I don’t know if many of you have been the victim of any one of this country’s many bureaucracies, but I have. I don’t want millions of Americans to be subject to a government agency that is unable and/or unwilling to help Americans live their best lives. Healthcare is an intimate part of most of our lives. Yet, congress wants to insert the government thoroughly into some of the most intimate decisions we make. I want to tell you what had happened to my family because of a government agency.

Joe and I haven’t shared this information with many people—even family members—and I don’t want to alarm you. I married someone the federal, state, and county governments consider a “deadbeat dad.”  Joe has had primary physical custody and joint legal custody of his son for all but a few months of his life. In legal terms my husband has been the custodial parent and responsible adult in this child’s life.

What has happened to us is a long story with many twists and turns. But, the theme of this story is that you can’t work with a government agency that isn’t willing to look at its own operational effectiveness or how it affects the lives of those it is supposed to serve.

What is in the works for many Americans

Congress is ready to give America a new healthcare system promising to deliver services to as many as 40 million uninsured citizens.  But, with this in mind, how has another large program to benefit the poor worked out for our country? A 20-year-old program to help custodial parents collect child support closely mirrors the provision for enforcement in the new healthcare bill—including severe penalties for those who can’t comply with the mandatory costs to all Americans in healthcare enrollment programs.  The childcare enforcement program in question costs taxpayers in the neighborhood of $5 billion per year, while the proposed healthcare mandates are estimated to cost $1 trillion to $3 trillion.

Are there parallels between two boldly legislated programs? Implementation of legislation isn’t the purview of legislators, but the duty of career bureaucrats.  The political spin is great—but the devil is in the details. And, the details are in the hands of men and women who bring their own agendas and biases to the process—unfortunately, these career public servants aren’t elected and are nearly impossible to hold responsible for the actions they take, especially when those actions rob citizens of their protected civil rights. What might happen when 40 million Americans are subject to a newly created set of agencies, regulations, and bureaucracy designed to deliver healthcare.

The problems start with Congress’ ability to implement effective programs for the poor are based on the assumptions drawn by a group of mostly rich, predominantly white, highly educated, and overwhelmingly male elective body which codifies laws that mere mortals are bound to live by.  

My family’s experience with the 20-year-old program can serve as a cautionary tale of how mere mortals can be harmed by the best of intentions when an out-of-control, nearsighted, bureaucracy void of common sense becomes an integral part of your life.

It has long been known that the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.

So how has the government behaved when implementing social services programs on a large scale?

In 1988 the U.S. Congress passed amendments to the Social Security and welfare codes in an effort to put an end to “deadbeat dads” and “welfare queens.” These changes were affectionately referred to as the Bradley Amendments after former U.S. Senator and presidential candidate Bill Bradley of New Jersey.  What had been sold to the American people as a solution for poor children and families on public assistance has turned into a bureaucracy that has ensnared families in a lifetime commitment to the intrusion of social services in the most intimate decisions in their lives—often with disastrous results.  Any family who has experienced a divorce or out-of-wedlock birth is subject to these sets of laws and regulations.

Women’s groups lined up to support the “groundbreaking” legislation that would help women move out of poverty.  States were rewarded and paid bounties by the feds for enrolling poor families in a program that would track children and families in the new Child Support Services Departments. The U.S. Department of Justice created a department to criminally prosecute non-custodial parents who fell behind in their formula mandated child support.

Hallmarks of “Groundbreaking” Legislation

All unmarried women are now required to name a father for their newborn. But, in a day and age when multiple sex partners are frequent, and 40% of all infants are born to out-of-wedlock mothers—there were no mechanisms for insuring that the genetic father was the actual named father. It is estimated that the Los Angeles County Department of Child Support Services incorrectly identifies 350 men per month as deadbeat fathers through fraudulent paternity claims.

All child support services cases must contain provisions requiring automatic garnishments and payments through the child support enforcement bureaucracy even in non-welfare cases. Limited waivers are available. This allows the local agencies to retain fees for services of approximately 5% for every transaction that passes through the mandated agency. This service charge is paid by rich and poor alike, creating a revenue stream to the local agencies. And, since the vast majority of child support payments are made as outlined in the custody order, this is a tax on broken families.

Additionally, child support agencies are famous for accounting and payment issues for the families they serve.

The “Most Wanted” list of deadbeat parents. Each agency is mandated to maintain a list of the most wanted deadbeat parents.  While the press and politicians want to vilify the rich and famous who hide their assets from their exes and baby mommas, the reality is quite different. Many of those identified as deadbeats are, in fact, dead broke. Lists of deadbeat non-custodial parents can be found by following this link  http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/extinf.htm#exta.

These lists are filled with pictures and short biographical information on taxi drivers, construction workers, laborers, truck drivers, retail clerks, and the unemployed.  In other words, these laws and regulations have made it illegal to be poor and a non-custodial parent.

There have been headlines from around the country of poor non-custodial parents who have been jailed for child support arrears—a modern day debtors prison for parents. The current laws lack provisions for the downward calculations of child support obligations, further complicating the lives of Americans struggling to make ends meet.  Many of these parents would qualify for public assistance if they didn’t have arrearages hovering over their head.

Those mostly white, rich, well educated legislators forgot to account for the simple fact that poor men father children with poor women. Obligating the poor to hand-over money that never existed to the custodial parent is just an accounting ploy in a government sponsored Ponzi scheme.

The Law of Unintended Consequences

Economists study the unintended consequences of business and political decisions. The current problems in the U.S. economy are largely due to the unintended consequences of political and business decisions in the housing market.

The unintended consequences of the Bradley amendment, and subsequent legislation, are numerous. Births to unwed women are higher due to the nature of welfare and mandated child support payments. Child support had been a civil tort issue in family court and the vast majority of non-custodial parents voluntarily complied with their child custody orders.  But, a Ponzi scheme needs a promised pay-off for investors, even if that payoff will never be realized.

The formation of what is known as the IV-D agencies was really an effort to transfer wealth from one parent to another at a time when women were exercising their recently minted political muscle. The laws made assumptions and effectively legislated and institutionalized biases for women and against men in child support cases.

The legislation allowed social service agencies to create a new set of accounting books. Instead of paying poor families welfare, they were now paying child support and billing the non-custodial parent, even if the non-custodial parent could never pay the bill. The money still came from the same taxpayers who were paying welfare, but the window dressing was changed and the terminology rewritten. The politicians and bureaucrats just hoped that the general public couldn’t tell that the story remained much the same as before the new enforcement movement was established. Anyone who spoke out against the wrongheaded programs was shouted down as being anti-women and anti-children.

The 1988 legislation led to the formation of The Office of Child Support Enforcement under the Administration for Children and Families within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. This was followed in 1992 by the Child Support Recovery Act that led to the 1998 Deadbeat Parents Enforcement Act. These two acts led to the Child Support Enforcement Division of the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. I hope I have all of these details correct, because the implementation of all of these laws and agencies created thousands of pages of documentation. Again, I am a mere mortal trying to decipher government programs that are purposely meant to be incomprehensible—just like the average man or woman on the street can’t understand the U.S. Tax Code’s 44,000 pages. If the general population understood just what the government was doing with taxpayer money most of us would be mortified.

All of this legislated child support bureaucracy costs taxpayers in excess of $4.5 billion per year, but it could actually be much more.  It is hard to tell because costs are spread across so many budget areas at federal, state, and local agencies, including local courts and law enforcement officers.

I have seen estimates that indicate that only $.20 in child support arrears is collected for every tax dollar spent. But, because an ever growing number of child support enforcement cases and revenue is funneled through government agencies, the Child Support Services Department counts voluntarily and regularly paid child support as a “deadbeat” benefit collection.  Much of the voluntarily paid child support would have gone to the custodial parent without the intervention of the agency. This is the basis of the Ponzi scheme—counting money that would have been paid directly by the non-custodial parent to the custodial parent as a government benefit!

The rush to enforce unnecessary laws hurts average everyday citizens. The Bradley Amendment states that “once accrued, child support arrearages cannot be modified.” This includes even those arrearages that are questionably accrued. Just ask Manuel Navarro, Teron James, Bert Riddick, and other fathers who have been the victims of false paternity claims by birth mothers who incorrectly named them on birth certificates.

My own husband, who was the custodial parent to his young son when we met over 12-years-ago, has been identified as a deadbeat dad.  All these men were found to be in default of the court cases against them—but none of them were offered access to common sense solutions to the obvious miscarriages of justice. If you want to know more about their individual stories and cases there are many internet articles available through web searches. I’ve had a long conversation with Bert Riddick which just made me feel stronger about sharing our personal story with friends, family, and anyone who was interested.

Navarro, Riddick, and James paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in child support to children that DNA proved were not their biological offspring. The court would not absolve them of the false paternity findings when provided with irrefutable evidence. Riddick’s case managed to get the attention of the Los Angeles Times and ultimately resulted in a legislative change to California state law that allowed the court to find that DNA could be used to positively establish paternity or remove false paternity claims. But, Governor Gray Davis vetoed the first version of the legislation over the fear that California would lose federal welfare funding dollars if non-custodial parents’ debts could be modified. A later version of the legislation passed that resolved the paternity issues but held the obligation for child support arrearage could not be modified. A debt was a debt.

When a non-custodial parent is held in arrears the state and local agency are very aggressive in collecting. Bank account, tax returns, and real property seizures are employed. Drivers’ licenses, professional licenses, and credentials are suspended. And passports are revoked.  These aggressive tactics make it nearly impossible for a non-custodial parent who is out-of-compliance to remain gainfully employed. Aggressive collection tactics hurt families.

Congress forced the IRS to be kinder and gentler to taxpayer in the 1990’s after congressional hearings were called whenr citizen outcry over abusive tactics were made public. There is nothing kind or gentle about the LACCSSD collection tactics. In fact, Joe and I fully expect to see some form of retaliation for sharing our story, and the agency definitely has the power to make our lives even more difficult.

Joe’s Story—Denial of Due Process

My husband Joe is a custodial parent who has been victimized by a child support system which lacks the ability to use common sense to adjust incorrect findings by a bureaucracy designed to act as the government’s collection agency.  On July 25, 2009 our son turned 18, but we are still being pursued for money we should have never owed. Community property has been seized to satisfy a debt not of Joe’s making.

Much like the mandatory sentencing laws in some criminal cases, the judges involved in child support do not have the latitude to change or modify child support arrears.  So, even when Joe proved that he was the custodial parent, the Los Angeles County Child Support Services Department still wanted the welfare payments reimbursed that the agency had paid to our son’s birth mother.

Like many families, Joe and his ex went through a contentious custody battle. He fought hard to gain custody because he was sure that his son’s birth mother was incapable of adequately caring for the preschooler. Many family courts routinely applied the “Tender Years Theory” to custody placements, which meant that the courts found in favor of the mother in most cases. But, Joe was not ordered to pay child support when the ex won custody in a Riverside County courthouse.  She told the judge that Joe was generous and always paid for his son’s needs.

But, the birth mother had a drug habit. After a few months she gave Joe their son to raise.  Joe filed a stipulation to the custody order with the Riverside County Family Court and carried a copy of the custody papers with him at all time, because so few men actually had primary physical custody of their children.

And, while Joe was concerned with raising his four-year-old, Los Angeles began running-up the tab on a child support case against him.  We don’t exactly know how or why Los Angeles County got involved with the administration of benefits for our son’s benefit.  Joe and his little boy’s birth mother had lived together in Los Angeles County—so no child support was required because Joe was paying for everything his son required. The ex established a residence in Riverside County and applied for Medical. When Joe wouldn’t drive 90 miles round trip to suit her needs, she sued for full custody. Joe refused to drop his than three-year-old son with whomever answered the door at the house she was living in when she wasn’t there to meet him. So, she had a restraining order filed against him to limit his ability to see his son at a time when Joe was still physically parenting three to four days per week on their informal custody agreement. Now eighteen, his son still remembers the trauma of being taken from his father’s arms by a deputy sheriff who was serving the restraining order to Joe.

We don’t know when the ex applied for welfare benefits for herself and her daughter by a previous relationship.  But once she did, Joe was a deadbeat dad. Whether an eager social worker erroneously enrolled the son she didn’t have legal custody of—because the state gets a bounty for each enrollment—or the non-custodial mother enrolled him herself, we don’t know.  Joe has never been able to see his “account” history because the agency is more interested in protecting the birth mother’s privacy than learning the truth.

What we do know is that Los Angeles County never properly served Joe with notice that the state was paying child support benefits on his behalf to the mother of his son.  And Joe is not alone. Los Angeles Child Support Service wins nearly 80% of the paternity findings through default when the father doesn’t show up to court. A comparison with New York City finds that only 10%-15% of Big Apple cases are settled by default.  New York’s system has an internal mechanism for proof-of-service for the subpoenas they hand to non-custodial parents.  Los Angeles County has contracted with a third party process server who only has to sign a name—it’s called a “sewer service” in legal parlance—and it is a well known secret that thousands of non-custodial parents never knew they were subject to the legal system. Many hastily and poorly prepared subpoenas never reached their intended parent. Other court documents were prepared for men who were never involved with the mother named in the court documents. Or, like in the case of Manuel Navarro—who had the bad luck of having a name, age and physical description that was similar to the named father—received a summons on a case containing the name of a woman he had never laid eyes on.

Once Joe’s case was in the system, every penny he directly paid his ex was considered a gift because he hadn’t paid his court ordered child support through the agency. The agency couldn’t provide the accounting and disbursement functions or collect the service fees they were now due once they determined that the ex and her kids were qualified for “child support.” In reality the federal government had re-named welfare as child support and their collection department was now going to pursue my husband for arrears for a child living in our home.

This doesn’t happen in America—right?  Wrong!

Joe initially thought it would be easy to take his records to the county and just sort out this obvious mistake. He collected all of the medical and school records he had maintained and tried to call the agency to make an appointment.  Problem was that you could not get a live voice to answer a phone call. So, he went to visit an office with a file box full of records and no appointment.  He mistakenly thought that once a child support worker could see that he was providing for his son all of this would go away. WRONG!

He met with Mrs. Washington at the county’s offices, who agreed to reduce the penalties and interest, but she was still requiring that Joe reimburse the county for the money they had sent his ex. His new balance had gone from about $40,000 to under $30,000. And, by the way, before they could process any paperwork for the reduction and payment arrangements—Joe would have to sign a form saying he was the non-custodial parent. This was such a bargain! The system would not let the caseworker re-classify him as the custodial parent.

Under duress Joe signed saying he was the non-custodial parent. This was a theme that would continue as he kept trying to get anyone to view his proof that he had been a good dad who had taken financial and physical responsibility for his beloved son.

Mrs. Washington did have a solution. Joe should file for child support, and then the agency would apply his future child support payments from the county to his arrearages.  This didn’t make any sense to my husband. But, for the government Ponzi scheme drones it made perfect sense to move money from one government account to another government account. Joe took the paperwork home, filled it out, and dropped it in the mail.  He thought that would be the end of the problem. But, the paperwork was never recorded by the county.

The county began to aggressively seize his bank accounts and garnish his wages. Garnishments were to be 25% of his before tax earnings.  Then the state suspended his driver’s license for non-payment of child support.  The stiff garnishments and penalties were taking money away from the current needs of his then 10-year-old son.  Joe was told if he could have a welfare fraud case opened against his son’s mother that the case against him would go away. But, due to California’s budget problems, Los Angeles County had stopped answering the welfare fraud hotline. He was at a brick wall in a blind alley—it would not be the last time.

I called the California State Child Support Services Department. They were supposedly the umbrella of all of the county organizations. A nice young man told me that the county could not collect money they were not entitled to but could offer us no information on how to get the county to cooperate in reviewing the case. A prominent state senator’s office was unable to help us interest the state office in reviewing the case as well.

I wrote a letter to the presiding judge for Los Angeles Superior Courts because the attorney for the county refused to return telephone calls made directly to her office number listed on court documents filed against Joe.

I called the District Attorney’s office who explained that child support no longer was handled by the DA’s office. We would have to work with the LACCSSD to resolve any issue.

There were several more rounds of visits and phone calls. A county worker named Eamon agreed to refer the case for a review, but when Joe called back a month later he was informed that Eamon no longer worked there. A state worker named Robin spoke to me on the phone and told me about an ombudsman program that could review and resolve problems for us, but we could not located a name, address, or phone number for an ombudsman within the county system. Then, last April a letter arrived from the state with an address for the ombudsman. Joe filed a complaint with the ombudsman’s office and was assured that the matter would be investigated within 30 to 60 days. But after 90 days we were told that the ombudsman’s office would not review Joe’s case, and a phone operator at the county offered to file an ombudsman’s complaint against the ombudsman’s office. I don’t believe that a public agency is competent to police itself after it has abused a citizen for a decade.

Detailing more of the twists and turns in our journey would simply serve to draw out an already long essay. The best analogy I can offer is we were stuck playing a decade-long game of Three Card Monty with all of the misdirection and fraud that street hustlers use to separate the naive from their money.

I can certainly see patients enrolled in government sponsored healthcare watch their treatment decisions being made by caseworkers who say, “Well, you need to talk to the caseworker in Department D for that piece of paperwork.” Only to have the caseworker in Department D send the patient to the back of the line in Department G with the words, “You must have misunderstood your caseworker—it’s not Department D, it’s Department G.”

The other interesting aspect of working within the child support services agencies is that you never get anyone’s full name or contact information. It is just another tactic to delay and obfuscate until they think you will just go away.

There are no civil rights for non-custodial parents in child support enforcement

The child support services department acts as the legal counsel for the custodial parent, but low-cost or free legal services are not offered to the non-custodial parent. Even the most heinous criminals in our country are offered competent legal counsel, but a dead broke dad is responsible for his own legal representation or is forced to represent themselves as a “pro per” litigant. Non-custodial parents are guilty until proven otherwise. The problem is that there is no opportunity to correct the record. If Joe had drowned his son he would have had more rights than he did as a misidentified non-custodial parent.

The consequences of child support arrears include criminal complaints and jail time. Yet, non-custodial parents are never given their Miranda Rights. They are never told that they things they say can and will be held against them in a court of law. If they can’t afford an attorney, none will be appointed for them. And, the federal laws that govern child support enforcement will never help the non-custodial parent reach a settlement—they will only dictate how much money is owed and where the checks are to be mailed.

There is no guarantee that child support payments will be used for the child. The payments go to the custodial parent and can be used in any way that the custodial parent sees fit. Bert Riddick paid $1,300 per month for a child the county and state both knew was not his, while his real family struggled financially under the burden of a debt that was not his to pay.

No bankruptcy or criminal court judge can amend child support arrears.

Should non-custodial parents be responsible for the societal costs of their children? The simple answer is yes, but then are we willing to say that the poor, infirmed, unemployed, or uninformed should be jailed and punished for not knowing the law? Are we making parenthood a crime for the uninitiated? I believe that the high unemployment and economic uncertainty that is being experienced across the country will be a real test for child support enforcement. In an intact family every member of the family suffers when a parent is unemployed or earning less than in the past. In child support enforcement cases the child and custodial mother never have to suffer when the earning capacity of the non-custodial parent is reduced. And, when things are good, the custodial parent can claim more of the custodial parent’s income for their child. Support can be modified to a higher dollar amount representing cost of living and earning adjustments, but it can never be reduced. This kind of creative financing on the part of the agencies does not reflect the realities of a real world. The reality is bad things happen to good people through no fault of their own.

With congress’ new healthcare plan, will the infirmed, unemployed, or uninformed have their medical services curtailed because they cannot mentally or physically keep up with a shifting healthcare bureaucracy?

Now that I’ve aired my family’s dirty laundry, what can you learn from my experience?

Mandating Healthcare for All

The new healthcare system will mandate that every single man, woman, and child will be covered by healthcare. If a citizen doesn’t have a private plan, they will be “offered” a government administered plan at a fee to be determined. But, will you really have a choice?

Will the newly proposed healthcare system be so bound by rules and regulations that getting the individualized assistance unique to maintaining individual health and vitality be made available to enrollees?

And, will a new healthcare bureaucracy serve as a tool for rationing and long delays in the delivery of healthcare?

Also, once enrolled in the government sponsored program, will users be able to switch back to a private plan that better meets their needs—or will the government always know best when it comes to your health? My feeling is that the government will always know best under this new bureaucracy.

I’m sure that the child support services laws were meant with the best of intentions. But, in my life, I know that the road to hell was paved with those good intentions. Forgive me if I don’t want to trust the federal government with my healthcare.

About the Author Teresa Trujillo is a parent, wife, community activist, and writer in Fullerton, California. Many of her essays and commentaries can be found at www.redcounty.com /user/250

She has worked in the printing and publishing industry for over 30 years and is a freelance book designer.

Teresa and Joe have raised a son that they are very proud of. He has graduated from high school and plans to enlist in the U.S. Marine Corps in a few weeks. She can be followed on Twitter @bookishgirl, and her e-mail address is Teresa@BookishGirlWrites.com