The Child Support Control System
welfare reform for money
Jim Untershine, GZS of LB, 02-24-03
The child support control system that is implemented by each state must comply with the federal mandate to reap federal funding. The legal liability associated with noncompliance with a federal mandate may expose rogue states to civil \1 and criminal \2 penalties. If Child Support Enforcement (CSE) deprives a noncustodial parent (NCP) of rights and privileges under the color of a federal law that has not been implemented correctly, \3 then the impoverishment of the custodial parent (CP), the children, and the NCP are damages incurred by the state and is also a federally recognized crime. Policy Studies Inc (PSI) is paid by states to verify compliance with a federal mandate, and may be guilty of malpractice.
A child support control system that is designed to provide support to the children must employ a method to measure the amount of support actually received by the children. This crucial feedback function of measuring the output of a control system must be performed to allow comparison to the input command of the control system. If this feedback path does not exist, then the system is referred to as "open loop" and is deemed "inherently unstable".
Driving down the road is a feedback control system. We see the target that we wish to drive toward and we can see whether we are driving toward it. If we see that we are not driving toward the target, we turn the steering wheel until we are driving toward it. When we see that we are driving toward the target we stop turning the wheel. This control system would be "open loop" if we could not see where we were driving. Although the driver can hear the screams of the people being run down on the sidewalk, or feeling the lane reflectors when the car strays to one side, this diminished form of feedback will not be enough to prevent this control system from eventually failing.
Child support control system
The child support control system exists to control a family. The family subsystem that is subjected to a child support control system is comprised of the parents, the children, and the parent's employer. An optimized control system utilizing proper feedback and compensation would seem transparent to the family. A robust control system would actually benefit the family being controlled by insuring the children receive the support they deserve and the parents are allowed to continue to be employed.
Input to the system
The input to the child support control system is money paid by the NCP. A state's child support guideline forces an NCP to reimburse the children for damages incurred by the civil court in denying custody of the children to the breadwinner. The NCP is forced to pay cash to the CP that exceeds the state's welfare benefits.
The state is empowered by the federal mandate to impose a fine against an employer if the NCP is fired, or is denied employment, or is unduly disciplined, or if the employer refuses to withhold court ordered child support from wages. \4 The wisdom of this empowerment of the state over employers manifests itself in the realization that the source of child support money is not the NCP, but the employer the NCP works for.
California recognizes their child support guideline as the input to the child support control system. The California child support guideline does not vary with CP income and is the highest in the nation, demanding 25% of a NCP's net income for 1 child, 40% for 2, and 50% for 3. \5 The California child support guideline is imposed on a NCP by default 80% of the time. \6 The California child support guideline exceeds their welfare benefits by 11% of a NCP's net income for 1 child, 22% for 2, and 28% for 3, regarding an NCP earning $4,400/mo (52,800/yr) net income. \7
Output of the system
The output of a child support control system is the support delivered to the children. The child support control system, as described by the federal mandate, is "inherently unstable" by virtue of the fact that there is no means to ensure that child support is delivered to the children, thereby denying the children a legal right to the money ordered for their support.
California presumes that a CP will spend a significant portion of available resources to support the children. \8 California recognizes the output of the child support control system as the amount of financial damages demanded of the NCP by the civil court. \6
Feedback of the system
The feedback of a child support control system is visibility of the support delivered to the children and visibility of the amount of money delivered to the CP. The federal government implements a semblance of feedback in the welfare control system by issuing food stamps and housing subsidies to the CP. Although it may seem objectionable to micromanage CPs on welfare, the NCP paying child support is a taxpaying consumer whom has the right to "get what they pay for and stop paying if they don't". The damages owed to the children are now the responsibility of those making reimbursement impossible, unconscionable, or fraudulent. \9 The cost of the support delivered to the children should be compared to the amount of money ordered for the children's support to obtain an error.
The federal mandate provides the states a feedback path from the employer by allowing visibility of wage withholding delivered to the CP. If the money ordered to be garnished from the NCP's wages stops being paid to the CP, then CSE can restore this cash flow if the employer maliciously targeted the NCP due to the existence of child support hardships. The amount of money ordered to be garnished from the NCP's wages should be compared to the money delivered to the CP to obtain an error.
California recognizes the feedback of their child support control system as the amount of child support that is ordered by the civil court and imposed on the NCP. California compares the amount of the civil court order to the amount recommended by their child support guideline to obtain an error.
California denies the NCP federal protection against employer discrimination by not allowing CSE involvement until after the NCP is unemployed and the impoverished CP files for welfare. California should compare the amount of child support that is ordered by the civil court and imposed on the NCP to the welfare benefits delivered to the CP to obtain a very meaningful error.
A control system that is designed to exclude feedback is an "open loop" or "out of control" system. A child support control system that ignores the money paid to the CP or ignores the actual support delivered to the children is doomed to inevitable failure. Failure of this child support control system involves the input being driven to zero when the NCP is exiled to self-employment and the output is driven to welfare.
A control system that is designed to add the feedback to the input rather than comparing the two is referred to as a "positive feedback" system and will fail immediately. Positive feedback is the phenomenon experienced when a microphone is too close to the speaker. The sound received by the microphone is amplified and delivered to the speaker, which is received by the microphone and amplified again and so forth.
Positive feedback instability will become very apparent in California when
The new welfare reform package entices employers to hire, give raises, and promotions to CPs, while NCPs are allowed to be fired to make room for them. \10
The new welfare reform package entices CPs to get married again, while the state's child support guideline promotes divorce, resulting in new NCPs being created by recycled CPs. \10
The federal government pays incentives and bonuses for operating CSE, while the NCP must be driven into financial insolvency before CSE is allowed to operate.
The federal government allows CSE to keep a percentage of child support collected, while CSE uses the federal mandate to exile NCPs to self employment, deny them to hold licenses, and impose a financial embargo on them. \3
Jim Untershine, 824 E Pass Rd #3, Gulfport, MS 39507, firstname.lastname@example.org, www.gndzerosrv.com
Jim Untershine holds a BSEE from Mississippi State University and has 13 years experience in feedback control system design. Mr. Untershine is currently using the teachings of Werner Heisenberg and Henry David Thoreau to expose Family Law in California as the exploitation of children for money and the indentured servitude of heterosexual taxpayers who dare to raise children in this country.