Is it the child's best interest or all about money for the state of Alabama?
The federal government levies taxes against citizens to redistribute as welfare entitlements among needy applicants. Congress created the Social Security Act, a section of which is called Title IV. Title IV describes how tax dollars will be distributed among the States to subsidize their individual welfare programs. In order for States to tap into the federal treasure chest, containing billions of dollars, they must demonstrate that they are complying with Title IV mandates to collect child support revenues. In other words, to get money from the federal government, each State must become a child support collection and reporting agency.
Every unwed or single parent seeking welfare assistance must disclose on the application the identities of the other parent of the children and how much child support the other parent has been ordered by a family court to pay. The parent must also commit to continuously reporting the other parents payments so that the State can count the money as "collected" to the federal government's Office of Child Support Enforcement. As with all bureaucracies, this process has developed into a monstrosity that chews up and spits out the very people it was designed to help.
States have huge financial incentives to increase the amount of child support it can report to the federal government as "collected".
To increase collection efforts, States engage in the immoral practice of dividing children from both parents in family courts.
Have you ever wondered why family courts award custody to one parent in 80%-90% of all custody cases, even when the other parent is determined to be just as suitable and fit to raise the child?
It is because the amount of child support ordered by the State is largely determined by how much time the child spends with each parent.
This means that the State "collects" less child support if parents share equal custody.
By prohibiting each parent from having equal custody and time with their children, the State's child support coffers are increased and federal dollars are received.
Opponents try to paint one loving parent as "deadbeat parent" for daring to challenge the one parent-take-all system of family law. This is nothing more than diversionary propaganda. The concern of most parents is not that they are unwilling to support their children financially. This is not an argument against paying child support. Any parent that cares about his/her child will do everything in their power to provide for the child. The concern is, rather, that children are being separated from one parent by family courts because the State stands to reap huge financial rewards as a result of that parent’s loss of custody. The higher the order of child support, the more money the State can collect - even if the amount ordered by the court far exceeds the reasonable needs of the child or if the parent without custody is required to take second and third jobs to keep up with outrageous support orders and escape certain incarceration. The truth is that most parents don't care about the financial aspects of these family court verdicts nearly as much as they care about having their time with their children eliminated for nefarious government purposes.
The root of this evil is a State-level addiction to federal tax dollars being doled out as entitlement monies by a monolithic federal government. In the wake of this horror are millions of children drowning for lack of the care, guidance, and companionship of one parent. Statistics and empirical evidence universally confirm that children forcibly separated from one parent by family courts are considerably more likely to suffer anxiety and depression, develop drug addiction, engage in risky sexual activity, break the law, and commit suicide. This travesty must end.
Unconstitutional federal bureaucracy creates many of the societal ills it claims to be trying to solve. There are several steps incremental steps that could be taken to restore a child's right to the companionship of both parents. For example, citizens should insist that States abide by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. No father should be automatically deprived of his fundamental right to the custody of his children without due process of law. Being a divorced parent is not a crime. Divorce does not make a parent unfit! Absent a finding of true danger from a parent, family courts should order shared parenting rights and equal time sharing for divorcing parents. These rights are fundamental and should not be abridged. The automatic presumption of custody-to-only one parent is unconstitutional.
The history of America is brim with examples of the federal government denying basic rights to its citizens. Women were denied the right to vote until the women's suffrage movement secured the 19th Amendment to the Constitution. Black Americans also were denied the right to vote and suffered myriad other cruel and humiliating indignities under the law until the civil rights movement brought about desegregation, put an end to Jim Crow legislation and compelled the enactment of the 15th and 24th Amendments to the Constitution. In each of these examples, society was slow to recognize that a problem even existed or that some of our laws were unjust. It took considerable time, concerted effort, self-sacrifice and perhaps even divine providence to realign concurrent societal paradigms with the principles of liberty and justice for all.