If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Unleash the Bill Collectors on Deadbeat Dads
Unleash the Bill Collectors on Deadbeat Dads
By Gary S. Becker July 18, 1994 BusinessWeek More than one in five U.S. children live in poverty. This is mainly because of a spectacular growth in the number of families headed by unmarried mothers, compounded by low or nonexistent child-support payments by noncustodial fathers. Fortunately for the children, as well as the mothers, it is possible to greatly increase the number of fathers who meet their obligations. It is far too easy for fathers to dump the financial as well as the emotional burdens of raising children on mothers. More men will hesitate to father children if they know they'll have a tougher time evading the duty to support them. Children can benefit emotionally as well as materially when their fathers support them. And if more dads were forced to pay up, they might be more likely to spend time with their kids -- since they would no longer be avoiding detection. A 1993 Urban Institute study estimates that incomes of many one-parent families would rise above the poverty level if all child-support obligations were met. But the American Fathers Coalition -- a group of child-support payers -- claims the delinquency figures are inflated by mothers' failure to report the payments they receive. This coalition also believes fathers sometimes fall into arrears because child-support awards are excessive. This group makes some valid points, but it is still important to improve compliance with child-support obligations. Congress passed legislation in 1984 and 1988 requiring states to make stronger collection efforts, with the Federal government footing most of the bill. It is now easier to garnishee wages, even when fathers have moved to other states, and to jail those who refuse to pay. Computer systems allow states to keep better track of where fathers live and how much they owe. PATERNITY WARDS As part of his welfare-reform package, President Clinton recently proposed stiffening these laws by establishing national clearinghouses to track interstate cases, by denying occupational permits and driver's licenses to fathers who don't pay up (some states already have such rules), and by requiring hospitals to establish and record who the father is for every baby born. Although federal laws and state efforts have increased the numbers of fathers who pay up, statistics compiled by the Health & Human Services Dept.'s Office of Child Support Enforcement show that state agencies are collecting money in less than 19% of their child-support cases. Many fathers continue to successfully avoid detection by state governments -- in some cases by fleeing to another state. One reason for the low figure is that state collection agencies concentrate on helping mothers on welfare, including efforts to establish the identity of the fathers. States emphasize welfare cases because public spending is reduced when families receive enough child support to go off welfare. But many women not on welfare are also failing to get the support due them. Some women who were not being helped by state agencies have turned to private collectors to track down the fathers of their children. These collectors have often been quite successful: They may garnishee the wages of fathers or get local authorities to jail deadbeats until they pay up. BOUNTY HUNTERS? Private collectors usually charge a small nonrefundable fee, but their main source of revenue is a contingency payment that usually ranges from one-quarter to one-third of what they collect. This may seem like a big cut, but these fractions are not out of line with fees charged by companies collecting other kinds of debt. Yet some children's advocacy groups oppose the involvement of for-profit collection companies, because they hate to see large sums being siphoned off that should be going to the children. But mothers usually turn to private companies only after they fail to get what is due them through ordinary channels. And after all, 67% of what is collected privately is a lot better than 100% of nothing. Private collectors often succeed where state agencies fail, because government officials lack financial incentives to track down fathers who are in arrears. Therefore, state agencies should take a cue from what some mothers are doing: Hire private companies to locate and collect from recalcitrant fathers. Private collectors hunting down deadbeat fathers for state governments may evoke the notorious bounty-hunter system of the Old West, but it would be an effective response to the failure of state agencies. Privatization of state collection efforts has precedents in other kinds of debt: States have hired private companies to collect unpaid traffic fines, for example. Congress should adopt most of the President's recommendations to strengthen the government's hand in collecting child support. But the laws already on the books would be much more effective in reducing the number of children raised in poverty if state governments and more mothers hired private collectors to track down deadbeat fathers. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Unleash the Bill Collectors on Deadbeat Dads
"Fighting for kids" adf wrote in message ... Unleash the Bill Collectors on Deadbeat Dads By Gary S. Becker July 18, 1994 BusinessWeek More than one in five U.S. children live in poverty. This is mainly because of a spectacular growth in the number of families headed by unmarried mothers, compounded by low or nonexistent child-support payments by noncustodial fathers. Fortunately for the children, as well as the mothers, it is possible to greatly increase the number of fathers who meet their obligations. It is far too easy for fathers to dump the financial as well as the emotional burdens of raising children on mothers. More men will hesitate to father children if they know they'll have a tougher time evading the duty to support them. Children can benefit emotionally as well as materially when their fathers support them. And if more dads were forced to pay up, they might be more likely to spend time with their kids -- since they would no longer be avoiding detection. A 1993 Urban Institute study estimates that incomes of many one-parent families would rise above the poverty level if all child-support obligations were met. But the American Fathers Coalition -- a group of child-support payers -- claims the delinquency figures are inflated by mothers' failure to report the payments they receive. This coalition also believes fathers sometimes fall into arrears because child-support awards are excessive. This group makes some valid points, but it is still important to improve compliance with child-support obligations. Congress passed legislation in 1984 and 1988 requiring states to make stronger collection efforts, with the Federal government footing most of the bill. It is now easier to garnishee wages, even when fathers have moved to other states, and to jail those who refuse to pay. Computer systems allow states to keep better track of where fathers live and how much they owe. PATERNITY WARDS As part of his welfare-reform package, President Clinton recently proposed stiffening these laws by establishing national clearinghouses to track interstate cases, by denying occupational permits and driver's licenses to fathers who don't pay up (some states already have such rules), and by requiring hospitals to establish and record who the father is for every baby born. Although federal laws and state efforts have increased the numbers of fathers who pay up, statistics compiled by the Health & Human Services Dept.'s Office of Child Support Enforcement show that state agencies are collecting money in less than 19% of their child-support cases. Many fathers continue to successfully avoid detection by state governments -- in some cases by fleeing to another state. One reason for the low figure is that state collection agencies concentrate on helping mothers on welfare, including efforts to establish the identity of the fathers. States emphasize welfare cases because public spending is reduced when families receive enough child support to go off welfare. But many women not on welfare are also failing to get the support due them. Some women who were not being helped by state agencies have turned to private collectors to track down the fathers of their children. These collectors have often been quite successful: They may garnishee the wages of fathers or get local authorities to jail deadbeats until they pay up. BOUNTY HUNTERS? Private collectors usually charge a small nonrefundable fee, but their main source of revenue is a contingency payment that usually ranges from one-quarter to one-third of what they collect. This may seem like a big cut, but these fractions are not out of line with fees charged by companies collecting other kinds of debt. Yet some children's advocacy groups oppose the involvement of for-profit collection companies, because they hate to see large sums being siphoned off that should be going to the children. But mothers usually turn to private companies only after they fail to get what is due them through ordinary channels. And after all, 67% of what is collected privately is a lot better than 100% of nothing. Private collectors often succeed where state agencies fail, because government officials lack financial incentives to track down fathers who are in arrears. Therefore, state agencies should take a cue from what some mothers are doing: Hire private companies to locate and collect from recalcitrant fathers. Private collectors hunting down deadbeat fathers for state governments may evoke the notorious bounty-hunter system of the Old West, but it would be an effective response to the failure of state agencies. Privatization of state collection efforts has precedents in other kinds of debt: States have hired private companies to collect unpaid traffic fines, for example. Congress should adopt most of the President's recommendations to strengthen the government's hand in collecting child support. But the laws already on the books would be much more effective in reducing the number of children raised in poverty if state governments and more mothers hired private collectors to track down deadbeat fathers. What's with these old stories? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Unleash the Bill Collectors on Deadbeat Dads
Just posting articles that are relavant to the issues at in the group. You
all say that deadbeats dont exsist that they are all just men trying their hardest to pay their support. These articles show otherwise. "Chris" wrote in message news:gykrb.10217$0K6.6349@fed1read06... "Fighting for kids" adf wrote in message ... Unleash the Bill Collectors on Deadbeat Dads By Gary S. Becker July 18, 1994 BusinessWeek More than one in five U.S. children live in poverty. This is mainly because of a spectacular growth in the number of families headed by unmarried mothers, compounded by low or nonexistent child-support payments by noncustodial fathers. Fortunately for the children, as well as the mothers, it is possible to greatly increase the number of fathers who meet their obligations. It is far too easy for fathers to dump the financial as well as the emotional burdens of raising children on mothers. More men will hesitate to father children if they know they'll have a tougher time evading the duty to support them. Children can benefit emotionally as well as materially when their fathers support them. And if more dads were forced to pay up, they might be more likely to spend time with their kids -- since they would no longer be avoiding detection. A 1993 Urban Institute study estimates that incomes of many one-parent families would rise above the poverty level if all child-support obligations were met. But the American Fathers Coalition -- a group of child-support payers -- claims the delinquency figures are inflated by mothers' failure to report the payments they receive. This coalition also believes fathers sometimes fall into arrears because child-support awards are excessive. This group makes some valid points, but it is still important to improve compliance with child-support obligations. Congress passed legislation in 1984 and 1988 requiring states to make stronger collection efforts, with the Federal government footing most of the bill. It is now easier to garnishee wages, even when fathers have moved to other states, and to jail those who refuse to pay. Computer systems allow states to keep better track of where fathers live and how much they owe. PATERNITY WARDS As part of his welfare-reform package, President Clinton recently proposed stiffening these laws by establishing national clearinghouses to track interstate cases, by denying occupational permits and driver's licenses to fathers who don't pay up (some states already have such rules), and by requiring hospitals to establish and record who the father is for every baby born. Although federal laws and state efforts have increased the numbers of fathers who pay up, statistics compiled by the Health & Human Services Dept.'s Office of Child Support Enforcement show that state agencies are collecting money in less than 19% of their child-support cases. Many fathers continue to successfully avoid detection by state governments -- in some cases by fleeing to another state. One reason for the low figure is that state collection agencies concentrate on helping mothers on welfare, including efforts to establish the identity of the fathers. States emphasize welfare cases because public spending is reduced when families receive enough child support to go off welfare. But many women not on welfare are also failing to get the support due them. Some women who were not being helped by state agencies have turned to private collectors to track down the fathers of their children. These collectors have often been quite successful: They may garnishee the wages of fathers or get local authorities to jail deadbeats until they pay up. BOUNTY HUNTERS? Private collectors usually charge a small nonrefundable fee, but their main source of revenue is a contingency payment that usually ranges from one-quarter to one-third of what they collect. This may seem like a big cut, but these fractions are not out of line with fees charged by companies collecting other kinds of debt. Yet some children's advocacy groups oppose the involvement of for-profit collection companies, because they hate to see large sums being siphoned off that should be going to the children. But mothers usually turn to private companies only after they fail to get what is due them through ordinary channels. And after all, 67% of what is collected privately is a lot better than 100% of nothing. Private collectors often succeed where state agencies fail, because government officials lack financial incentives to track down fathers who are in arrears. Therefore, state agencies should take a cue from what some mothers are doing: Hire private companies to locate and collect from recalcitrant fathers. Private collectors hunting down deadbeat fathers for state governments may evoke the notorious bounty-hunter system of the Old West, but it would be an effective response to the failure of state agencies. Privatization of state collection efforts has precedents in other kinds of debt: States have hired private companies to collect unpaid traffic fines, for example. Congress should adopt most of the President's recommendations to strengthen the government's hand in collecting child support. But the laws already on the books would be much more effective in reducing the number of children raised in poverty if state governments and more mothers hired private collectors to track down deadbeat fathers. What's with these old stories? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Unleash the Bill Collectors on Deadbeat Dads
"Fighting for kids" adf wrote in message ... Just posting articles that are relavant to the issues at in the group. You all say that deadbeats dont exsist that they are all just men trying their hardest to pay their support. These articles show otherwise. You believe everything you see in print? "Chris" wrote in message news:gykrb.10217$0K6.6349@fed1read06... "Fighting for kids" adf wrote in message ... Unleash the Bill Collectors on Deadbeat Dads By Gary S. Becker July 18, 1994 BusinessWeek More than one in five U.S. children live in poverty. This is mainly because of a spectacular growth in the number of families headed by unmarried mothers, compounded by low or nonexistent child-support payments by noncustodial fathers. Fortunately for the children, as well as the mothers, it is possible to greatly increase the number of fathers who meet their obligations. It is far too easy for fathers to dump the financial as well as the emotional burdens of raising children on mothers. More men will hesitate to father children if they know they'll have a tougher time evading the duty to support them. Children can benefit emotionally as well as materially when their fathers support them. And if more dads were forced to pay up, they might be more likely to spend time with their kids -- since they would no longer be avoiding detection. A 1993 Urban Institute study estimates that incomes of many one-parent families would rise above the poverty level if all child-support obligations were met. But the American Fathers Coalition -- a group of child-support payers -- claims the delinquency figures are inflated by mothers' failure to report the payments they receive. This coalition also believes fathers sometimes fall into arrears because child-support awards are excessive. This group makes some valid points, but it is still important to improve compliance with child-support obligations. Congress passed legislation in 1984 and 1988 requiring states to make stronger collection efforts, with the Federal government footing most of the bill. It is now easier to garnishee wages, even when fathers have moved to other states, and to jail those who refuse to pay. Computer systems allow states to keep better track of where fathers live and how much they owe. PATERNITY WARDS As part of his welfare-reform package, President Clinton recently proposed stiffening these laws by establishing national clearinghouses to track interstate cases, by denying occupational permits and driver's licenses to fathers who don't pay up (some states already have such rules), and by requiring hospitals to establish and record who the father is for every baby born. Although federal laws and state efforts have increased the numbers of fathers who pay up, statistics compiled by the Health & Human Services Dept.'s Office of Child Support Enforcement show that state agencies are collecting money in less than 19% of their child-support cases. Many fathers continue to successfully avoid detection by state governments -- in some cases by fleeing to another state. One reason for the low figure is that state collection agencies concentrate on helping mothers on welfare, including efforts to establish the identity of the fathers. States emphasize welfare cases because public spending is reduced when families receive enough child support to go off welfare. But many women not on welfare are also failing to get the support due them. Some women who were not being helped by state agencies have turned to private collectors to track down the fathers of their children. These collectors have often been quite successful: They may garnishee the wages of fathers or get local authorities to jail deadbeats until they pay up. BOUNTY HUNTERS? Private collectors usually charge a small nonrefundable fee, but their main source of revenue is a contingency payment that usually ranges from one-quarter to one-third of what they collect. This may seem like a big cut, but these fractions are not out of line with fees charged by companies collecting other kinds of debt. Yet some children's advocacy groups oppose the involvement of for-profit collection companies, because they hate to see large sums being siphoned off that should be going to the children. But mothers usually turn to private companies only after they fail to get what is due them through ordinary channels. And after all, 67% of what is collected privately is a lot better than 100% of nothing. Private collectors often succeed where state agencies fail, because government officials lack financial incentives to track down fathers who are in arrears. Therefore, state agencies should take a cue from what some mothers are doing: Hire private companies to locate and collect from recalcitrant fathers. Private collectors hunting down deadbeat fathers for state governments may evoke the notorious bounty-hunter system of the Old West, but it would be an effective response to the failure of state agencies. Privatization of state collection efforts has precedents in other kinds of debt: States have hired private companies to collect unpaid traffic fines, for example. Congress should adopt most of the President's recommendations to strengthen the government's hand in collecting child support. But the laws already on the books would be much more effective in reducing the number of children raised in poverty if state governments and more mothers hired private collectors to track down deadbeat fathers. What's with these old stories? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Unleash the Bill Collectors on Deadbeat Dads
Divorced Dads: Shattering the Myths
Authors: Sanford L. Braver, Diane O'Connell Deadbeat dads: Divorced fathers pay 90 percent of the child support they have been ordered to pay. Fully employed divorced fathers pay all that is due. In addition, they pay visitation expenses. [Depending on the extent of the research providing the result, fathers (all fathers including never married) pay 70-80 percent of what they have been ordered to pay. The low end 70 percent relies on recipient surveys that do not account for money that is paid but withheld as repayment for welfare, and possible bias. In all cases, the primary cause of non-payment is that the person ordered to pay is unable to pay.] The No-Show Dad: The rate of contact between fathers and their children following divorce shows "paternal devotion and tenacity [that] is entirely at odds with the more popular image of the runaways, absentee, or disappearing dad." Standards of Living: Women with children are, as a group, better off financially following divorce than men. That's right, it's not the other way around. Terms of Divorce: Far from being docile, easily manipulated victims of a male dominated divorce system, women have always fared well in negotiations and settlements. Men are far more likely to be the biggest losers in the process. Emotional Issues of Divorce: Women are happier after divorce than men. Given the results related to the other myths, this is likely to cause the least surprise. They have the children, they are better off financially, they drive better cars, their situation is less likely to interfere with new relationships and remarriage .... Who leaves the marriage ... and why it matters: " ... women initiate the preponderance (63 - 75%) of modern divorces ..." It matters because it vindicates the finding that men do less well then women after divorce, because the blame heaped on men for divorce should be addressed, and because the myth serves to further unlevel the playing field of domestic relations law and politics on which fathers are already disadvantaged. "Chris" wrote in message news:HEprb.11960$0K6.11380@fed1read06... "Fighting for kids" adf wrote in message ... Just posting articles that are relavant to the issues at in the group. You all say that deadbeats dont exsist that they are all just men trying their hardest to pay their support. These articles show otherwise. You believe everything you see in print? "Chris" wrote in message news:gykrb.10217$0K6.6349@fed1read06... "Fighting for kids" adf wrote in message ... Unleash the Bill Collectors on Deadbeat Dads By Gary S. Becker July 18, 1994 BusinessWeek More than one in five U.S. children live in poverty. This is mainly because of a spectacular growth in the number of families headed by unmarried mothers, compounded by low or nonexistent child-support payments by noncustodial fathers. Fortunately for the children, as well as the mothers, it is possible to greatly increase the number of fathers who meet their obligations. It is far too easy for fathers to dump the financial as well as the emotional burdens of raising children on mothers. More men will hesitate to father children if they know they'll have a tougher time evading the duty to support them. Children can benefit emotionally as well as materially when their fathers support them. And if more dads were forced to pay up, they might be more likely to spend time with their kids -- since they would no longer be avoiding detection. A 1993 Urban Institute study estimates that incomes of many one-parent families would rise above the poverty level if all child-support obligations were met. But the American Fathers Coalition -- a group of child-support payers -- claims the delinquency figures are inflated by mothers' failure to report the payments they receive. This coalition also believes fathers sometimes fall into arrears because child-support awards are excessive. This group makes some valid points, but it is still important to improve compliance with child-support obligations. Congress passed legislation in 1984 and 1988 requiring states to make stronger collection efforts, with the Federal government footing most of the bill. It is now easier to garnishee wages, even when fathers have moved to other states, and to jail those who refuse to pay. Computer systems allow states to keep better track of where fathers live and how much they owe. PATERNITY WARDS As part of his welfare-reform package, President Clinton recently proposed stiffening these laws by establishing national clearinghouses to track interstate cases, by denying occupational permits and driver's licenses to fathers who don't pay up (some states already have such rules), and by requiring hospitals to establish and record who the father is for every baby born. Although federal laws and state efforts have increased the numbers of fathers who pay up, statistics compiled by the Health & Human Services Dept.'s Office of Child Support Enforcement show that state agencies are collecting money in less than 19% of their child-support cases. Many fathers continue to successfully avoid detection by state governments -- in some cases by fleeing to another state. One reason for the low figure is that state collection agencies concentrate on helping mothers on welfare, including efforts to establish the identity of the fathers. States emphasize welfare cases because public spending is reduced when families receive enough child support to go off welfare. But many women not on welfare are also failing to get the support due them. Some women who were not being helped by state agencies have turned to private collectors to track down the fathers of their children. These collectors have often been quite successful: They may garnishee the wages of fathers or get local authorities to jail deadbeats until they pay up. BOUNTY HUNTERS? Private collectors usually charge a small nonrefundable fee, but their main source of revenue is a contingency payment that usually ranges from one-quarter to one-third of what they collect. This may seem like a big cut, but these fractions are not out of line with fees charged by companies collecting other kinds of debt. Yet some children's advocacy groups oppose the involvement of for-profit collection companies, because they hate to see large sums being siphoned off that should be going to the children. But mothers usually turn to private companies only after they fail to get what is due them through ordinary channels. And after all, 67% of what is collected privately is a lot better than 100% of nothing. Private collectors often succeed where state agencies fail, because government officials lack financial incentives to track down fathers who are in arrears. Therefore, state agencies should take a cue from what some mothers are doing: Hire private companies to locate and collect from recalcitrant fathers. Private collectors hunting down deadbeat fathers for state governments may evoke the notorious bounty-hunter system of the Old West, but it would be an effective response to the failure of state agencies. Privatization of state collection efforts has precedents in other kinds of debt: States have hired private companies to collect unpaid traffic fines, for example. Congress should adopt most of the President's recommendations to strengthen the government's hand in collecting child support. But the laws already on the books would be much more effective in reducing the number of children raised in poverty if state governments and more mothers hired private collectors to track down deadbeat fathers. What's with these old stories? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Unleash the Bill Collectors on Deadbeat Dads
Key word "CLAIMS", cant prove.
"cigon" wrote in message ... t. But the American Fathers Coalition -- a group of child-support payers -- claims the delinquency figures are inflated by mothers' |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Unleash the Bill Collectors on Deadbeat Dads
No, but when I can see information that backs it up..yep. In the case of
these articles, there are figures and studies that back them up. "Chris" wrote in message news:HEprb.11960$0K6.11380@fed1read06... "Fighting for kids" adf wrote in message ... Just posting articles that are relavant to the issues at in the group. You all say that deadbeats dont exsist that they are all just men trying their hardest to pay their support. These articles show otherwise. You believe everything you see in print? "Chris" wrote in message news:gykrb.10217$0K6.6349@fed1read06... "Fighting for kids" adf wrote in message ... Unleash the Bill Collectors on Deadbeat Dads By Gary S. Becker July 18, 1994 BusinessWeek More than one in five U.S. children live in poverty. This is mainly because of a spectacular growth in the number of families headed by unmarried mothers, compounded by low or nonexistent child-support payments by noncustodial fathers. Fortunately for the children, as well as the mothers, it is possible to greatly increase the number of fathers who meet their obligations. It is far too easy for fathers to dump the financial as well as the emotional burdens of raising children on mothers. More men will hesitate to father children if they know they'll have a tougher time evading the duty to support them. Children can benefit emotionally as well as materially when their fathers support them. And if more dads were forced to pay up, they might be more likely to spend time with their kids -- since they would no longer be avoiding detection. A 1993 Urban Institute study estimates that incomes of many one-parent families would rise above the poverty level if all child-support obligations were met. But the American Fathers Coalition -- a group of child-support payers -- claims the delinquency figures are inflated by mothers' failure to report the payments they receive. This coalition also believes fathers sometimes fall into arrears because child-support awards are excessive. This group makes some valid points, but it is still important to improve compliance with child-support obligations. Congress passed legislation in 1984 and 1988 requiring states to make stronger collection efforts, with the Federal government footing most of the bill. It is now easier to garnishee wages, even when fathers have moved to other states, and to jail those who refuse to pay. Computer systems allow states to keep better track of where fathers live and how much they owe. PATERNITY WARDS As part of his welfare-reform package, President Clinton recently proposed stiffening these laws by establishing national clearinghouses to track interstate cases, by denying occupational permits and driver's licenses to fathers who don't pay up (some states already have such rules), and by requiring hospitals to establish and record who the father is for every baby born. Although federal laws and state efforts have increased the numbers of fathers who pay up, statistics compiled by the Health & Human Services Dept.'s Office of Child Support Enforcement show that state agencies are collecting money in less than 19% of their child-support cases. Many fathers continue to successfully avoid detection by state governments -- in some cases by fleeing to another state. One reason for the low figure is that state collection agencies concentrate on helping mothers on welfare, including efforts to establish the identity of the fathers. States emphasize welfare cases because public spending is reduced when families receive enough child support to go off welfare. But many women not on welfare are also failing to get the support due them. Some women who were not being helped by state agencies have turned to private collectors to track down the fathers of their children. These collectors have often been quite successful: They may garnishee the wages of fathers or get local authorities to jail deadbeats until they pay up. BOUNTY HUNTERS? Private collectors usually charge a small nonrefundable fee, but their main source of revenue is a contingency payment that usually ranges from one-quarter to one-third of what they collect. This may seem like a big cut, but these fractions are not out of line with fees charged by companies collecting other kinds of debt. Yet some children's advocacy groups oppose the involvement of for-profit collection companies, because they hate to see large sums being siphoned off that should be going to the children. But mothers usually turn to private companies only after they fail to get what is due them through ordinary channels. And after all, 67% of what is collected privately is a lot better than 100% of nothing. Private collectors often succeed where state agencies fail, because government officials lack financial incentives to track down fathers who are in arrears. Therefore, state agencies should take a cue from what some mothers are doing: Hire private companies to locate and collect from recalcitrant fathers. Private collectors hunting down deadbeat fathers for state governments may evoke the notorious bounty-hunter system of the Old West, but it would be an effective response to the failure of state agencies. Privatization of state collection efforts has precedents in other kinds of debt: States have hired private companies to collect unpaid traffic fines, for example. Congress should adopt most of the President's recommendations to strengthen the government's hand in collecting child support. But the laws already on the books would be much more effective in reducing the number of children raised in poverty if state governments and more mothers hired private collectors to track down deadbeat fathers. What's with these old stories? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Unleash the Bill Collectors on Deadbeat Dads
"Paul Fritz" wrote in message ... Divorced Dads: Shattering the Myths Authors: Sanford L. Braver, Diane O'Connell Deadbeat dads: Divorced fathers pay 90 percent of the child support they have been ordered to pay. Fully employed divorced fathers pay all that is due. In addition, they pay visitation expenses. [Depending on the extent of the research providing the result, fathers (all fathers including never married) pay 70-80 percent of what they have been ordered to pay. The low end 70 percent relies on recipient surveys that do not account for money that is paid but withheld as repayment for welfare, and possible bias. In all cases, the primary cause of non-payment is that the person ordered to pay is unable to pay.] Ha ha.. this is a joke right? Thats why there is SOOOO much owed in back child support and the amounts continue to rise. Non-payment is that the person ordered to pay is unable to pay? ha ha.. thats the best joke ive heard yet. Jumping from job to job avoiding payments, tracking across state lines to avoid payment, not sending ANYTHING at all instead of what they can, yeah thats really a good reason!!! The No-Show Dad: The rate of contact between fathers and their children following divorce shows "paternal devotion and tenacity [that] is entirely at odds with the more popular image of the runaways, absentee, or disappearing dad." Ha.. funny joke again. Im laughing at these good job finding the best jokes on the internet today. Standards of Living: Women with children are, as a group, better off financially following divorce than men. That's right, it's not the other way around. Ha.. now thats funny. Especially when after the divorce most women end up in a poverty situation and on top of that we add the non-support from daddy .....hmm Terms of Divorce: Far from being docile, easily manipulated victims of a male dominated divorce system, women have always fared well in negotiations and settlements. Men are far more likely to be the biggest losers in the process. Ha again. Hardly.. Men are just sore because they have to give up their material things when they "think" they should get everything. Emotional Issues of Divorce: Women are happier after divorce than men. Given the results related to the other myths, this is likely to cause the least surprise. They have the children, they are better off financially, they drive better cars, their situation is less likely to interfere with new relationships and remarriage .... Women are happier after divorce becasue they finally got smart and got rid of a pos. They dont have to put up with the mans **** anymore. Drive nicer cars?? ha ha.. thats funny. Most Single MOthers I know do NOT drive nice cars and if they do its usually because their parents help them out. better off financially? Majority live in poverty.. I guess if thats being better off financially then whoppee!!! Their situation is LESS LIKELY to interfere?? yeah thats why most single mothers are seen by other men as having baggage.. lol. Man this stuff you post is so funny. Who leaves the marriage ... and why it matters: " ... women initiate the preponderance (63 - 75%) of modern divorces ..." It matters because it vindicates the finding that men do less well then women after divorce, because the blame heaped on men for divorce should be addressed, and because the myth serves to further unlevel the playing field of domestic relations law and politics on which fathers are already disadvantaged. It matters because women are finally standing up for themselves and not putting up with mens ****. Thats why it matters!!! Poor victims Fathers.. give me a break. "Chris" wrote in message news:HEprb.11960$0K6.11380@fed1read06... "Fighting for kids" adf wrote in message ... Just posting articles that are relavant to the issues at in the group. You all say that deadbeats dont exsist that they are all just men trying their hardest to pay their support. These articles show otherwise. You believe everything you see in print? "Chris" wrote in message news:gykrb.10217$0K6.6349@fed1read06... "Fighting for kids" adf wrote in message ... Unleash the Bill Collectors on Deadbeat Dads By Gary S. Becker July 18, 1994 BusinessWeek More than one in five U.S. children live in poverty. This is mainly because of a spectacular growth in the number of families headed by unmarried mothers, compounded by low or nonexistent child-support payments by noncustodial fathers. Fortunately for the children, as well as the mothers, it is possible to greatly increase the number of fathers who meet their obligations. It is far too easy for fathers to dump the financial as well as the emotional burdens of raising children on mothers. More men will hesitate to father children if they know they'll have a tougher time evading the duty to support them. Children can benefit emotionally as well as materially when their fathers support them. And if more dads were forced to pay up, they might be more likely to spend time with their kids -- since they would no longer be avoiding detection. A 1993 Urban Institute study estimates that incomes of many one-parent families would rise above the poverty level if all child-support obligations were met. But the American Fathers Coalition -- a group of child-support payers -- claims the delinquency figures are inflated by mothers' failure to report the payments they receive. This coalition also believes fathers sometimes fall into arrears because child-support awards are excessive. This group makes some valid points, but it is still important to improve compliance with child-support obligations. Congress passed legislation in 1984 and 1988 requiring states to make stronger collection efforts, with the Federal government footing most of the bill. It is now easier to garnishee wages, even when fathers have moved to other states, and to jail those who refuse to pay. Computer systems allow states to keep better track of where fathers live and how much they owe. PATERNITY WARDS As part of his welfare-reform package, President Clinton recently proposed stiffening these laws by establishing national clearinghouses to track interstate cases, by denying occupational permits and driver's licenses to fathers who don't pay up (some states already have such rules), and by requiring hospitals to establish and record who the father is for every baby born. Although federal laws and state efforts have increased the numbers of fathers who pay up, statistics compiled by the Health & Human Services Dept.'s Office of Child Support Enforcement show that state agencies are collecting money in less than 19% of their child-support cases. Many fathers continue to successfully avoid detection by state governments -- in some cases by fleeing to another state. One reason for the low figure is that state collection agencies concentrate on helping mothers on welfare, including efforts to establish the identity of the fathers. States emphasize welfare cases because public spending is reduced when families receive enough child support to go off welfare. But many women not on welfare are also failing to get the support due them. Some women who were not being helped by state agencies have turned to private collectors to track down the fathers of their children. These collectors have often been quite successful: They may garnishee the wages of fathers or get local authorities to jail deadbeats until they pay up. BOUNTY HUNTERS? Private collectors usually charge a small nonrefundable fee, but their main source of revenue is a contingency payment that usually ranges from one-quarter to one-third of what they collect. This may seem like a big cut, but these fractions are not out of line with fees charged by companies collecting other kinds of debt. Yet some children's advocacy groups oppose the involvement of for-profit collection companies, because they hate to see large sums being siphoned off that should be going to the children. But mothers usually turn to private companies only after they fail to get what is due them through ordinary channels. And after all, 67% of what is collected privately is a lot better than 100% of nothing. Private collectors often succeed where state agencies fail, because government officials lack financial incentives to track down fathers who are in arrears. Therefore, state agencies should take a cue from what some mothers are doing: Hire private companies to locate and collect from recalcitrant fathers. Private collectors hunting down deadbeat fathers for state governments may evoke the notorious bounty-hunter system of the Old West, but it would be an effective response to the failure of state agencies. Privatization of state collection efforts has precedents in other kinds of debt: States have hired private companies to collect unpaid traffic fines, for example. Congress should adopt most of the President's recommendations to strengthen the government's hand in collecting child support. But the laws already on the books would be much more effective in reducing the number of children raised in poverty if state governments and more mothers hired private collectors to track down deadbeat fathers. What's with these old stories? |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Unleash the Bill Collectors on Deadbeat Dads
"Fighting for kids" adf wrote in message ... Key word "CLAIMS", cant prove. "cigon" wrote in message ... t. But the American Fathers Coalition -- a group of child-support payers -- claims the delinquency figures are inflated by mothers' OK, FFK here's a little info from Family Law Quarterly, Vol. 33 No. 1 1999 on the 1999 Child Support Symposium. I can back up those "claims" you scoff at. Here are some of them... "The available evidence indicates that there is a systemic problem in which existing child support guidelines overburden obligors. For example, the State of Florida found that traditional means of collection were unsuccessful and hired two private contractors, Lockheed Martin IMS and Maximus, Inc., to pursue nearly 200,000 "deadbeats." Lock-heed was assigned 101 ,325 cases of which it closed 37,270. Over fourteen months, Lockheed was paid $2.2 million and "managed to collect $137,839 in child support payments." Maximus was assigned 89,560 cases of which it closed 46,692. Maximus was paid $2.25 million and "got 12 deadbeats to cough up $5,867."[6] According to one news story: "What Maximus and Lockheed Martin learned in the process of tracking down non-paying parents is that most who don't make child support payments are, in a word, broke. You can't give what you don't have." [7] Similarly, when the state of Maryland decided to get tough with "deadbeat dads" by suspending 9,000 driver's licenses, only about 800 were able to make sufficient progress on their arrearages to get their licenses restored. In modern America, the ability to drive a car to work, to the grocery store, to just about anywhere, is an indispensable part of simple survival. There were not many trophy wives or shiny red Porsches among the 91 percent who were unable to make sufficient payments simply to regain the freedom to drive. Professional research into the status of' child support obligors is just now beginning to receive funding. Elsewhere in this issue, Professor Sanford Braver reports on some of his research. Similarly, the team of Laura Lein (University of Texas) and Katherine Edini (Rutgers University) recently found: Many of the absent fathers who state leaders want to track down and force to pay child support are so destitute that their lives focus on finding the next job, next meal or next night's shelter . . . . The initial findings are sobering, filled with descriptions of life in the streets or cheap motels, rummaging for food as restaurants are closing and seeking shelter, often a week or a day at a time. What we are finding with the men is that in lots of different areas, there are pressures, in terms of their housing, in terms of their job stability, in terms of trying to be a father, in terms of education and health. There are problems in every domain. [9] Evidence has been building over the past decade that the obligations imposed on noncustodial parents are unsustainable but, for many of those years, little notice was paid. For example, in 1991, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) touted a program under which obligors were rounded up and told that they could either go to jail or charge their arrearages on their credit cards. The description of the program made no mention of the constitutionality of debtors' prison or the morality of driving people into 18 percent revolving credit card debt to pay obligations that supposedly had been established on the basis of ability to pay. The description merely noted that the success of the program in pilot studies was limited because "the majority of obligors-most of them from non-AFDC families" -were already so poor that they "had neither charge cards nor checking accounts." [10] The most widely cited claims about child support noncompliance are those derived from U.S. Bureau of the Census surveys. These figures purport to show that approximately 50 percent of child support orders are paid in full, approximately 25 percent are paid in part, and approximately 25 percent are unpaid. These figures are given as the principal justification for the punitive child support measures undertaken by the federal and state governments during the past decade. The problem is that the cited figures do not accurately reflect the reality of child support compliance and utilized a methodology that would receive no credence in any other setting. The Census Bureau asked only the custodial mothers whether payment was received. It did not compare those responses with noncustodial reports of how much was paid or with court records of how much was owed. The Census Bureau also failed to quantify or correct the under-reporting of the amount of child support actually received by surveyed welfare recipients who feared a risk of benefit reduction or termination if they disclosed the receipt of more than thc $50 disregard amount in child support cases . In other contexts the Department of Health and Human Services has admitted that welfare recipients typically understate their income in federal surveys. [11] Finally, the survey lumped together as "partial compliance" all situations where the delinquency was as little as the late payment of a single installment and counted as "non-compliance" all cases where the obligor was unemployed, disabled, imprisoned, or even dead-the ultimate "deadbeats." In a 1992 study, the General Accounting Office reviewed the Census Bureau data and reported that, when custodial mothers were asked tile reasons why they had not received child support payments, 66 percent of the mothers themselves (in both in-state and interstate cases) gave the reason as "father unable to pay." [12] ----------------------------------------- [6] Kathleen Parker, Deadbeat Dads More Myth Than Reality, Orlando Sentinel, Jan.24, 1999, at G3. [7] Id. [8] Paul Valentine, Md. Cleans Up on Child Support in Update on the News, Wash. Times, June 9,1997, at B5. [9] Polly Ross Hughes, Many Dads Who Don’t Pay Child Support Are Destitute, HOUSTON CHRON., Dec. 20, 1998, at 1. [10] U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Charge It, Please, CHILD SUPPORRT REP., 1991, at 6. [11] Welfare Dependency: Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Social Security, and Family Policy, Committee on Finance, United States Senate, 102d Cong. 4 (1991) (Statement of JoAnne Barnhart, Assistant Secretary for Family Support). [12] General Accounting Office, Interstate Child Support: Mothers Report Receiving Less Support from Out-of-State Fathers, GAO/HRD-92-39FS, January 1992 at 19. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Unleash the Bill Collectors on Deadbeat Dads
Ive seen this on some sites, one in particular called ANCPR which tries to
use tables that show how the CP makes out in the end. It basically takes the support for the child out of the NCP's income and then adds this amount to the CP's income coming out with the ending income of the CP's income higher. IT fails however to take the expenses of raising a child out of the CP's income, probably because it would show the CP worse off financially in the long run. It then uses this low income fathers income and ordered support as an example of how ordered child support makes them poor and unable to afford care for themselves. It fails again however to show that the CP most likely makes not much more and has the expenses of raising a child taken out of their income, in the end they BOTH end up in a poverty situation. No one said having a child is cheap, when you look at the "average" American one would find that they are living beyond their means, essentially buying their needs through credit not based on what they can afford. I have no sympathy for someone who is 50,000 behind on support, or makes no payments at all for months at a time or even years. It isn't about moving from job to job, its about evading child support. Its about making sacrifices for your children which apparently the NCP isn't willing to make. "Dusty" wrote in message ... "Fighting for kids" adf wrote in message ... Key word "CLAIMS", cant prove. "cigon" wrote in message ... t. But the American Fathers Coalition -- a group of child-support payers -- claims the delinquency figures are inflated by mothers' OK, FFK here's a little info from Family Law Quarterly, Vol. 33 No. 1 1999 on the 1999 Child Support Symposium. I can back up those "claims" you scoff at. Here are some of them... "The available evidence indicates that there is a systemic problem in which existing child support guidelines overburden obligors. For example, the State of Florida found that traditional means of collection were unsuccessful and hired two private contractors, Lockheed Martin IMS and Maximus, Inc., to pursue nearly 200,000 "deadbeats." Lock-heed was assigned 101 ,325 cases of which it closed 37,270. Over fourteen months, Lockheed was paid $2.2 million and "managed to collect $137,839 in child support payments." Maximus was assigned 89,560 cases of which it closed 46,692. Maximus was paid $2.25 million and "got 12 deadbeats to cough up $5,867."[6] According to one news story: "What Maximus and Lockheed Martin learned in the process of tracking down non-paying parents is that most who don't make child support payments are, in a word, broke. You can't give what you don't have." [7] Similarly, when the state of Maryland decided to get tough with "deadbeat dads" by suspending 9,000 driver's licenses, only about 800 were able to make sufficient progress on their arrearages to get their licenses restored. In modern America, the ability to drive a car to work, to the grocery store, to just about anywhere, is an indispensable part of simple survival. There were not many trophy wives or shiny red Porsches among the 91 percent who were unable to make sufficient payments simply to regain the freedom to drive. Professional research into the status of' child support obligors is just now beginning to receive funding. Elsewhere in this issue, Professor Sanford Braver reports on some of his research. Similarly, the team of Laura Lein (University of Texas) and Katherine Edini (Rutgers University) recently found: Many of the absent fathers who state leaders want to track down and force to pay child support are so destitute that their lives focus on finding the next job, next meal or next night's shelter . . . . The initial findings are sobering, filled with descriptions of life in the streets or cheap motels, rummaging for food as restaurants are closing and seeking shelter, often a week or a day at a time. What we are finding with the men is that in lots of different areas, there are pressures, in terms of their housing, in terms of their job stability, in terms of trying to be a father, in terms of education and health. There are problems in every domain. [9] Evidence has been building over the past decade that the obligations imposed on noncustodial parents are unsustainable but, for many of those years, little notice was paid. For example, in 1991, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) touted a program under which obligors were rounded up and told that they could either go to jail or charge their arrearages on their credit cards. The description of the program made no mention of the constitutionality of debtors' prison or the morality of driving people into 18 percent revolving credit card debt to pay obligations that supposedly had been established on the basis of ability to pay. The description merely noted that the success of the program in pilot studies was limited because "the majority of obligors-most of them from non-AFDC families" -were already so poor that they "had neither charge cards nor checking accounts." [10] The most widely cited claims about child support noncompliance are those derived from U.S. Bureau of the Census surveys. These figures purport to show that approximately 50 percent of child support orders are paid in full, approximately 25 percent are paid in part, and approximately 25 percent are unpaid. These figures are given as the principal justification for the punitive child support measures undertaken by the federal and state governments during the past decade. The problem is that the cited figures do not accurately reflect the reality of child support compliance and utilized a methodology that would receive no credence in any other setting. The Census Bureau asked only the custodial mothers whether payment was received. It did not compare those responses with noncustodial reports of how much was paid or with court records of how much was owed. The Census Bureau also failed to quantify or correct the under-reporting of the amount of child support actually received by surveyed welfare recipients who feared a risk of benefit reduction or termination if they disclosed the receipt of more than thc $50 disregard amount in child support cases . In other contexts the Department of Health and Human Services has admitted that welfare recipients typically understate their income in federal surveys. [11] Finally, the survey lumped together as "partial compliance" all situations where the delinquency was as little as the late payment of a single installment and counted as "non-compliance" all cases where the obligor was unemployed, disabled, imprisoned, or even dead-the ultimate "deadbeats." In a 1992 study, the General Accounting Office reviewed the Census Bureau data and reported that, when custodial mothers were asked tile reasons why they had not received child support payments, 66 percent of the mothers themselves (in both in-state and interstate cases) gave the reason as "father unable to pay." [12] ----------------------------------------- [6] Kathleen Parker, Deadbeat Dads More Myth Than Reality, Orlando Sentinel, Jan.24, 1999, at G3. [7] Id. [8] Paul Valentine, Md. Cleans Up on Child Support in Update on the News, Wash. Times, June 9,1997, at B5. [9] Polly Ross Hughes, Many Dads Who Don't Pay Child Support Are Destitute, HOUSTON CHRON., Dec. 20, 1998, at 1. [10] U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Charge It, Please, CHILD SUPPORRT REP., 1991, at 6. [11] Welfare Dependency: Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Social Security, and Family Policy, Committee on Finance, United States Senate, 102d Cong. 4 (1991) (Statement of JoAnne Barnhart, Assistant Secretary for Family Support). [12] General Accounting Office, Interstate Child Support: Mothers Report Receiving Less Support from Out-of-State Fathers, GAO/HRD-92-39FS, January 1992 at 19. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
A first 'Parker Jensen' bill advances | wexwimpy | Foster Parents | 0 | February 8th 04 06:29 PM |
Deadbeat Dads | Mel Gamble | Child Support | 4 | June 24th 03 02:46 AM |