Dusty
August 26th 04, 01:11 AM
Child Support Feds Hold Meeting, Announce New "Strategic Plan"
August 24, 2004
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
by Dr. Stephen Baskerville
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
The federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) held the first part
of a two-day, "invitation only" meeting today called the African-American
Forum. Invitees included child support enforcement officials, small
community groups, and a small number of national organizations, including
the American Coalition for Fathers and Children.
OCSE Director Sherri Heller, opening the meeting, announced a new National
Child Support Enforcement Strategic Plan, 2005-2009. Dr. Heller acknowledged
that the current enforcement system is "way out of balance" and promised to
develop procedures that "treat both parents fairly." She began the meeting
by saying it would be a "two-way conversation" and said, "We want to
listen," though immediately following her remarks she left the meeting.
Dr. Heller said she was excited by the new Strategic Plan, though the
document seems to contain little that is substantially new. She promised to
prevent the build-up of unpaid arrearages through "early intervention" but
did not say precisely what that intervention would be. She also pledged that
more payments would go directly to "families" and less to the government.
The Strategic Plan says its aim is to build a "culture of compliance," in
which parents support their children "voluntarily" but also says that
"severe enforcement remedies" would be applied to those who fail to
volunteer.
Paige Biava of OCSE claimed that child support enforcement officials and
some community groups had been consulted in preparing the document but
acknowledged that no solicitation of public comments was ever issued and no
systematic citizen input was collected. She said the basic principle of the
plan is that "Families come first." She said OCSE defines a "family" as the
custodial parent and children but in response to a suggestion accepted that
it might be appropriate to include the non-custodial parent as well. The
Strategic Plan lists "our customers, partners, and stakeholders" as
including children, custodians, child support enforcement agencies, courts,
law enforcement agencies, employers, financial institutions, hospitals,
departments of corrections, attorneys, prosecutors, interest groups,
churches, and legislatures. The list does not include non-custodial parents.
In response to another question, OCSE official Melvin Sutton said his office
and local child support offices can provide no assistance with visitation
interference and that no federal guidelines govern or encourage visitation.
Perhaps most revealing was what both the Strategic Plan and the agenda of
the two-day meeting did not contain. In recent years severe criticism of the
child support system has issued forth from journalists, scholars, and even
some judges, as well as non-custodial parents. These include charges of
illegal and unconstitutional practices that violate constitutional rights.
Yet no acknowledgement was made of such allegations nor was any effort made
to address them.
In Society magazine, Bryce Christensen writes, "The advocates of
ever-more-aggressive measures for collecting child support.have moved us a
dangerous step closer to a police state and have violated the rights of
innocent and often impoverished fathers." Liberty magazine has called the
child support problem a "myth." Sanford Braver has meticulously debunked it
with documentation. A new book, "The Law and Economics of Child Support
Payments, edited by William Comanor, contains many essays critical of the
child support system. Ronald Henry's contribution to that volume calls the
system and its justification "an obvious sham," a "disaster," and "the most
onerous form of debt collection practiced in the United States." A Georgia
Superior Court judge declared guidelines unconstitutional on "numerous"
grounds in 2002. Last December, the ACLU demanded the release of 100
prisoners in a single Pennsylvania county on grounds that they had been
incarcerated without due process of law.
One may disagree with these assessments. Yet nowhere in the Strategic Plan,
which will govern the operation of the child support system for the next
four years, is there any recognition that such serious criticisms have even
been raised. Apparently none of the above mentioned scholars who have
questioned the ethics and methods of child support enforcement was invited
to speak at this or any other meeting sponsored by OCSE. Instead Elaine
Sorensen, who has spoken at many such meetings, presented research that was
very similar to research she has presented many times before.
The Strategic Plan makes no mention of the desirability of observing due
process of law or the constitutional rights of parents and children. No
concern is expressed that guidelines be just and appropriate. Nowhere is the
possibility raised of using federal guidelines to discourage divorce or
encourage shared parenting, both of which would relieve the overall
enforcement load. No concrete measures or incentives are advanced for
requiring or encouraging the involvement of non-custodial parents in the
decision-making or raising of their children.
Finally, the tone of the meeting was highly significant. Speakers and
officials were frequently interrupted with questions, which were often
direct and even hostile. This was in sharp contrast to the deference display
at similar meetings only a few years ago. Bearing in mind that many
participants were involved with groups that receive federal money, the
critical response was marked.
The meeting continues Tuesday. The contact official for information is:
Ja-Na Bordes, (202) 401-5713,
Stephen Baskerville
President
American Coalition for Fathers & Children
Washington, DC
--
------------------------------------------------------------
Eliminate the impossible and whatever
remains, no matter how improbable, must
be the truth.
---- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle ---
August 24, 2004
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
by Dr. Stephen Baskerville
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
The federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) held the first part
of a two-day, "invitation only" meeting today called the African-American
Forum. Invitees included child support enforcement officials, small
community groups, and a small number of national organizations, including
the American Coalition for Fathers and Children.
OCSE Director Sherri Heller, opening the meeting, announced a new National
Child Support Enforcement Strategic Plan, 2005-2009. Dr. Heller acknowledged
that the current enforcement system is "way out of balance" and promised to
develop procedures that "treat both parents fairly." She began the meeting
by saying it would be a "two-way conversation" and said, "We want to
listen," though immediately following her remarks she left the meeting.
Dr. Heller said she was excited by the new Strategic Plan, though the
document seems to contain little that is substantially new. She promised to
prevent the build-up of unpaid arrearages through "early intervention" but
did not say precisely what that intervention would be. She also pledged that
more payments would go directly to "families" and less to the government.
The Strategic Plan says its aim is to build a "culture of compliance," in
which parents support their children "voluntarily" but also says that
"severe enforcement remedies" would be applied to those who fail to
volunteer.
Paige Biava of OCSE claimed that child support enforcement officials and
some community groups had been consulted in preparing the document but
acknowledged that no solicitation of public comments was ever issued and no
systematic citizen input was collected. She said the basic principle of the
plan is that "Families come first." She said OCSE defines a "family" as the
custodial parent and children but in response to a suggestion accepted that
it might be appropriate to include the non-custodial parent as well. The
Strategic Plan lists "our customers, partners, and stakeholders" as
including children, custodians, child support enforcement agencies, courts,
law enforcement agencies, employers, financial institutions, hospitals,
departments of corrections, attorneys, prosecutors, interest groups,
churches, and legislatures. The list does not include non-custodial parents.
In response to another question, OCSE official Melvin Sutton said his office
and local child support offices can provide no assistance with visitation
interference and that no federal guidelines govern or encourage visitation.
Perhaps most revealing was what both the Strategic Plan and the agenda of
the two-day meeting did not contain. In recent years severe criticism of the
child support system has issued forth from journalists, scholars, and even
some judges, as well as non-custodial parents. These include charges of
illegal and unconstitutional practices that violate constitutional rights.
Yet no acknowledgement was made of such allegations nor was any effort made
to address them.
In Society magazine, Bryce Christensen writes, "The advocates of
ever-more-aggressive measures for collecting child support.have moved us a
dangerous step closer to a police state and have violated the rights of
innocent and often impoverished fathers." Liberty magazine has called the
child support problem a "myth." Sanford Braver has meticulously debunked it
with documentation. A new book, "The Law and Economics of Child Support
Payments, edited by William Comanor, contains many essays critical of the
child support system. Ronald Henry's contribution to that volume calls the
system and its justification "an obvious sham," a "disaster," and "the most
onerous form of debt collection practiced in the United States." A Georgia
Superior Court judge declared guidelines unconstitutional on "numerous"
grounds in 2002. Last December, the ACLU demanded the release of 100
prisoners in a single Pennsylvania county on grounds that they had been
incarcerated without due process of law.
One may disagree with these assessments. Yet nowhere in the Strategic Plan,
which will govern the operation of the child support system for the next
four years, is there any recognition that such serious criticisms have even
been raised. Apparently none of the above mentioned scholars who have
questioned the ethics and methods of child support enforcement was invited
to speak at this or any other meeting sponsored by OCSE. Instead Elaine
Sorensen, who has spoken at many such meetings, presented research that was
very similar to research she has presented many times before.
The Strategic Plan makes no mention of the desirability of observing due
process of law or the constitutional rights of parents and children. No
concern is expressed that guidelines be just and appropriate. Nowhere is the
possibility raised of using federal guidelines to discourage divorce or
encourage shared parenting, both of which would relieve the overall
enforcement load. No concrete measures or incentives are advanced for
requiring or encouraging the involvement of non-custodial parents in the
decision-making or raising of their children.
Finally, the tone of the meeting was highly significant. Speakers and
officials were frequently interrupted with questions, which were often
direct and even hostile. This was in sharp contrast to the deference display
at similar meetings only a few years ago. Bearing in mind that many
participants were involved with groups that receive federal money, the
critical response was marked.
The meeting continues Tuesday. The contact official for information is:
Ja-Na Bordes, (202) 401-5713,
Stephen Baskerville
President
American Coalition for Fathers & Children
Washington, DC
--
------------------------------------------------------------
Eliminate the impossible and whatever
remains, no matter how improbable, must
be the truth.
---- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle ---