Support Child Support Enforcement Accountability

[Marx]

Support Child Support Enforcement Accountability

Its time to hold accountable, those that we trust with the welfare of our nations children. (To be silent is to consent)

Support Child Support Enforcement Accountability

We the undersigned citizens urge the California State Senators, Assembly Members, and Governor to immediately pass a Bill that will promote more accountability on behalf of the District Attorney, Family Courts, and child support enforcement agencies. We further urge the entire Legislature and Governor to pass it into law as soon as possible.

Children and Families in California have suffered too long. A program that was initially designed to keep non-custodial parents responsible and accountable to the quality of life of their children.

We currently contend with a system that bares no accountability for the way it does business, which we site:

1. Court Hearings, making it the responsibility of the custodial parent to serve non custodial parents with orders to appear, is an ingredient to the recipe of denying non custodial parents their right to due process, when held in default and subjected to the consequences thereof, on those grounds alone, changes to the family court structure are in order.

2. Custodial parents are awarded court representation (District Attorney) while it positions the custodial as a victim and the non-custodial as defendant. Being that incarceration procedures are potential in child support enforcement, non- custodial parents should be given the same rights under the law, as criminal defendants, and afforded competent representation.

3. A large portion of the non-custodial parent community are indigent/poor parents, and deserve the right to competent legal representation when served to appear before a magistrate in a court procedure that can effect the quality of life of that individual.

4. Court records, family court judges, are denied the ability to consider pertinent information regarding non-custodial parents ability to meet the demands placed on them by court order. Denying non-custodial parents the right to fair and impartial treatment under the law.

5. Non-Custodial parents represent a large indigent/poor segment of this community, in which many face other obstacles that limit their ability to produce wages that meet the daily needs of the cost of living in the state of California. Including, middle/high school dropout, post incarceration and/or probation, low-level work experience, and poor credit history. This information is available for review from two major background check institutions, and is used currently in the Court structure.

6. Courts make quality of life decisions based on information available to them in the files of the case, which primarily consist of District Attorney assisted filings. The D.A’s office should also be required to include background information, of the non-custodial parents, in order for the mediator to understand the feasibility of the parent to reach the order without default.

7. Family support and other avenues that are geared towards keeping poor families together, should take precedence over ill fate networks, to divide families for monetary gain.

8. Enforcement Agencies should be accountable to the mission of protecting children’s best interests. Which are all not built on finances, but self worth building mechanisms, that enriches their quality of life beyond child support.

9. All agencies collecting money on behalf of custodial parents & children, should be obligated to release annual totals reports of what was recovered, cost of recovery, allocation of monies rewarded to custodial parents, and where monies not allocated to custodial parents go, making it public record.

10. Tax Payers are paying a high cost, to ensure that children are getting the financial assistance commissioned by the citizens of the USA, We are entitled to know, that we are being represented within law, and are not violating the constitutional rights of other Americans, despite their financial status.


Our entire society suffers social ills that span the lifetimes of these children denied parents at the whim of just one parent and the court. Scientific, economic and legal evidence all show that to preserve the best interests of children, their civil rights and those of their parents and relatives, the present "winner takes all" custody game, which is rooted in 24 year old legal precedent and is not supported by the last 24 years of objective scientific research must be stopped.

According to Unified Court System reports from the mid-1990's, 97% of custody "awards" were to mothers. This amounts to summary termination of the parental rights of fathers based on gender alone. This mass creation of "sole custody" children has been shown to harm their outcomes. It does not reflect ANY rational basis in science or fact.

Please implement this policy, which in many other states has encouraged marriage and reduced divorce. Most importantly it has created futures for children that are similar to those of children from intact families.

Thank you for doing what is best for innocent children and parents who are your neighbors, friends and relatives, despite the cost to the divorce an child custody industry. No amount of money can buy a lifetime of a parent's love and support yet under present policy, California State routinely takes that priceless gift from children...over 100,000 times per year.

[chevalier]

I am a person who has been persocuted by california and I personally think every human being should back this and more. It's only weekness is it doesn't go far enough but it is a damn good first step!

[SmtmsAlwys]

Originally Posted by Marx

Support Child Support Enforcement Accountability

I just read it. It seems rather common sensical to me.

And, good lord, do they seriously leave the custodial parent to serve the non-custodial court papers??? WTF?? If the parents are in court in the first place, there is an entire possibility that they are not necessarily on the best of terms - though I certainly do not discount the possibility - and therefore may "lose" the paperwork, or merely ignore the court order to give it to the ncp. How truly absurd!!

[chevalier]

Or like me the ex gives you the wrong date and courthouse to go to.

So default support order was assigned to me with no way to defend myself.