Is
it the child's best interest or all about money for the state of
Alabama?
Congress blames one parent for the child support problem in
this country, by calling them "deadbeat parents" (even though it has
been proven through studies and statistical analysis that less than
5% are true deadbeats) rather than admit its own dubious
contribution to the suffering of America 's children. Politicians
promulgate the myth that they are helping children through federal
and state welfare entitlement programs. It is, in fact, these very
programs which are responsible for the out of control rampage
against children. Here is how the scam works.
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.
Shoalanda
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
.jpeg)
