Profit Analysis of Child Support Guidelines Identifying false profits in the name of our children http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/u-v/untershine/03/untershine060703.htm

Jim Untershine, GZS of LB, 06-06-03

A state can receive a profit from the taxpayers for collecting child support arrearages, provided Child Support Enforcement (CSE) gets involved. If a state’s child support guideline is outrageous enough to cause the noncustodial parent (NCP) to fall behind in child support or become unemployed, the custodial parent (CP) will be forced to file for CSE involvement when the family finally begs for welfare (TANF). It is important to realize that if a state imposes a fair child support guideline and the NCP never falls behind in child support payments, the state will never receive a profit.

Although the taxpayers are obligated to pay states incentives and bonuses regarding various aspects of welfare related programs, the analysis that follows focuses on child support arrearage and collection.

FEDERAL INCENTIVES

Federal incentives are paid to a state as a function of the state's total collections from the NCP and the state's administration costs. The collections made from NCPs, divided by the state's administrative costs, must exceed 1.4 to receive more than 6.5% of the collections as a profit paid by the taxpayers. \1 The equation below is used to compute the percentage of collections paid to the state by the taxpayers if the collection to cost ratio exceeds 1.4.

1) Incentive percentage = 3 + 2.5*(Collections/Costs)

For example: California distributed a total of $2.06 billion collected from NCPs while expending $676 million in administrative costs for year 2000. \2 This would yield a collection to cost ratio of 3.05 or:

Incentive percentage = 3 + 2.5*(3.05) = 10.6%.

The incentive percentage described in equation 1) increases with the increase in collections or the decrease in administration costs.

Collections

A state can maximize their collections by maximizing the number of NCPs obligated to pay child support. States adopting an outrageous child support guideline will serve to entice a dependant parent to divorce the family breadwinner. New federal legislation that entices CPs who filed for welfare to get married again may provide the means to create many NCPs from one CP. \3

A state’s child support guideline is very important in the implementation of a successful family law money machine. Lawmakers at the state and federal level are being kept completely in the dark regarding the actual amount NCPs are required to pay in child support. This cloak of invisibility allows states to financially hammer NCPs into the ground while those who are empowered to change the laws are being told their state’s guideline is fair.

For example: California demands an NCP with 2 children and earning $4,400 per month net income to pay $1,760 per month child support. \4 Policy Studies Inc. (PSI) conducted the federally mandated California child support guideline review in 2001, telling the state legislature that the average child support order for 2 children is $667 per month. \5 The Institute for Family and Social Responsibility (FASR) reported to the Ways and Means Committee that a California NCP with 2 children earning $4,400 per month income must only pay $770 per month. \6 PSI under-reported the California child support guideline to the state legislature by $1,093 per month, while FASR under-reported the California child support guideline to the U.S. House of Representatives by $990 per month.

Administration Costs

A state that wishes to increase the incentive percentage could choose to minimize the administrative costs associated with operating the CSE program. States that have flippantly adopted a reasonable child support guideline have actually been forced to reduce the CSE workforce, due to the lack of arrearages to collect. States that maintain an appropriately outrageous child support guideline may choose to lay-off the products of nepotism that are paid to sit around with their thumbs up their ass and watch the arrearages grow until they tattle on the NCP to the Treasury, Labor, and Transportation Department in their deprivation of rights and privileges, before dropping a dime to the Justice Department. New Federal legislation that encourages employers to hire, give raises and promotions to CPs who filed for welfare may allow the replacement of the existing mob of shameless enforcers with a minimum wage group of CPs to allow them to discover the reason they were deprived of child support payments and their family was forced to welfare. \7

CHILD SUPPORT ARREARAGE

The state's total collections from NCPs include the child support arrearages and the interest on the arrearages. The equation below describes the total child support arrearage if a NCP never makes a payment (CS = child support per month, t = months, I = interest).

2) Child support arrearage = CS*t + I*CS*t*(t+1)/2 \8

For example: California’s child support guideline for 3 children and NCP earning $4,400 per month would amount to CS = $2,200 per month child support and I = 10%/12months = 1/120 interest every month for t = 18years*12 = 216 months. The total collection after 18 years would be

Child support arrearage = ($2,200)*216 + (1/120)*($2,200)*(216)*(217)/2 = $475,200 child support + $429,660 interest = $904,860

The above examples show that if a deadbeat dad finally paid off in year 2000, California would receive from the taxpayers:

Incentive = (Child support arrearage) * (incentive percentage) = ($904,860)*(10.6%) = $95,915

The child support arrearage described in equation 2) increases with an increase in NCP income, children, interest, or time.

NCP income

To maximize the child support arrearage the state must insure that the parent earning the highest income before the divorce does not get custody of the children. This will maximize the cash flow between parents that will be interrupted after the NCP is driven into financial insolvency and becomes unemployed. The state must impose a child support guideline that causes the NCP to fall behind in child support , otherwise the state will not be entitled to receive a profit from the taxpayers in their exploitation of children for money.

Children

A state can only increase the number of children by employing paternity fraud. Although this practice is commonly used by some states, it is coming under much scrutiny by many groups who feel that it is somehow unfair. California governor Grey Davis stands alone in advocating paternity fraud for profit, while other states like Georgia just try to get away with it. \9

Interest

Although the interest that is allowed to be charged on child support arrearages is specified to range from 3% to 6% per annum, many states, like California, charge 10% per annum. \10

Time

A state can increase the interest charged on child support arrearages by making it impossible for the NCP to pay. By utilizing the tools provided by the federal mandate, a state can legally exile an NCP to self-employment, deny the NCP to hold a business or drivers license, and impose a financial embargo on the NCP. \11 Many states mistakenly utilize the federal mandate to protect the NCP from discrimination by their employer due to child support wage withholding orders and hold the employer responsible if the wage withholding is not paid. \12 Allowing a NCP the luxury of paying child support will decrease the state’s well deserved profit.

A state that mistakenly pursues a NCP before allowing the child support arrearage to reach an acceptable level may inadvertently provoke the NCP to obtain a downward modification from a soft-hearted Civil Court judge attempting to sabotage the CSE agenda and denying CSE the fruits of their labor.

For example: California CSE agencies allow the child support arrearage to reach $70,000 before asking the NCP to answer to criminal non-support charges, while the arrest of the NCP depends on how long the District Attorney can hold off a desperate CP demanding for something to be done. \13

CONCLUSIONS

Each state's child support guideline should match what is reported to the state and federal legislators to maintain a sense of propriety and avert a family law "tea party" involving CPs, NCPs, children, and taxpayers hitting the streets, demanding:"No taxation by misrepresentation", "Crime don't pay people do", "Get what you pay for, stop paying if you don't", and "You can kiss my ass and we'll call it even".

CITATIONS:

\1 USC 42 658 (c) - Incentive payments to States - Increase in percentage; laboratory costs

(1) 6.5 percent, plus

(2) one-half of 1 percent for each full two-tenths by which such ratio exceeds 1.4; except that the percent so specified shall in no event be increased (for either title IV-A collections or non-title IV-A collections) to more than 10 percent. For purposes of the preceding sentence, laboratory costs incurred in determining paternity in any fiscal year may at the option of the State be excluded from the State's combined title IV-A/non-title IV-A administrative costs for that year.

\2 OCSE 2000 Summary, Jim Untershine, http://www.gndzerosrv.com/web%20pages/ocse_summary.htm

\3 USC 42 603 (a)(2) Healthy Marriage Promotion Grants -

(A) Authority - The Secretary shall award competitive grants to States, territories, and tribal organizations for not more than 50 percent of the cost of developing and implementing innovative programs to promote and support healthy, married, 2-parent families.

\4 Child Support Guideline Summary, Jim Untershine, http://www.gndzerosrv.com/web%20pages/cs_summary.htm

\5 Judicial Council of California, Administrative Office Of The Courts, Exhibit 3-13, "Monthly Child Support Order", http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/programs/cfcc/programs/description/1058study2001.htm

\6 US House, Ways and Means Committee, 2000 Greenbook, Table 8-2, http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/useftp.cgi?IPaddress=162.140.64.21&filename=wm014_08.pdf&directory=/disk2/wais/data/106_green_book

\7 USC 42 603 (a)(4)(C) Formula For Measuring State Performance -

(I) In General.—Subject to clause (ii), not later than October 1, 2003, the Secretary, in consultation with the National Governors Association and the American Public Human Services Association shall develop a formula for measuring State performance in operating the State program funded under this part so as to achieve the goals of employment entry, job retention, and increased earnings from employment for families receiving assistance under the program, as measured on an absolute basis and on the basis of improvement in State performance.

\8 If T_CS(t) = Total child support arrearage as a function of months, and T_I(t) = Total child support interest as a function of months

1) T_CS(t) = CS₁ + CS₂ + … + CS_t = ∑_y=1,t(CS_y)

2) T_I(t) = I₁*CS₁ + I₂*(CS₁ + CS₂) + … + I_t*(CS₁ + CS₂ + … + CS_t) = ∑_x=1,t(I_x*∑_y=1,x(CS_y))

let CS = CS₁ = CS₂ = … = CSt

1) T_CS(t) = CS*t

let I = I₁ = I₂ = … = It

2) T_I(t) = I*CS*∑_y=1,t(y)

let ∑_y=1,t(y) = t*(t+1)/2

2) T_I(t) = I*CS*t*(t+1)/2

\9 Daily Breeze, "Davis vetoes tests to ID dads", Paternity: Men forced to support children not their own say bill would have offered relief. They vow to fight on, http://www.dailybreeze.com/content/bln/nmpaternity28.html

\10 USC 42 654 (21)(A) - State plan for child and spousal support - A State plan for child and spousal support must -

at the option of the State, impose a late payment fee on all overdue support (as defined in section 666(e) of this title) under any obligation being enforced under this part, in an amount equal to a uniform percentage determined by the State (not less than 3 percent nor more than 6 percent) of the overdue support, which shall be payable by the noncustodial parent owing the overdue support;

\11 USC 42 666 (a), "Requirement Of Statutorily Prescribed Procedures To Improve Effectiveness Of Child Support Enforcement",

Types of procedures required

(1) Withholding from income of amounts payable as support

(2) Establishing paternity and establishing, modifying, and enforcing support obligations

(3) Enforcing a support order

(4) Liens

(5) Paternity establishment

(6) Require noncustodial parent give security, post a bond, or give some other guarantee to secure payment of overdue support

(7) Reporting arrearages to credit bureaus

(8) Withholding from income if arrearages occur without the necessity of filing application for services

(9) Payment or installment of support under any child support order not subject to retroactive modification

(10) Review and adjustment of support orders upon request

(11) Full faith and credit to a determination of paternity, whether established through voluntary acknowledgment or through administrative or judicial processes

(12) Locator information from interstate networks

(13) Recording of social security numbers in certain family matters

(14) High-volume, automated administrative enforcement in interstate cases

(15) Procedures to ensure that persons owing overdue support work or have a plan for payment of such support.

(16) Authority to withhold or suspend licenses

(17) Financial institution data matches

(18) Enforcement of orders against paternal or maternal grandparents

(19) Health care coverage

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/666.html

\12 USC 42 666 (b)(6)(D) - Provision must be made for the imposition of a fine against any employer who -

(i) discharges from employment, refuses to employ, or takes disciplinary action against any noncustodial parent subject to income withholding required by this subsection because of the existence of such withholding and the obligations or additional obligations which it imposes upon the employer; or

(ii) fails to withhold support from income or to pay such amounts to the State disbursement unit in accordance with this subsection. http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/666.html

\13 "Family Law Baseline", Jim Untershine, http://www.gndzerosrv.com/web%20pages/fl_evidence.pdf

Jim Untershine, 824 E Pass Rd #3, Gulfport, MS 39507, gzs@gndzerosrv.com, 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.