dismissal of welfare recoup system because the welfare system is expensive. However, it not right or rational to have a welfare system built to help low-income families but at the same time have rules and policies that work against low income families.
This whole situation actually infuriates me. The child support enforcement action is one that really needs to be enforced in the US. As .308 explains in his or her piece the real dilemma lies in single parent families who already strive to make ends meet. The law that has retaken money given to helpless families that has now been reorganized to mothers really doesn’t make sense. We have taken money from a group and then given it to an individual which really is a crime. These welfare payments are used to ease the strain on families who have low paying jobs. They are not simply there to cover all of family’s expenses. The case in this article of Ms Hart she had to take a job whilst she was not at full health because of deductions by the federal government. This is simply an unacceptable situation that really needs to be rectified to aid people such as Ms Hart and not hinder them in their life decisions.
I on the other hand disagree with 341 as 308 did. The welfare system in this country is not overly expensive to it as a whole. When you look at how much it costs it only takes up a small percentage of what the government actually spends.
Families are clearly affected by the recoupment of child support. Wisconsin’s experiment was to give all of the money that was collected from the non-custodial parent to the parent who actually had custody. This experiment ended and Ms. Hart lost most of the check she had been receiving. I do not think this was worth while since the family could have been getting used to receiving the whole check. I believe that most children are negatively affected by the recoupment of child support. An example from the article was since one family gets so little from the father, the mother had to choose between giving her daughter 9 dollars for something at school, or paying her rent. The custodial parent should receive all money from child support so that they are not faced with decisions like these.
I think politicians had good intentions and did want to change the law, but they are now resistant because they would rather work on reducing our deficit.
I agree with bloggers 341 and 202 in saying that families need every dollar available. It is clear to see from the example above that people are very needy and for the money to be available, but not given to them directly is a huge disservice to our society and will continue to create social problems.
Families are affected by recoupment of child support by providing mothers with barely enough money for the basic necessities for the child. In some states less than half of the child support money from the father is being past to the mother, while in other states no money is being passed along to the mother. This causes poverty in families and more families having to depend on welfare. The money the government passes to the mother is not enough to cover the expenses of the child. Mother’s are forced to find extra jobs on the side to make ends meet. What I think is important to note here is that father’s were contributing more to the child support system when they found out all the money was being passed along to the mother and child(ren). Also families were less dependent on welfare. Politicians are resistant to changing the law to allow all child support money to pass through to poor families because it costs both the federal government and states money. Another reason is because they consider that this would be “double dipping.” Families would be getting money from the welfare and child support. However, it is shown that the welfare money is not enough to get families out of poverty. I agree with 303 that families need to have more money coming in, in a single household family. These families are in need of more assistance because they only have one person contributing financially. Providing these families with more assistance is the only way to reduce the number of families who are dependent on public assistance.
I agree with Blogger 341 that the way this program collects money does penalize the child involved. The fact that the government is trying to recover debt from child support is ridiculous in my mind. Poverty is a big issue and by creating this notion that the money should rightfully go to government is not okay because while the government does support these families with welfare, wanting to eliminate poverty requires direct monetary aide to help life these families out of their current situation. The new policy that affected Wisconsin can be considered unfair because people relied heavily on the whole check every month but I still see the program as a step in the right direction because the state refuses to take the portion of the check that they are technically entitled to. 100 dollars a month given to families with a child does not seem like enough money to help support all the costs associated with daily life for a month and therefore I do not agree with politicians about the concept of “double dipping.” The extra money given to families is for a worthy cause and could give families the extra push to move out of poverty and by doing so, welfare debt would be reduced because less people would qualify for the assistance. The main reasons politicians are so reluctant to change the policies is due to cut in federal assistance and instead of changing administrative costs, the best thing in the political world would be to take money away from families before they even know it exists. This is a tricky system because it is clear that families need the money to help support their children but without the federal help, this task seems daunting for states alone to tackle.
Families are affected greatly by the recoupment of child support. According to the article, while majority of the states pass through only $50 a month to custodial parent, many states retain from passing through any money at all, despite the fact that the father may be paying hundreds of dollars. This action has major negative effects on struggling families and the father’s willingness to actually pay this child support. Many families struggle to make ends meet and with this extra financial aid, various stressors could be lifted. In addition, due to this money from child support going to federal and state governments to recover welfare costs, fathers may be more reluctant to pay believing that their money is not going to their families. Politicians are so resistant to changing the law and to allow all child support money to pass through simply because they do not want to cut funds in different areas they feel do not need to be cut. While this is understandable, many families continue to live in poverty due to not receiving the support they deserve and are in need of. In addition, agreeing with .305 when expressed, “Although some bloggers here have referred to this as “double dipping” it is still important to consider the well being of the child in particular because every case is different”. This is absolutely true because the children are the ones who are impacted the most from these laws and decisions. While each case differ from one another, the negative effects on the children are very common across the country.
Families that require paternity establishment are affected greatly by the recoupment of child support, because money is not being given that is a necessity to providing for children. I feel that this goes against one of America’s goal of decreasing children’s poverty. By not paying the full amount to these families children have the short-end of the stick, because they have to suffer being poor due to welfare costs that they did not ask for. By taking some of the money to recover welfare costs, it defeats the whole purpose of fathers providing adequately for their children. Mothers and their children are asking for paternity establishment for a reason, and to be denied the full child support paycheck restricts their way of living. It evens plays into them being able to have stable employment, covering additional costs for children, and getting ahead in order to afford a decent life style. I agree with Rachael that it is sad that parents have to make a choice between giving money to their children and other necessities. Children should not have to feel limited to options, since they hardly understand or should experience hardships of the parents. This could have emotional effects on the child because they don’t understand why they cannot get what they need.
I believe politicians are resistant to changing the law because half the money taken from child support checks may cover other welfare costs. It may play into the thinking that fathers will not step up if they are given the option to give their children a full paycheck. Politicians also feel that fathers have the obligation to pay welfare for temporarily providing for their children. However, I believe that welfare programs could be sponsored in other ways and there is a reason that low-income families turn to them for help.
It is very sad how individuals like Ms. harts are not getting the full amount of money they are supposed to recieve for child support. Theses law in Wisconsin are really effecting the livelyhood of these people living situation and health. These pass through laws are effecting the well being of the children and I feel that they are not benefical.Ms. Hart could pay a whole other bill with they money she is not getting from child support that she should get. I agree with .341 when he/seh says that maybe these fathers would be more willing to pay child support if they knew all their money was going to their child. These families are so poor the need all the money that they are entitled too to survive. The politicians are not in favor of changing the law because they feel that giving mothers all the child support money would make them have to make cuts some where else. The states do not want to lose their funding that they can use for other issues that any given state may have. I do feel our government does need to pay more attentiont to this problem, because there are children who are already living in poverty and by not giving them their money just puts them futher back. I feel our government only give a small percentage of attention on this topic,and they need to realize our childs poverty issue is huge and unexceptable. Ms. Hart and her family are being effected by this law and in a negative manner. The less money she has the worse off her children may end up when they become adults.
The article talked about a lack of “pass-through” laws and how this affects low-income families. What the government does is take money that non-custodial parents pay for child support and use it to repay the federal government for taking care of the poor. When this happens, the custodial parents only get a small percent of the actual child support payment to take care of their children.
Parents are affected by the recoupment of child support because it is keeping parents from being able to efficiently take care of themselves and their children. The article clearly talked about a woman who could hardly give her daughter nine dollars for a school because she had to pay rent. I agree with the other bloggers in saying that the all states should have pass-through laws allowing the custodial parent to receive all of their child support payment and not just some. As a child, my father did not pay child support to the government. Rather, he paid my mother directly to avoid the whole pass-through issue. Unfortunately, without the government making him pay each month, my father decided to just stop giving my mother money one day even though we really needed it. This put me and my mother in a financial bind and damaged our relationship.
Politicians are resistant to changing the law basically because they feel as though it is the responsibility of the parent to pay back the government for money spent taking care of their children.
Funds from welfare should be coming from the government and not the fathers. Father’s who are working hard to pay for child support wants their money to go directly to their child. It is unfair for the state to take this money and recoup when the collection of the money was not intended for the state, but for the child. Families would be better off if they were able to receive their child support money in addition to their welfare benefits. Children could be missing out on a lot, such as extra curricular activities, that may cost money (for uniforms, equipment, etc.). Families are still poor due to the recoupment of child support. Studies have shown that fathers tend to pay their child support more often and in full when they knew that their money is going directly to their child.
Politicians are resistant to changing the law to allow child support money to pass through to families because it will cost the federal and state government money. Politicians are so concerned about reducing the budget that they have forgotten about the families struggling to pay their bills and get out of poverty.
Families are greatly effected by the recoupment of child support. Currently, the laws allow the government to recoupment child support paid by a father in order to repay the welfare payments that are being given to the mother. By taking money this money, it is only hurting the families. Raising children is very tough and expensive, and every little bit of money will help ensure a better quality of life for these families. One example the article gave was the money with held from Karla Hart, a mother of four struggling to get buy. The father of her children paid $229.40 in child support and the state recouped $132.18, leaving Karla with a measley $97.22. How can she raise four children on $97.22 a month? The government should at least be letting her keep the majority of the money. As Karla said, “That extra money was a bill I could pay.” Politicians do not want to change this law because they believe it is one of the most cost effective programs. Also, if the law would be amended, they do not know where cuts could be made. I agree with blogger 353 that this law needs to be changed because it is holding families in poverty instead of lifting them out.
After reading this article I believe families can be greatly affected by such laws like the one in Wisconsin. The story of the women in the article, Karla Hart, is hard to read about when there are many families that go through this struggle. After receiving child support for years and then to have that money cut back is a difficult situation to cope with and bounce back up from. Karla said she will have to find a way to get the money she needs to pay things she used to be able to, such as rent. Some families have to chose between two very important things, and how to distribute the money they have. This issue can be solved if the government was not so selfish. They are worried about other aspect of the economy which "they" believe are more important. What is more important than the lives of the future of this country, the children? Being a single parent is already hard enough because the parent has to take over more roles. I think laws need to be changed and give single parents they money they need, and therefore, not as many families will have to rely on welfare. This story in this article actually gave me goosebumps, to think that this happens in so many situations is sickening.
Families are affected by recoupment of child support because once these women get the money from the state; they receive less than half of what the fathers are paying to the state. These women feel that with the money the government has taken out from their child support checks to help fund welfare, is money they could use to pay the bills or do other things to help them survive. However, politicians and the state of Wisconsin do not want to change the laws because everyone else makes out if these women help pay for welfare. If these single mothers pay for welfare this is less other people have to pay out of their takes to help people uphold the welfare system. Therefore, this gives middle class and upper class a tax relief.
In the article they also mention that, “Many states say the effort to force them to pay more of the enforcement costs will impede collections and prevent them from passing more money on to needy families.” They have also done studies that showed that when support payments were fully passed along to mothers, more fathers came forward and paid more of the support they owed. However these laws make single women worry that they can’t afford the necessities for their children to give them a great future. However, the government feels they would hurt one of the government’s most cost-effective programs, which raises more than $4 in child support for every $1 spent on enforcement. I feel sorry for these women that these laws keep them from having the child support check sent straight to the poor families however the government has a great point. I do agree with the article that from both parties that the policy is counterproductive. I do feel this policy will drive fathers into the underground economy and leaving families more dependent on aid. I just have mix feelings about the whole thing and don’t know how the two parties can compromise.
I agree with 303, many families that are of a lower SES and in need of all the extra income they can receive. The welfare system needs money to keep up the program so I believe they need to meet in the middle. It is wrong to take almost half of their check but I do understand why they would take some of the check. Maybe they could take out only 20 dollars out of each check this way they are contributing to the welfare program but it doesn’t keep single mothers from paying bills. This issue is a struggle for me because I see both sides and how they feel. Hopefully there can be some type of comprise because I definitely know that taking more than half of the child support check is wrong and really messed up. Like the article said this policy will drive fathers into the underground economy and leaving families more dependent on aid.
The article in the New York Times article talked about how many states do not pass through any money that father pay for child support to their families. The money goes to the government to pay back the government for welfare use. The article talked about how one father paid over $200 and how the government took half of that money to use towards paying back welfare for that particular family. When the families received the full child support money they needed less money from welfare, and as soon as the money was reduced they were back to struggling. Politicians are resistant to let the money pass through completely to poor families because many still believe that the families are undeserving, and they would rather try and track down father who do not pay child support than let the ones who do get the money to their children. I think that it is interesting that men are more apt to paying their child support when they know that all of the money is going towards their child.
Child Support is a way for the government to make money. They feel like because they are paying welfare to the mothers any additional money that may come in belongs to them which is not right. As Maria Cancian (director of the Institute for Research on Poverty) said in the article on page two, “Using child support for revenue collection ‘is penny wise and pound foolish’”. What she means is that child support money helps women get more money from a source besides the government which increases their chances of getting/staying off of welfare.
In response to the post made by 377, i would like to agree.In the story of Karla, the government should allow her to keep a sufficient amount of money that she needs to meet ends needs. I agree that the government does not want to make a change because they have other things on their minds. The law needs to be changed because it is holding families back and this will be transfered on to the following generations.
The situation here is an interesting one. The article explains how government taxes take so much money out of the child support payment when they give it back to the families. Although they have been receiving more payments, the poorest families are not seeing a change. They would rather have the parents just pay them under the table to avoid those taxes and get their full deserved amount. The mothers have to cut back in places they need to and have to do whatever it takes to make ends meet and pay their rent and other bills. The idea is that as more families recieve support money, they will need less aid. I can't really see this program working out for the very poor people and things need to be changed on a case by case basis. This may work for families that are not as destitute but it seems like everyone is pretty upset with the way things are going right now.
According to this article families are greatly affected by the recoupment of child support; in fact, mothers who should be receiving child support are barley getting anything because of the money that welfare is taking. What happens is that the child support money is going to welfare which they take a cut because the father is on welfare and then the mothers get the rest of the cut. The cut the mothers are getting barley pay food let alone clothes, education, bills, etc for their children. Not only are the mothers suffering, but the children are suffering too. The children are unable to be given the basic needs from child support; therefore, they are set in the poverty status. If Mrs. Hart and other single mothers could get a decent amount of child support they would be able to “swim above water” instead of always “drowning.”
Politicians are unable or will not change this matter because of a couple of things. One because if all the money was going to the mothers welfare would have to make cuts in other places which would set back other programs and there would not be enough money to fund them. Another resistant is the “double dipping” term. Some people think giving people all of the child support money is like getting double the money because of the money that was given to them previously for the children in later months.
I agree with the blog .346 when she states that because of the child support problems mothers are making the ultimate sacrifice because of the small amount they get for child support. In this particular article it states, that Mrs. Hart had to get $9 to her child for school which leads to Mrs. Hart not being able to pay her rent.
I believe that this child support system is a problem. Unfortunately, this is the way it is because of so many circumstances. In my opinion this should change, if not for the mother for the children. The children are the ones that are unable to get the resources and needs that they need because of the cuts and set backs of child support.
It is so sad to think that a mother has to choose between paying the rent, and letting her daughter have $9 (a very small request) to buy something for school. If this mother was actually allowed to have the child support funds that the father of her daughter gives each month, perhaps she would not have to make choices like this. However, politicians are eager to cut spending and increase revenue whenever possible in order to decrease the large U.S. budget deficit; because of this, many social programs often lose part of their already limited funding and policy is shaped around a desire to spend little and collect whenever possible. Thus, Congress is slow to change the way that child support is done because in the short term it will cost the States and the federal government money. By passing child support on to mothers, the government loses a source of revenue. However, as was seen in the Milwaukee experiment, in the long-run allowing child support to actually go to the mothers and children has many benefits. In the Milwaukee experiment, it was found that passing child support funds straight on to mothers resulted in an increase of fathers coming forward to pay child support. When they know the money is actually going to their kids, more men are ready and willing to give. When mothers began receiving this much-needed “extra money” from the fathers, more of these women were able to support themselves and their children enough to move off welfare, thus saving the government money in the long-term.
Similar to Rachael, this article angered me. I agree that the state has no right to take that much money from the fathers. It is as though they are saying the father’s primary responsibility is the state, and not their own children. There is no justification for the states withholding over half of the child support monies. The state is creating a problem. They are not giving the families the support money, so they cannot afford to live, but if they get a job or jobs, then they lose benefits. If there are dual income families that live below the poverty line and need government assistance, then how can the government expect a single parent household to survive? It is better for the father to pay under the table, because at least then he knows that the money is getting to the guardian of his children.
Politicians are resistant to changing the law, and to allow all child support money to pass through to poor families because getting money from the fathers frees up money for other programs and things. For states that have a budget deficit, the monies from child support help them not to look so bad. It may also prevent other cutbacks in the state’s government. This sounds like a conflict of interest to me. The people benefitting from the collection of child support should not be allowed to decide the method in which it is collected, or how that money is spent. It is called child support because that money was meant to support the children, not the state government.
Several families today are in this situation, where they are in need of extra income to satisfy their basic needs. The federal government refused to extend the waiver that allowed Wisconsin to pay all of the money to families, but the state, despite a $27 million cut in federal aid, continues to forgive its own share of welfare costs. If any state is going to take that much money, then the father figure truly needs to do something for his family. Families needs to make important choices for their children, and the basic needs should be established first before anything else can continue.
Child support does not go directly to the mother, and maybe that is the issue here. It goes through child enforcement first, and then the rest goes to the mother. The cut that the mothers are getting barley pay for the necessities. The whole family is suffering, especially the children. The fact that they are barely making it places them in a poverty situation.
There is definitely something that needs to be done. There are many students that made good points. More money should be given to fund child support, and less money should be funded towards other programs. Funding child support is expensive, but extremely necessary. Children are being penalized because the government is coming up the costs of welfare. Child poverty is an enormous epidemic in this country, and just a few steps need to be taken to make a huge start on this issue.
When a father is ordered to pay welfare, it is expected that the money goes towards that mother and child (or children). However, the article demonstrated that in other states that is not necessarily the case. The article noted a study that was done that argued that more fathers came forward and paid their child support if the payments were fully passed along to the mothers. Like the article and .262 said, “The federal government refused to extend the waiver that allowed Wisconsin to pay all money to families, but the state, despite a $27 million cut in federal aid, continues to forgive its own share of welfare costs.” With these kind of government actions, families are suffering because they are not getting the money they need or deserve. If the state really needs that much money to enforce welfare, then more should be asked of the father so at least that much is going to the mother who really needs it. However, politicians are opposed to more money going towards the families because either less money goes to them and the upkeep of the program or because when welfare helps these families get out of poverty, it’s less money they will be collecting.
According to the article “Mothers Scrimp as States take Child Support” many families that are suffering from extreme poverty are finding themselves in up and down situations. The state of Wisconsin continues to withhold a large part of child support in order to cover the cost of welfare. These families argue that the money being deducted from child support would have assisted in covering the cost of other bills. Fathers, which are still paying child support, have become frustrated that most of child support money is disappearing and only a small portion is reaching the families in need. Single mothers like Ms. Hart are head of households that must find employment in order to make ends meet. For Ms. Hart, since she has become employed her food stamp help has been reduced. If families, like Ms. Hart received the full child support than a reduction of food stamps would not affect her family. In fact if families received the full child support then many single mothers would be able to supply their families with a decent home and essentials for school such as a computer.
Politicians continue to resistant to change laws because they believe that welfare cost for many families is being covered through child support. Politicians argue that through these laws they have established paternity for children out of wedlock. These laws have assisted many families but to the poorest men and women it has been more of negative affect. Fathers that cannot afford to pay child support are threatening with incarceration or loss of license making it difficult to pay for child support. I strongly believe that families living in extreme poverty should be given special considerations for families to receive full child support in efforts to exist poverty.
I do believe that the overall funds that comprise welfare should be coming from federal funding rather than fathers. For working fathers with a single low paying job it would be difficult to sustain life above the poverty line, so to compact more on that by having them pay child support is a little ridiculous. Reason being is because for years that fathers have had had to do this most will just give up and not pay any support at all leaving their families in need and them in trouble. It really is unfair and unjust for the states to take this money and recoup when the collection of the money was not intended for the state, but for the child. This still is leaving most families poor due to the recoupment of child support. Studies have shown that fathers tend to pay their child support more often and in full when they knew that their money is going directly to their child. Politicians are resistant to changing the law to allow child support money to pass through to families because it will cost the federal and state government money something in which politicians do not want to have happen because in turn that will mean more money going out of their pockets rather than into hand of needed families.
The mothers who are currently a part of the lowest socioeconomic status need all of the help that they can get in order to give their children what they need. With the states taking some of the money that is given in child support, these mothers are falling even further in status are struggling even more to pay their bills and for their children.
The mothers in Wisconsin are affected by the recoupment of their child support because they are no longer able to pay for rent, pay their bills, or give their kids the money that they may need. For instance, one of the mothers had to give her daughter some money for school which then placed her short on her rent check.
Politicians are reluctant to change the rule because they see these families as "double dipping". Since they are receiving money from the government for welfare and then also from the father for child support, government officials see them as taking money from the state twice. If these women were given the money that is owed to them through child support, they just may be able to work enough to get their families off of welfare.
The recoupment of child support in Wisconsin is “failing to help many of the poorest families, in part because the government uses fathers’ payments largely to recoup welfare costs rather than passing on the money to mothers and children.” Many states aren’t transferring the money to the mothers and children in need therefore, harming instead of helping them, defeating the whole purpose. There is such a crucial reduction in payments to mothers and children that it is getting harder to make all the required payments that they need to make, such as rent. Politicians are resistant to changing the law and allowing all child support money to pass through to poor families because they believe that the policy is counterproductive, in that it pushes fathers into underground economy and leaves families more dependent on aid, and that it costs the federal government and states money. After reading this article, I found it to be ridiculous that the government would do such a thing and makes me wonder why the program was even created in the first place if they weren’t planning on helping out families the way the policy was designed to. I agree with .308 in the viewpoint that he or she has about Ms. Hart’s situation. The government can’t not give all the money to mothers and children and expect them to get out of welfare because they think that the policy is counterproductive. If they are going to think that way, then they must think up of another solution or this situation will just continue to go around in a cycle with the root problem never being fixed.
I agree with blogger 247's comment that it is ridiculous for the government to expect struggling single mothers stay out of welfare while taking large portions out of child support checks. I think politicians are resistant to change because states and the federal government want repayment for sustaining other people's children. Welfare recipients have a bad reputation for being freeloaders who choose to depend on taxpayers' money rather than work. As a result, politicians want to dissociate themselves with the idea that they support these freeloaders who "double dip" into government funds. In order for the government to feel as if is not being cheated by these poor families, they recoup a majority of child support payments to cover welfare costs. This strategy is counterproductive because they are only making mother's more stressed and dependent on welfare if they can't fully access their child support. Hopefully with the new act to pass through funds to families, the states will see a slight decrease in welfare dependency. The main goal is make sure that the necessary funds reach families in need in order to promote future productivity. This means that if the government can delay recouping the costs of welfare, more families will be able to work their way out of the welfare system and into labor market.
I actually did my policy paper on Child Support Enforcement and came across this article in my research. Not to my surprise there were many articles that included stories just like this. The current pass through laws are counterbalancing welfare costs to the government, and in return leaving families exactly where they were before, struggling.
Pass through laws greatly effect the non-custodial parent's motivation for paying child support. I read many journal articles that reinforced this notion. In some of the states with better pass through laws they had higher rates of collection. The other extreme was also present, in that states with almost $0 in pass through allowances had noticeably lower collection rates. This could be due to other factors, but motivation is definitely part of that.
It is understandable that politicians are resistant to change laws, but that is because priorities in this country are not where they should be. We went over several charts that showed how much money was being put towards different programs and it was clear that education and child welfare were not highly invested in. I believe this is a major mistake because as cliche as it sounds, children are the future. If the US wants a real shot at improving our overall well-being more resources need to be put towards programs that directly benefit children. Research showed that when children received a majority of child support there, there were better outcomes for those children as opposed to those who received little to no support money.
Pass through laws have a major impact on children and their families. In the article, Ms. Hart needed to go back to work in order to move out of poverty. They were, and many families, not receiving enough money from child support payments to make any real difference in their living situations. These families end up relying on public assistance, something that could be avoided if they were able to receive all of the child support payments.
The reason that lawmakers do not want to change pass through laws is because of the revenue the system receives from it. Without this money funding for other areas would have to be cut and lawmakers do not want to have to do that. They are also afraid of "double dipping" in the system and that families will take advantage of both child support payments and welfare benefits.
As my fellow blogger, .226, wrote above me the article stated some people do think that people will "double dip" if they receive both welfare and child support. However, not everyone agreed with this statement and I personally feel that it is a pathetic excuse to deny families the money they rightfully deserve. When a father is forced to pay child support it is with the intent that the money will go to the mother to help with financial support. It is ludicrous to say that someone would be double dipping if they received welfare benefits and child support because child support is only for the purpose of financially helping the mother and child. If people on welfare do not have children then they aren't adding money to the fund through child support, but yet they receive welfare?! That proves that the two types of aide are independent and should not lean on one another or affect their attended purposes in helping low income families. It’s not fair to hold fathers accountable for providing funds for welfare if other men are not required to. Also the like the article stated the fathers are better off working to make child support payments and giving to the mothers under the table so that they guarantee that it is benefiting their children and providing the intended aide to the mothers.
Poster 341 said it right: “Children should not be penalized.”
By recouping child support payments, American children from low-income families are suffering. Custodial parents, which are mostly females, are being forced deeper into poverty because money that is vital to caring for these children is being taken away. As a result, some single-mothers are taking desperate measures to provide for their children. As mentioned in the article, mother-of-four Karla Hart was forced to take a part-time job to support her children despite being diagnosed with lupus and under doctor’s orders to stay at home. The abolishment of recoupment policies could give single-mothers like Karla a leg-up to ensure that their children are well-fed, well-clothed, and well-housed.
As we have learned in class, child support recoupment is also a negative policy because it gives non-custodial parents, which are mostly fathers, little incentive to pay. The child support program was created to support the child, not the government. So if the government is just going to take the money you intend for your child, why would you pay? Regardless, there are many supportive fathers who work hard everyday to be able to send a check to their children each month, only to have it taken away. As evidenced in the article, I think even more fathers would make the initiative to support their children if they knew that their hard work paid off by providing their children with nutritious meals and a safe and comfortable place to grow and live. As a solution to this program, some families have withdrawn from the child support program to ensure that their children receive 100% of the money paid, like parents Tonya Wenk and Lashun Gray in the article. In theory, this seems like a great idea; however, what if Lashun became unreliable with child support payments? Tonya has no way to enforce that payments arrive on-time and in-full every month. Withdrawing from the child support system can be risky, but could work for parents who continually withhold a mutual agreement of payments.
I think politicians are resistant to changing recoupment laws for a number of reasons. By retaining some to all of child support checks, the government makes up for a portion of the amount of money they put out in welfare payments. This might sound like a good idea because it saves the government from creating more debt, but already-vulnerable bear the consequences. I agree with other posters (353, 346, 261, etc.) who have said politicians are wary of making changes because it would require money to be taken from other places. Considering the current economic state of our country, politicians have to be even more careful when redistributing funds, but it is a necessary change that needs to be made so the children of our nation can thrive.
According to the article, how are families affected by recoupment of child support, such as through laws in Wisconsin?
- Families are affected negatively because they are unable to obtain that extra amount of money. The fathers may argue that they had paid their dues, and according to the laws in Wisconsin, the mothers or custodial parents cannot do anything.
Families, especially those of a low socio-economic status, depend on those checks to help supplement their cash allowance in paying bills and rent. Although it is beneficial to have the government intervene and monitor child support payments are paid, they should turn in the whole amount to the families. Welfare costs need to be handled through taxes, not through specific programs such as child support.
This system of "alleviating" welfare costs only drives families into poverty and welfare, instead of keeping them afloat. Single-parent families are already disadvantaged economically. They should be able to receive the full payment.
Why are politicians resistant to changing the law, and to allow all child support money to pass through to poor families?
- Politicians are resistant to changing the law because they believe that it will help cover costs of welfare. The government already taxes citizens for numerous things, and as budgets get tighter each year and resources are allocated to other services, such as the military, the government sees child support as an opportunity. Taking a portion of child support money can help alleviate welfare costs, so they are hitting one bird with two stones. They will monitor or be the middle man in making sure the non-custodial parent pay for child support, and out of that payment, they will take out a portion to help pay for welfare. The custodial parent will then receive the remaining amount.
Referring back to what 303 said about "double dipping," I agree that the government may be placing blame and responsibility on the parents.
As mentioned before, divorced, custodial single-parents are already economically disadvantaged. They should be able to receive the full amount. There are more and more families falling into poverty, using welfare programs more, and even becoming homeless due to (not solely) such government structures.
Laws like this destroy the entire reason why programs such as child support are created. The general principle beyond child support is to make sure that single parent households are able to receive financial support in order to take care of their children. For many families this can become the difference from being able to get by to living in poverty. The laws such as those that are in Wisconsin simply do not make sense. Why would you take money from those that are already in such need of aid that they are on welfare? This is almost a tax on the poor. Welfare is a separate program from child support. This is kind of like taking money out of a single parents pay check to help pay for the welfare that they receive. Why not let the parent keep the child support? By being able to keep the child support that they are supposed to receive single parents may not have to enroll in programs such as welfare. Also children are very expensive. It is sad to see that such programs are seeing improvements by paying $100 a child per month. Most single parents have to pay for some form of child support so that they can go to work. This $100 a month in many cases isn't even enough to pay for the child care for a week.
According to the article, families that recoup child support money experience many positive effects. Until last year, Wisconsin gave all of the child support money from the father to the mother. Studies show that when this money is given directly to the mothers, fathers are more likely to commit to paying it every month. Fathers are also more likely to maintain a lasting connection with their children. In addition, mothers who are given all of their child support money do not need as much public assistance.
Politicians are resistant to changing the law because they see it as "double-dipping." They think that the mother should not receive more money because she already receives public aid. Politicians want the child support money to pay for the aid that the mother is receiving. However, this idea falls short. In reality, mothers who receive the money require less aid from the government. It is simply difficult for the states to "give up" this money, especially due to budget cuts from the federal government.
The article presented some disheartening information about the status of child support and its recipients today in the United States. Families are affected by the recoupment of child support because the money that is taken by the state could be used within the household of the custodial parent. Fathers that choose not to pay money to the state and perhaps “under the table” to their child’s parent face jail-time and other consequences. Other fathers choose not to pay child support all together and stay “under the radar” of the government because they know that the money they pay will not go to their children regardless. Yet, studies in Wisconsin show that when families are able to receive the entire child support payment from fathers more fathers come forward and pay. Congress and many politicians are against all child support money passing through to poor families because they believe that these families are even more financially by receiving the child support payments and welfare. They view this as a form of “double dipping” and that the federal and state governments are already paying the father’s financial burdens. These are both misconceptions because once poor families are able to receive all the child support, allowing for more fathers to come forward, and causing families to require less public assistance.
This article saddened me tremendously.. Wisconsin families are not recieving the full amount of child support due to the government taking A huge portion of that money to cover the cost of welfare. The government and politicians are against giving low income families the full amount of child support that fathers are giving because they view this as a form of “double dipping” and that the federal and state governments are already paying the father’s financial burdens. Fathers who see this are not motivated to continue to pay child support because they see that the families are not given the full amount, and if fathers pay child support under the table they can be prosecuted for it. Welfare only covers certain expense, low-income families contribute from child support because it aids them in paying for rent and other bills that welfare does not directly cover. It is saddening to see that that our fight against poverty is not really something we are showing through our actions that we care about. The article also stated fathers would likely be happy to pay child support if they knew that families are getting all of the money. In order for poverty to decease, we must make the effort to help families get back on their feets, and restricting the distribution of child support is not going to help that.
Ms. Hart was one of the lucky mothers who got to get most of her child- support money in the state of Wisconsin. For about 8 years, under a federally approved experiment, Wisconsin gave all money collected from noncustodial parents to the families. Yet the experiment ended just a year ago. The law that was passed in Congress, states that first recoup welfare money given to needy families before it is given to the mothers who need it. If the government is trying to collect money for child support the checks that these Fathers are writing should go directly to the families. It states in the article that when the money that the Fathers write go directly to their children, lots of times they give more than what is required.
Politicians are resistant to changing the law, and to allow all child support money to pass through to poor families because that would mean they would have to figure out a new mean to fund welfare programs. I feel that if the government is collecting money for child support it should go directly to these families. The matter of funding for welfare, the government should cut funding to other programs to pay for the welfare program. I agree with .346 that this law is pointless because it is not helping these families like it is suppose to. I understand that during these bad economic times, it makes it hard for the government if they were to change the law, but thinking about these families that are hugely impacted by these economic times they struggle the most. They struggle to support their children and themselves.
With the laws surrounding child support I would agree with 336 on this issue in trying to figure out why the states feel it is necessary to repay the welfare funds instaed of the mothers of the children that the fathers are paying to support. As someone who tries to pay his child support every month to a woman who makes close to six figures a year when he barely makes enough money to put gas in his truck to get to school. The CSE laws and the way child support is calculated need to be examined very throughly and changes need to be made. Those changes should include how child support funds are distributed to mothers in the amounts that the states are allowed to keep to repay welfare and not how much they allow to “pass through” this would allow the states to recoup some of the welfare funds while also assisting the mothers to provide for their children. Another change that needs to take place concerning CSE is in the manner that the courts calculate the amount that a non-custodial parent most times the father has to pay to the custodial parent or in most cases the mother. Right now the courts have a system that calculates the amount to be paid as if the parents would be together. I believe that this is not fair to someone who was never married to the mother and never planned to marry the mother so the child never experienced the financial outcome of the parents being together if they never were. Also it would improve the amount of child support being paid if the father had a relationship with the child. When there is no relationship it is hard for the father to feel obligated to pay for something he has no rights to. I equate this to paying a mortgage for a house you do not live in and I do not know anyone who would do that. Child support needs to be overhauled and it should be required that a female or couple obtain a license before procreating and if there is no license when the child is born a fine would be issued to the woman and the father would also pay a fine but not life time support to an irresponsible woman.
Poverty takes a huge toll on the financial status of schools. Property taxes usually determine the funds for schools’ budgets. Schools in low-income neighborhoods, as a result, suffer from lack of funding and resources. Many facilities located in communities that do not receive adequate funding as a result of low income are crumbling and labeled unsafe. In addition, many schools in poorer areas and inner cities have not been renovated for centuries. The classes are large because of overpopulation. The children who attend these schools are cheated from the materials and resources that are known to foster a meaningful education.
Because school districts in low-income areas oftentimes lack the necessary funds to renovate schools, the conditions poor children have to endure can be horrendous. Schools are falling apart. In the past, facilities have been closed down by the fire department because they are deemed unsafe. Not only do many schools in communities of poverty not have the money to afford routine maintenance, but also they are also not able to attack the hazards that pose an obvious threat to the safety and welfare of children, educators and other staff. Schools have had to shut off a whole wing because the roof was about to cave in. The ceilings have holes in them and there are rodent infestations but children still have to come to these schools.
High-poverty schools lack the necessary materials needed for children to learn. The schools do not have the resources to provide each student with the materials they need. Low-income schools cannot provide the same education as more affluent schools because of the lack, or inadequacy, of materials available to them.
Low-income families struggle to feed their families. It is common for children growing up in poverty to own few, if any, books. Students who attend schools affected by poverty do not always have the convenience of turning to their school libraries for new stories and adventures because they, too, are lacking. Schools in impoverished areas lack the funding for textbooks let alone books for the library. Schools suffer in impoverished areas and so do their libraries. The libraries in poorer schools cannot serve as a resource for students. For students the library is nothing but a room with a few books.
In addition to the facilities of poor schools being run-down and inappropriate for children they are often overcrowded. The buildings are holding more students than allowed. Cafeterias have to feed the children in shifts, sometimes from as early as 10am to as late as 2pm. Some schools also have to hold classes in shifts. Class sizes increase in high-poverty schools and teacher to student ratios exceed the recommended ratios. Classrooms do not have enough desks for all of the students. Where more well off schools in the suburbs might be able to raise the funds to pay a teacher’s salary for a years, schools in impoverished communities do not have enough funds to hire teachers. The teachers who work at low-income schools are paid far less than teachers in rich schools and are, more often than not, under qualified. Schools that are overcrowded also do not have enough money to hire additional teachers. This means that students in these areas end up being placed in facilities that are hazardous to their health, less comfortable and physically appealing and receive low quality education in a space shared with 35 of their peers. Schools in impoverished areas are just as effected as the people who live there. Even further, many of these schools are not prepared to supplement the opportunities for exploration and development that many of these children are lacking in their homes and communities, hindering even further the growth of the low income child.
Child support is a good system that has been established for the noncustodial parent to help support their child as they grow up. Even when the noncustodial parent is not employed and is on welfare, child support can still be collected to be given to the child. With the recent change made of collecting $100 for every child in a family or $200 for every 2 children in a family and so on, I don’t believe that it is too late. I think that it is good timing with this change with the recent economic failures in the US. Families in Wisconsin who have been are affected by the recoupment of child support laws are affected perhaps in a negative way. Especially since many noncustodial parents do not make much when living in poverty and the custodial parent cannot collect much as it is since it is based on income brought in by both parents. People are forced to take on more jobs. I think that politicians are resistant to changing the law and having to allow all child support money to pass through to poor families for various reasons. One being that is it going to cost more. Child support was established so that the government would not have to pay for each child, the noncustodial parent would. Now, it would be like taking a step backwards and doing something they set out not to do.
Families are negatively impacted by the recoupment of child support payments. Instead of getting what they are owed, families are often left with half the amount and in some cases none of what they are owed. According to the politicians, the government is owed this money to replace the monies given out in welfare. The families that need it the most are the ones being hurt by it. Politicians have decrease the amount of welfare aid the government will give out, which surely have affected a number of families, but also keeping the money they are owed. In Wisconsin, the fact that they pass all the money on from the father to the mother, and it has been proven that the father will make consistent payments and the mother is less likely to depend on public aid, it only makes sense that the government does this nationally. The politicians feel as though the families are double dipping if they receive welfare and child support, however the studies have shown that the families are less likely to be dependent on welfare if they are awarded the full amounts the fathers pay. There are other extenuating factors that may require the mother to receive public aid in addition to child support but I feel that those cases will be few and far between.
This article really bothered me, especially when it came to the amount that is taken out of support checks for single mothers. This si an outrageous amount. The one mother that could have paid a bill with the money that was taken out now had to find another way to get that money. Witht he recoupment of the money, many families are suffering and are forced to stay in welfare longer because they can't seem to get back on their feet. It seems as though the government is punishing them more than helping them. To raise a child in ahealthy manner, a lot of money is needed and the mothers of these children should not be punished because of discrepancies witht he father. It is unfair to see the amounts of money being taken from them. I agree with Matthew Gilbert saying that these families with single parents should receive more or even all of the money paid through child support. It is unfair to them with one income to have to be expected to live on such small amounts each month supporting themselves and another life. I agree that this new law change is too little too late due to the fact that htese families are already damaged when it comes to finacial dependence on the government. It will not help until a turnover is created and the families on welfare have not been on it long. It is unfair to expect children to develop healthy lives through this small amount of money.
I think there is a resistance to change the law out of fear that these families will remain onthe assistance and not try to seek ways out. I think they also fear that the child support system will become even more liberal and the money may not come in all the way, if at all from the men who owe.
We must understand that the only way that these families can come out of opoverty is to give them a fighting chance. But more importantnly, their children because they are the new generation. If they develop healthy lives, they may be able to change the state of the economy and allow their families to stop relying on assistance.
Families are being affected by the recoupment of child support in many ways. They are losing money, struggling to make ends meet and are struggling to find work and are sometimes putting their health at risk to do so. The article highlighted Ms. Hart’s life and she said that she lost her apartment due to foreclosure and now lives in adverse conditions with a few basic necessities but not all the ones she needs. This situation is similar to many people that are affected by the recoupment of child support. The fathers are also feeling the affects and as a result are being threatened and daunted by the prospect of jail time, a loss in driving privileges and licenses, and a decrease or complete loss in earnings and wages. As a result some families are pulling out of the child support system to avoid it. Politicians are resistant to changing the law because the change would end up hurting an already cost-effective program, and may result in a loss of federal aid and a deficit that would cause a loss in budget and jobs.
The current state of child support is horrendous. 42% is no where near acceptable. There is a reason why child support is given to single parents. To support their child, not to support welfare. Also, the amount of child support that someone must pay is different from someone else. It is not fair to take the same amount from everyone. I do not agree with this practice what so ever but if the government insists on doing it they should asses the needs of the child in question, set the payments slightly higher, and keep the excess for themselves. The way it is now can not only drive the single parent to welfare which in turn creates the need to take money from other child support payments to pay for that welfare, but it could cripple the parent to the point that they would have to give up their child. Also, I cannot justify a father not paying child support on the basis that they don't want most to go to the government but I can understand it. It's a matter of principle and right and wrong but when dealing with your children you should always put them first. These fathers should still be paying their child support. Or a better option would be to go under the radar and set up unofficial child support payments with the single parent. Yes, there would be the possibility that the single parent one day would decide to try to get all the missed official checks but I don't see this happening unless the father stopped making payments. It is just absolutely ridiculous to make underprivileged children bear some of the burden of welfare.
Post a Comment