The Broken System-Child Support Orders

When the exhileration and anticipation of becoming a parent occurs, for most, it can be a time of happiness, worry, increased responsibility and preparing to map out the best plans for our future offspring. On the other hand, the exhileration and anticipation can become an overwhelming burden and rather than stepping up and providing, some choose to shirk their parental obligation either out of ignorance or denial.

Our courts have attempted to rectify the latter situation by advocating for those not able to fend for themselves, and order parents to at least be fiscally responsible, even though they cannot be ordered to be emotionally responsible. Unfortunately, the system of ordering parents to provide for their offspring works in theory, but does not work in practice.

There have been many attempts to create an effective and practical system, i.e., suspended driver's license, tax return interception (when a defaulting parent files), jail sentence- these can only work when applied consistently pursuant to the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA)- under UIFSA, each state must develop guidelines for dealing with non-payment of child support. As each state develops guidelines, they are eligible for federal grants to assist in enforcement. As more and more parents default, and the county court dockets become overloaded, the consistency for enforcement tends to be put aside.

I have attended four such hearings in the past twelve months, each hearing had on the docket at least thirty cases, most of the cases were being heard for the third time, each having been set for hearing 90 days prior, to allow the defaulting parent a chance to comply.

At each hearing the parent that had defaulted on the court order was treated with respect, and provided ample opportunity to explain why they had not complied with the previous order, some were in arrearage of thousands of dollars. While the custodail parent to whom the support should have been paid, was represented by an inexperienced attorney working for the State's Attorney General's office and representing all the cases to be heard on that docket- the hearing officer sitting at each hearing was disdainful toward the representing attorney, and to the parent who was not in default of any court order.

At no time was any defaulting parent jailed, a couple of the thirty plus did have their license revoked, and were there simply to plead with the hearing officer to reinstate their license with no intention to pay or deal with the outstanding arrearages. Several times the proceedings were interrupted by a parent who had come to court to prove payment, without the necessary documents, and the hearing officer allowed them to leave and try to get documentation, only to push back all the cases that were waiting to follow; sometimes, this extended the proceedings for an additional two hours.

None of the defaulting parents, at any of the hearings, were ever admonished for being in arrears, nor for the fact that they had to be court ordered to support their children. When the hearing officer would finally give the custodial parent a chance to speak, he acted equally disdainful that the parent would bother to take the court's time.

This represents just one county in Florida, imagine how many times this is played out across the nation. Children often go without the basic necessities that the court ordered support should have afforded them, and custodial parents often have to work two jobs to meet the needs of the household. Yet, states rake in the federal monies to operate child support enforcement facades.

There have even been businesses born of the fact that state's are ineffective at collecting- these business' operate on the premise that they will go after a parent in default of a court order if it exceeds 10-15,000.00 in arrearage, because that makes the 33% they collect when they are successful in locating the defaulting parent a worthwhile commission.
As a result there are a number of states introducing legislation to stop these "business'" from operating- rather than fix the problem by making the business obsolete in the first place.
We must advocate for change in this area.