TO EDITOR/STAFF WRITER:
RE: Why Parenting Time Motions Fail and Child Support Motions Succeed.
After a Friend of the Court Citizen Advisory Committee meeting an
attorney indicated that it seemed that their parenting time motions seem to
fail more frequently than child support motions succeed. This was a
brilliant observation and I wanted to take a quick moment and tell you
why.
For every three dollars ($3.00) that your local court spends on Child
Support Enforcement the court receives two dollars ($2.00) by way of
federal block grant money. Additionally to make up the difference of the
remaining one dollar balance the local courts have been able to use what
is known as federal incentive grants from the federal government, which
has made it possible to “profit” from operating a “successful” child
support enforcement program. An immense gain by the state is to be had
by operating a "successful" child support enforcement program which
means that a child cannot have substantially equal time with both parents.
In order to maximize federal money the states create the appearance of
an absentee parent for purposes of the Child Support Enforcement
welfare program. Successful also means maximizing the number of participants
the state has in its Child Support Enforcement welfare program by
including the middle-class at the sole expense of the U.S. Tax Payer.
See 42 USC 655; “Payment to States”;
See 42 USC 658a; “Incentive payments to States”;
In a parenting time conflict, there is disincentive to allow children
to have substantially equal time with their parents because then the
parents do not fit wholly into the above welfare program model as being
absent. The more parenting time provided, typically, child support is
reduced or abated. A reduction in participants is a reduction in the
justification of federal monies to the state. Normally the reduction of
expenditures is encouraged by government but in this case the opposite
holds true because there is a profit derived from the excess influx of
funds. Because of lack of eligibility requirements there is immense waste
in the new Child Support Enforcement Beuracracy. In 2006 alone, 4.2
BILLION of our Social Security Fund, nationally, is being invested into
this program which is a huge disincentive for the states to allow
substantially equal parenting time with both parents.
The huge mass of money out of your social security also is the reason
that the State is so eager to incorporate all the middle-class into
their Child Support Enforcement welfare programs; that means higher support
awards and an appearance of more need for federal money now that there
is widespread expanded group participation.
The new welfare abuser is not the people, but the states who have
shaped their participant numbers to create the appearance of need for a
program that lacks eligibility requirements. The reality is that there are
many fit, willing, and competent parents that are trapped in a welfare
system against their will and they are being prevented from parenting
their children because the state wants to maximize their federal funding
and make them look absent.
Very Truly Yours,
/s/ /s/
Lary Holland
5180 Cedar Lake Rd.
Oscoda, MI 48750
(989) 747-0079 (v)
(989) 764-5920 (f)