There are many flaws with the child support systems in America. Minnesota is no exception.

PROBLEM 1 - MONEY TALKS

One dirty secret of the child support system is that it is incentivized by federal money.

How Does it Work?

The Welfare Reform Act of 1996 was designed to reduce budget deficits by providing states with government funding for recovering welfare costs. This included within its scope child support since child support is recovered by the state to pay any welfare benefits provided to a custodial parent. It unintentionally also included child support paid by those who did not receive welfare benefits.

Based on recent statistics, it is estimated that the federal government provides $4.2 billion in grants to states for their child support collection services. The payments to the states are based on a percentage of their child support collections operating costs. As a result, the larger the child support enforcement costs, the greater the federal funding. Of course, the best way to increase the size of the system is make sure that the state is collecting as much child support as possible. The end result in Minnesota, and other states, is that state collection of child support is mandatory unless:

1. No public assistance is provided to the custodial parent on behalf of the children; and 2. Both parents elect to waive that withholding. Even more compelling, the state also appears to have an incentive to avoid joint physical custody arrangements where less child support is likely to be exchanged.

PROBLEM 2 - CHILD SUPPORT UNRELATED TO FINANCIAL NEED

Child support is not tied to the necessary financial needs of the child.

Child support guidelines were created to provide some uniformity to child support calculations. However, those guidelines often provide financial incentives to custodial parents to have serial children with multiple child support payers.

Under Minnesota's pre-2007 child support guidelines, a non-custodial parent would pay child support that is usually 25% of that parent's net income. If that individual is a father and he has two children with the same mother, he would pay 30% of his net monthly income. If, however, he has a second child with a second mother, he would pay another 25% of his net income after deducting the first obligation. Similarly a mother with three children from three different fathers could receive 25% of the net income from each father. See the incentive?

A simple review of child support awards in absurdly unbalanced cases also supports the conclusion that child support guidelines often ignore reason. In 1995, the actor Jim Carrey agreed to pay $10,000 a month in child support for their daughter, Jane. Recently, his ex wife, Melissa has asked the courts to increase that amount. Similarly, a court recently awarded the mother of the child of actor Matt LeBlanc a staggering $15,000 per month.

PROBLEM 3 - DEADBEATS CREATED BY SYSTEM WHERE RETROACTIVE MODIFICATION IS NOT ALLOWED Under the law, a court cannot modify a child support obligation retroactively. As a result, parents that fall on unanticipated hard times may find themselves falling behind in child support. Even when a motion is filed, the hearing may be scheduled many months into the future. In the interim, the unemployed parent may be labeled a deadbeat, have their driver's license suspended, and incur judgments and interest on judgment for any arrears.

Page 1 of 2 :: First | Last :: Prev | 1 2 | Next