Maryann Petri: The Destruction of Title IV-D

By Maryann Petri:

Title IV-D came into play during the year of 1975. Under a new part D of Title IV of the Social Security Act, 88 Stat. 2351 (1975), 42 U.S.C. 651, as amended. A new government program at that time, Title IV-D refers to the section of the Social Security Act which authorizes federal assistance for the collection of Child Support.

Generally called the ”Title IV-D program, ” it is a Federal/State partnership whose primary mission is to enforce Child Support obligations against Non-Custodial parents.

The "Title IV-D case" is any case in which the Child Support enforcement agency is ENFORCING the Child Support. But again, a ”Title IV-D case” is on a mission to ENFORCE Child Support against the Non-Custodial parent.

This Child Support was allegedly meant to provide the Custodial parent with assistance in obtaining financial help and medical insurance coverage for their children by locating parents, establishing paternity, putting into place Support orders, and collecting and distributing Child Support payments at the expense of the Non-Custodial parent. What is not taken into consideration is that the children may have justifiably been given to the Custodial parent due to abuse or whether they were taken away from a fit and loving parent for no good reason due to false allegations, bias or collusion during multiple Custody Hearings.

In certain cases following a Divorce, Child Support is established and maintained privately where parents work together. But at any time the Custodial parent can ask the Office of Child Support Enforcement to help collect outstanding, unpaid Child Support. What happens next is their case automatically becomes an ”IV-D case.” The contradiction is that the Child Support was to be ”maintained privately.” How can that be when the Custodial parent can involve the Office of Child Support Enforcement to collect any unpaid Child Support/debt?

Domestic Relations then becomes involved and really is not helpful in the slightest. Parents will attend a Support Conference, handover their W-2s, and the conference officer will calculate what should be paid in Child Support. Again, this should be handled fairly but this is not always the case, especially when bias and/or collusion comes into play. Parties disagree on the figure and that leads to more litigation such as De Novo Hearings.

If the Court orders that the Non-Custodial parent’s wages be garnished to satisfy the Child Support, a maximum of 25% of the net wages will be taken. However, for unpaid Child Support up to 60% of the Non-Custodial parent’s wages are garnished, leaving them with little to live on. The issue with that is many Non-Custodial parents cannot even begin to afford to pay the amount of the Court’s inflated Child Support Orders based upon an unrealistic wage where many issues are not taken into consideration such as involuntary job loss, involuntary reduction of hours, seasonal unemployment and unemployment. Also, two part-time jobs do not equal a full-time wage.

”Arrears,” also known as ”back Child Support,” refers to when a Non-Custodial parent misses an accumulation of Child Support payments. When the two parents of the children either separate or get divorced, the Non-Custodial parent has a legal obligation to make monthly Child Support payments for the children’s basic needs. This leads to another ball of wax due to the fact that the Custodial parent is demanding a certain figure as they have been accustomed to a certain lifestyle prior to the separation/Divorce. Court proceedings beginning with De Novo Hearings usually end up with the Non-Custodial parent coming out on the short end of the stick, furthering the financial suffering.

The outcome of Title IV-D has been misleading. Instead of helping children with their basic needs, the monies end up elsewhere. Most of the time in the Custodial parent’s pocket otherwise known as, ”Adult Support.”

Title IV-D funding then suddenly became available to reimburse the courts for Court costs associated with assisting litigants with Child Support and paternity issues, again at the taxpayers expense.

Tragically, a problem has arisen with the jail-for-profit racket that has proved to be an ongoing issue while even costing inmates their lives. Being sent to prison for Non-Support is counterproductive in so many ways. The children emotionally suffer worrying about their parent being imprisoned while being ruthlessly teased at school because their beloved Mother or Father is behind bars due to utter greed. Nothing is accomplished by this action as it becomes a revolving door; every three to four months the parent will be held in contempt for Non-Support and then placed back in prison. This then causes devastation within the family at times leading to suicides. Many parents have difficulty handling the stress of the intensity of the multiple Support-Contempt hearings. The constant fear of being placed in prison over time may lead them to take their own lives causing a domino effect upon their children to either turn to drugs, alcohol or even suicide.

This must come to an end and my opinion is legislators should abolish Title IV-D funding. Not only would it save lives, but parents would be forced to work together for the best interest of their child. Yes, it would put Domestic Relations out of business, but would that be a bad thing? The answer is no. Children are involved and parents must work together for their emotional and financial welfare and not focus on the greed of collecting Child/Adult Support.

Maryann Petri spent 23 years in the healthcare industry, and became a writer after experiencing the pitfalls of the Family Court system in America first hand. Her first book, "Dismantling Family Court Corruption, Why Taking The Kids Was Not Enough," is set to be released in early 2020.