Statement of Steve Cloer, Norcross, Georgia

The information presented in this document is my personal submission only and not on behalf of any group or organization.

Taxpayer Waste, Fraud and Abuse
After several years of research on the family, marriage, social policy and legal issues related to the family, this is a brutally candid assessment of one of the greatest areas of social collapse of our age.  Today’s family law and child support system, coupled with many of the other social policies surrounding male – female relationships results in the government subsidizing the breakdown and eventual collapse of the family.  Divorce and “Child” support serves as a major primary support tools to promote single-parent families, resulting in the decay of the cornerstone of our society; an intact, functioning family.

Introduction
We know that today through social science evaluations of the numerous maladies it promotes, fatherless families are one of the most destructive arrangements for children in society. [1]  America’s fatherlessness crisis is primarily by judicial making with the cooperation of the legions of lawyers and bureaucrats who profit from family destruction.  Current child support practices across the country, in nearly every state, promote fraud and abuse.  Most of the state practices promote and encourage the same fatherlessness mess to collect child support – under the Trojan Horse of the “best interests of the children” we’re subsidizing the most child destructive system in our nation’s history.  Today’s child support system exists to subsidize single-mother households at the expense of their children and society’s interest in marriage for the purpose of financial gain by the state as well as those facilitating the creation of this situation such as lawyers, psychologists, case workers, child support recipients, and many others.  

There are a number of verifiable examples of serious fraud and abuse by the states in the following areas:

• States fraudulently certifying child support collection practices pursuant to 42 USC 602 et seq., while there is a substantial amount of public information to demonstrate that these certifications are false.
• Refusing to prosecute for FELONY PERJURY in relation to paternity fraud with married (or formerly married) spouses so as not to have to report these births at any time as “out of wedlock”.  Thereby fraudulently collecting additional bonus monies for compliance under 42 USC 603 et seq. (for reducing illegitimate births)
• Perjury in and of itself has been repeatedly held to be a type of fraud in every court (state or federal) in the land.  Refusal to prosecute welfare recipients for fraud in paternity actions is a violation of 42 USC 608.
• Lack of the states to “ensure that their application results in the determination of appropriate child support award amounts” pursuant to the requirements of 42 USC 667(a), following the requirements under 45 CFR 302.56(c)(1) and (h).[2]
• Suspending the Non Custodial Parent’s (NCP) driver's license even after a petition had been timely filed in violation of 42 USC 666(a)(16) regarding drivers license suspensions.
• Refusing to comply with 45 CFR 303.8 to review and adjust child support obligations downward.
• Refusing to comply with the Federal Consumer's Credit Protection Act and protect a Non Custodial Parent’s (NCP’s) self support reserve from garnishment. 
• Violating Fair Federal Consumer Credit Reporting by not reporting arrearages, so that NCP’s are unable to contest them. 
• Refusing to adhere to public record laws, and refusal to produce copies of the non-custodial parent’s own records with the child support agency. 
• Violating basic principles of law such as jailing non-custodial parents for civil contempt when they do not have the resources to purge--, reinstituting a “debtor’s prison”. 
• Jailing non-custodial parents without providing them with a public defender when there is a threat of jail.
• Denying equal access to an attorney for non-custodial parents as the custodial parents have the attorneys of the state Child Support Enforcement.  The non-custodial parents frequently have no attorney, and legal aid will not help.
• Refusal by state courts to allow or enforce basic legal discovery so a true and correct child support obligation could be determined, based on both parents incomes.

Today’s practices all across the country are analogous to the circumstances that gave rise to the Civil Rights acts 1 and 2 (later partially codified as 42 USC 1983 through 1986).  These protections were necessary because of the widespread abuse by the courts and the entire legal system.[3] Today, it is mainly fathers who are today’s political targets, and the data bears out that the majority of these fathers are blacks and minorities.

America’s family law courts are no longer about the law, they represent complete perversions of the legal maxims and ideals that American law was founded upon.  We have a system which no longer obeys its own laws. The reprehensible evil of being rewarded for one’s wrongs, and of punishing the innocent have been firmly entrenched in the state’s family courts.

When will federal legislation hold governmental and non-governmental individuals (judges included) personally liable for these abuses as well as the attendant taxpayer fraud and waste?  Colonel Mason from the Federal Convention on July 20, 1787 best summed this up asking “Shall any man be above Justice? Above all shall that man be above it, who can commit the most extensive injustice?”

Draconian enforcement and police powers have been given to the states and federal government to persecute parents, for nothing more than being parents and having children.  There are NO checks or balances to correct the widespread abuses at all levels of government.  Many of these abuses underlie today’s crisis of fatherlessness, a crisis almost exclusively of government making through social policies and government programs such as child support enforcement which results in the corrosion of the family.

States exercise an unprecedented power and control over the most intimate details of people’s lives.  A power and control that Alexander Hamilton repudiated when he said that "a power over a man's subsistence amounts to a power over his will." [4] Free societies repudiate such actions against a man’s subsistence.  Our Founding Fathers understood well that it was the means to tyranny in government.

California has frequently exceeded a 100% compliance rate since welfare reform made it profitable. [7] California led the nation in collecting $198 million ABOVE their administration costs for establishing paternity in 1998, which becomes a windfall to the state. [8] Governor Gray Davis of California has demonstrated an AMAZING paternity establishment rate of 123% in 1998, somehow finding some 34,000 paternity establishments in excess of the out of wedlock births! And just how does one exceed a 100% compliance rate and gain more than 100% of administrative costs in a program that does not pay 100% of the administrative costs except by fraud?  In fact, a paternity fraud bill made it to the Governor’s desk to be signed, in his veto, he FULLY ACKNOWLEDGED THAT HE WAS AWARE OF THE FRAUD THAT WAS TAKING PLACE when he said “I recognize that paternity fraud is a serious issue and has the potential of damaging an individual's livelihood…". He also recognized his state’s dependence on the Federal Child Support incentive money to CONTINUE THE FRAUD!!

One California CBS television station’s promo on paternity fraud noted "[i]t's like you're in a debtor's prison at the hands of the government, in this case the D.A.'s office." [9]  California’s example is certainly one of the more egregious making it easier to document, yet this type fraud and abuse takes place to some extent in virtually every state in the Nation. 

The Boston Globe, a New York Times Company, has condemned the state run child support racket.  Commenting on a surprising opinion, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ignored a mother’s perjury then demanded an innocent man pay child support after proof the child wasn’t his, refused to correct the matter, and set a precedent promoting perjury and fraud. 

SHE TOLD HIM he was the little girl's father, and he believed her… [W]hen Cheryl was 5… he finally took her for a DNA test. When it confirmed that he wasn't her father, he asked to be released from child support. Now that the truth was known, he argued, it wouldn't be fair to keep making him pay for another man's child.

Last week the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court gave him its answer: Shut up and keep paying.

''The law places on men the burden to consider carefully the permanent consequences that flow from an acknowledgment of paternity,'' the court held. ''He waited too long to challenge his paternity.''

And what burden, you might wonder, does the law place on women?  A burden to tell the truth when asked to identify a child's father?  A burden not to trick a young man into forfeiting tens of thousands of dollars that he doesn't owe?  A burden not to deceive the courts?

Nope, none of the above. To judge from the court's opinion, a woman like Cheryl's mother is under no obligation at all.  The justices who decided this case say nothing - not one word - about her dishonesty or the immense hardship she has inflicted on an innocent man.  There is no hint that they disapprove of a woman who bears a child out of wedlock, then falsely names a former boyfriend as the father so she can go on welfare.

She may have been the liar, the court seems to believe, but he is the one who is guilty - guilty of not seizing the ''opportunity to undergo genetic testing before he acknowledged paternity'' and of not having ''promptly challenged the paternity judgment'' once he suspected he might not be Cheryl's real father

None of that gives the justices pause because they are focused on something else… His money… [Commenting on the need for him to continue paying for someone else’s child the reporter noted].  In short, it's OK to keep ripping him off because she needs the money.

But the swindle must go on, says the court, because someone else needs his money.  In the court's view, he is not a wronged man with a compelling plea for relief.  He is an ATM machine.

But how the mighty are fallen.  There was a time when the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court was renowned for its legal brilliance, when it was the court other courts relied on in abandoning unworthy precedents.  Today it is a follower, not a leader, hiding behind unjust decisions elsewhere to rationalize injustice of its own. [10]

This precedent encourages the erosion of trust in relationships and marriages that is necessary for these relationships to survive--; if a man practices the Massachusetts prescription for paternity testing on suspicion of the other spouse at child birth, a very stressful time in a relationship, the erosion of trust could destroy marriages and families.  On the other hand, if a father does NOT do this, and it is later determined that the mother was unfaithful and / or a perjurer (a FELONY in most states), she is REWARDED WITH PAYMENT FOR SEX.  One lawyer, who wishes not to be named for fear of retaliation,[11] has even referred to civil courts dealing with family issues all across the country as “PERJURY PALACES!” To be candid here--; this is nothing more than legalized prostitution, sanctioned and enforced by the state judicial courts through their contempt and police powers--, under threat of jail for non-compliance. Even much worse is the using of a child, and sometimes the creation of a child, to obtain financial gain – one of the most severe and immoral types of child abuse imaginable! 

The government claims a crisis of unpaid child support. Leading scholars have declared these claims to be everything from a "myth" to a "hoax." Yet some in the Bush administration seem determined to continue the failed policies of the Clinton years. Health & Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson recently announced mass arrests of parents he says have disobeyed government orders.

The Clinton administration's "Project Save Our Children" illustrates that more political chicanery is perpetrated in the name of children than any other cause. The secretary has begun a "nationwide sweep" to arrest (what he calls) the "most wanted deadbeat parents." By the government's own figures, however, the "worst of the worst" amount to only 69 fathers worthy of prosecution.

Even assuming these few men may be scoundrels, why don't authorities simply arrest them and be done with it? Why all the fanfare from the federal government? Perhaps because these prosecutions are political.

"We will find you," President Clinton would intone against fathers. "We will make you pay." In Maryland, government billboards announce, "We're Looking for You, Child Support Violators." No government warns bank robbers or drug dealers that the government is watching them. This is not law enforcement: It is terrorism.

"More notable than any one arrest," we are told, is the "message that the administration is sending" that it will use federal agents to enforce divorce. In other words, the aim is not to prosecute lawbreakers but to spread fear. Terrorizing citizens into obeying its orders is not an appropriate role of government in a free society, even when the orders are legitimate.

In this case, the orders are not legitimate. They are creations of a divorce industry eager to encourage divorce by making it more lucrative. A child support "obligation" is simply what judges and bureaucrats decide a father must pay to have his children taken away.

Most divorces are filed by women (70-80%), usually with no legal grounds.  Most obligors have therefore done nothing to incur the imputed obligation, which is set by the same enforcement personnel who collect it. These officials have a financial and political interest in separating children from their fathers, imposing impossible child support burdens, and then arresting parents who inevitably fail to pay. These activities are all being subsidized by the Federal government in the way of financial incentives and reimbursements to the state pursuant to 42 USC 655, 655a, 658, 658a.

By the government's own account, what is billed as "child support" is little short of plunder. Among those arrested was a man earning all of $39,000 a year and ordered to pay $350 a week for one child, almost two-thirds of his likely take-home pay.

These men have no hope for a fair trial; they have already been pronounced guilty in the media by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, with no platform to reply in their own defense.

The divorce industry has corrupted local government throughout America. Now its poison is reaching up to the highest levels of our government. The administration is soiling its hands in some of the worst sludge left by the Clintons. [14]

In the Georgia 2002 legislative session a bill was under consideration for changes in the child support guidelines, in part to make them adhere to the actual cost of raising a child. As a reaction to this the Marietta Daily Journal reported Assistant Attorney General Nina Edidin stating that; “Georgia will loose millions in child support enforcement if the guidelines are changed”.   What this statement has effectively exposed is that the current guidelines are so unfair, that it is lucrative for the state to have guidelines that cannot be reasonably be met by those who are subjected to them. The unfair guidelines result in financial incentives and necessary child support enforcement efforts that are reimbursed by the Federal government’s Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF) funding to the state pursuant to 42 USC 655, 655a, 658, 658a.

Although O.C.G.A. 9-11-12 provides 30 days in which to respond to a complaint, the contempt was heard by the court only 24 days after the complaint was filed. I objected to the hearing continuing and requested my 30 days, but Judge Bishop continued with the hearing anyway. If I had been allowed the 30 day period I am entitled to under Georgia law, I would have purged myself of the arrears from resources from my retirement account as well as completed my defensive answer. It is interesting that the Georgia Statutes define the source of child support as coming from income, not retirement accounts, but this method of access to an obligor’s additional assets are accomplished everyday in the courts. Additionally interesting is that that a modification can’t be heard in seven months after numerous requests to do so but a contempt that will produce income for the state can be heard in about three weeks. A result of this intentional delay was that the state received child enforcement reimbursements for the State from Federal TANF funding pursuant to 42 USC 655, 655a, 658, 658a. If the motions were heard in a timely manner the arrears would not have been as great – and the state would not have received amounts in proportion to the amount of arrears. Is this the operation of justice or an act of abuse to acquire funding for the state at the expense of taxpayers? Regardless of the actual intent of the delay, the result was the acquisition of funds by the state from TANF funding by the unfair manipulations of the process of law in this case.

Approximately 80% of all child support has been paid historically in America.[15] America also has one of, if not the highest rate of child support compliance in the world and the remainder of child support is owed by those who generally are unable to pay.[16] The difference in today’s lower compliance rates for child support can be attributed to a number of factors;

• The amount of paternity fraud throughout the United States with judicial refusals to prosecute for FELONY perjury (as it is a FELONY in many states).
• The sheer number and staggering percentage of default judgments in several states.
• Continued arrearages for deceased obligors, those in jail or prison, and those with wages so low and debt so high that it can never be repaid (as interest continues to accrue in many states ensuring they will NEVER be able to comply).
• Judicial refusal to allow downward adjustments even when obligers are unemployed.
• The refusal of nearly every state in the country to comply with the quadrennial reviews required by 42 USC 667 and provide real economic data for child support awards, thereby relying on inflated and arbitrary “guidelines”.
• The intensifying of misandrist (male hating) propaganda by judges, lawyers, feminists, and politicians promoting ruthless “child” support which includes hidden alimony by way of guidelines based on no foundation of what it costs to raise a child but clearly exceeding any reasonable such expense.
• Judicial promotion of fatherlessness and its attendant social disorders by refusing to enforce visitation or custody orders while jailing for a child support order.  Even though there is a considerable amount of social studies data indicating that ENFORCING VISITATION ORDERS SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASES CHILD SUPPORT COMPLIANCE RATES![17]

This last statement is important.  It is essentially the crux of the issue.  If child support compliance is the goal, there is a considerable amount of research demonstrating compliance is DIRECTLY tied to both parenting time by BOTH PARENTS AND enforcement of visitation orders.

American courts routinely award custody to mothers approximately 85 - 90% of the time thereby disenfranchising fathers and turning them into child support obligors.[18] Historical data shows about 66% - 80% or more of compliance with child support.  Yet many politicians harp about a $100 BILLION dollar arrearage amount.  If this were true, it would translate into the $100 BILLION representing the remaining 20% - 34% of all child support obligations.  Therefore, the amount of “child” support that HAS BEEN PAID (for the purpose of “privately” subsidizing single-parent homes) is approximately;

$100 BILLION / 34% = $294,117,647, 058      $100 BILLION / 20% = $500,000,000,000

If we consider the $78 BILLION that the US House indicates is the accurate arrearage, applying the same formula demonstrates;

$78 BILLION / 34% = $229, 411,764,706      $78 BILLION / 20% = $390,000,000,000

Somewhere around ¼ to ½ of a TRILLION dollars has been collected JUST IN CHILD SUPPORT!  This does not even include the legal fees, property distributions, expert fees, CSE fees, judges, administrators, jail cells for delinquent obligers, police, alimony, taxpayer funded poverty lawyers, prosecutors, costs of maintaining two residences, costs of separation, etc., extracting fees from broken relationships or from destroying families.  If it were possible to factor in all of the costs, including the social costs of fatherlessness on destructive social behaviors, this figure could easily be many times higher, possibly exceeding ONE TRILLION DOLLARS!

American government at all levels (state and federal, legislative and judicial) has waged the most ruthlessly brutal and expensive war on fathers and families in the history of the world. The financial costs America’s state and federal governments are paying to obliterate families and fathers is mind numbing. All of this has been paid for by the American taxpayer!

Child support is our system for replacing fathers with money.  Everyone, including mothers, would be better off if we replaced money with fathers.  Replace child support with a supporting parent.  Children would get the emotional benefit of a father, and the [benefit] of all the father's resources." [19]  The social costs of fatherless children include:  filling prisons, causing psychological problems, suicide, psychosis, gang activity, rape, physical and sexual child abuse, violence against women, general violence, alcohol and drug abuse, poverty, lower academic achievement, school drop-outs, relationship instability, gender identity confusion, runaways, homelessness, cigarette smoking, and any number of corrosive social disorders (see footnote 1).

Ron Paul has noted that "[w]ithout the destructive effects of the welfare state, there would be little need for federal programs to promote responsible fatherhood.”[20]  When will we finally begin to correct “the vast left wing conspiracy?”

• 85% of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes (Source: Center for Disease Control)
• 90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes (Source: U.S. D.H.H.S., Bureau of the Census)
• 71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes (Source: National Principals Association Report on the State of High Schools.)
• 75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes (Source: Rainbows for all God's Children.)
• 63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes (Source: U.S. D.H.H.S., Bureau of the Census)
• 80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger come from fatherless homes (Source: Criminal Justice & Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26, 1978)
• 70% of juveniles in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes (Source: U.S. Dept. of Justice, Special Report, Sept 1988)
• 85% of all youths sitting in prisons grew up in a fatherless home (Source: Fulton Co. Georgia jail populations, Texas Dept. of Corrections 1992)

The costs to society as a result of a system that encourages broken families and removes fathers by providing taxpayer funding to do so exceeds any amount that can be expressed in dollars.

Policy Considerations

• Federal Child Support programs must be tied more directly to the enforcement of existing court orders for parental access (visitation).  Peer reviewed study after study has shown that as much as 90% of the child support is paid when disenfranchised parents have joint custody, and nearly 80% compliance when with access to their children (see footnote 19).
• Child support funding rules must require states to penalize litigants for ignoring the routine perjury all across the country.  Not only is it a FELONY in many states, and the ignoring of it technically MISPRISON OF FELONY, it promotes the misuse of both federal and state taxpayer funds.  The routine allowance of un-prosecuted perjury in state courts gives incentives for family breakdown and societal disorder by promoting a type of “banana republic best liar wins” legal system--; it is then backed with the full police power of the state for enforcement encouraged and rewarded by financial incentives at the tax payer’s expense.

Conclusions
Paternity fraud can no longer be tolerated or funded with federal taxpayer money.  When considering the technicalities of paternity fraud, it is a form of repackaged prostitution supported and enforced with the police power of the state.  Suggesting that there are “common law traditions” for this, as some courts have, is a fallacy.  It is little more than an ignorant, or worse yet, intentional misconstruing of maxims of law to promote the fraudulent and immoral collection of taxpayer money at the expense of families and especially children.

The current taxpayer funded child support system does not only encourage taxpayer fraud by the states at the expense of our society’s health but also encourages the abuse and atrocities to the family that are a companion element of a system that is depreciating day by day any confidence and faith the American people have in a fair and impartial judicial system and government.

[2] A Georgia trial court judge recently found the state of Georgia had NOT complied with these requirements, and under the Supremacy clause ruled the state’s use of the guidelines unconstitutional (See McFall v. Ward, trial court decisions in 02-CV-2287N).  This is in now way unique to Georgia, nearly every state in the union has not complied with these provisions. Is this the wrong case cited?

[3] BRISCOE v. LaHUE, 460 U.S. 325, 365 note 31 demonstrating that Congress, when enacting the Civil Rights legislation was hostile to the considerable CORRUPTION of the Judiciary and the Legal system.

Cong. Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., App. 78 (Rep. Perry) ("Sheriffs, having eyes to see, see not; judges, having ears to hear, hear not; witnesses conceal the truth or falsify it; grand and petit juries act as if they might be accomplices"); id., at 394 (Rep. Rainey) ("[T]he courts are in many instances under the control of those who are wholly inimical to the impartial administration of law and equity"); id., at App. 186 (Rep. Platt) (judges exercise their "almost despotic powers . . . against Republicans without regard to law or justice"); id., at App. 277 (Rep. Porter) ("The outrages committed upon loyal men there are under the forms of law. It can be summed up in one word: loyal men cannot obtain justice in the courts . . ."); id., at 429 (referring to "prejudiced juries and bribed judges").

[4] The Federalist No. 79, at 472

[5] American Association of Blood Banks 1999 Annual Report. “Who is daddy and Who is Not, February 25, 2000.  See also "In Genetic Testing for Paternity, Law Often Lags Behind Science," New York Times, March 11, 2001.

[6] Los Angeles Times, April 12, 1998, B1.

[7] US House Ways and Means Committee, Greenbook, Section 8, CSE.  Table 8-20 "Paternities Established", Table 8-21 "Out-Of-Wedlock Births", Table 8-22 "Percentage of Paternities Established".

[8] Table 8-4 US House Ways and Means Committee, Greenbook, Section 8, CSE.  "Financing of CSE Program, Fiscal Year 1998" US House Ways and Means Committee, Greenbook, Section 8, CSE.

[9] California CBS Channel 2 News, Special Assignment: "Not The Father" aired Tuesday, February 7, 2001 at 11 p.m

[10] SJC to paternity victim: Keep paying, chump.  Boston Globe, pg 11.  Jeff Jacoby, April 30, 2001.

[11] Retaliation against those lawyers who would dare challenge the corrupt system has become routine practice by the Court run bar systems all across the country.  For example, Barbara Johnson of Massachusetts is in the midst of disbarment proceedings for daring to publicize the corruption of the Massachusetts courts, Linda Kennedy of Virginia was recently disbarred for not being quiet about PROOF of altered transcripts in court proceedings, Bob Hirschfeld of Arizona was disbarred many years ago for daring to challenge the legal establishment and aggressively represent fathers in custody actions, Ed Truncellito believes he was disbarred for bringing a civil RICO actions against the Texas State Bar for the fraudulent construction of statutes related to no-fault divorce, and the list goes on and on.

[12] Grant, Rennie J.; When the Court Is the Deadbeat.  The Washington Post.  Wednesday, June 12, 2002; Page A30

[13] Drummond, Daniel.  Professor ousted from child-support panel, The Washington Times August 4, 2001.  Dissent apparently is not allowed in states when it comes to child support and family preservation.  This article outlines how Howard University Political Science professor Stephen Baskerville was ousted from the Virginia Child Support Advisory Panel because of an Op-Ed piece he wrote for The Washington Times.  Professor Baskerville said “he was removed from the panel because of his politically incorrect views about child support and its enforcement.”  Apparently the State of Virginia believes what the US Supreme Court says about free speech in relation to flag burning, pornography, and foul language, but does not believe this free speech extends to press published commentary critical of the child support industry.  For a review of Professor Baskerville’s piece, please see Appetite for Family Destruction, The Washington Times commentary section, p. B5.  June 17, 2001.

[14] Baskerville, Stephen; Tommy Thompson's Reign Of Terror.  Free Congress Research and Education Foundation, Inc.,  September 12, 2002.  And in deference to the Free Congress Foundation, the article contains a disclaimer stating “This publication is a service of the Free Congress Research and Education Foundation, Inc. (FCF) and does not necessarily reflect the views of the Free Congress Foundation nor is it an attempt to aid or hinder the passage of any bill.”

[15] Current Population Reports, Series P-23, No 173 (1989) -- Census Bureau data from 1989 indicated that 75 percent of all child support owed is paid. The TOTAL amount of Child Support owed was 14.8 BILLION dollars. Of that amount, 11.1 BILLION had been paid (7.6 BILLION was paid in full, and 3.5 BILLION was partially paid);  Non-Custodial Parent's Report of Child Support Payments, Braver, Sanford, Pamela J. Fitzpatrick, and R. Curtis Bay, (1988) presented at the Symposium "Adaptation of the Non-Custodial Parent: Patterns Over Time" at the American Psychological Association Convention, Atlanta, GA, August, 1988. Compared Bureau of Census custodial parents reports (approx. 70% received) with father survey (approx. 90% paid);  Judi Bartfeld and Daniel R. Meyer, "Are There Really Deadbeat Dads? The Relationship Between Ability to Pay, Enforcement, and Compliance in Normal Child Support Cases." Social Service Review 68 (1994) -- 95% of fathers having no employment problems for the past five years pay regularly; 81% in full and on time;  1988 Census "Child Support and Alimony: 1989 Series P-60, No. 173 p. 6-7 -- 90% of fathers with joint custody pay the ordered child support. 79.1% of fathers with visitation rights pay the ordered child support. 44.5% of fathers with no visitation rights pay the ordered child support.

The father of today's child support public policy, his personal exploitation of the system, and the fallacy of his "income shares" model, James R. Johnston, August 1998.

[16] GAO/HRD-92-39FS, January 9, 1992; page 19 -- According to a 1992 report by the Government Accounting Office, Child Support non-payment is NOT by choice  This report showed that 66% of those fathers with delinquent child support obligations were not able to pay, 5% were unable to be located, and 29% were classified as other.  These were custodial mother SELF REPORTS (which are likely to be skewed against the party paying child support);  Journal of Contemporary Policy Issues, Garfinkle and Klawitter, 1992 - after instituting mandatory wage withholding of child support in Wisconsin, 10 pilot counties collected only 2.89% more of what was owed than the ten control counties that didn't garnish.

[17] "Paying child support, visiting and participating in childrearing decisions are activities that "go together"...Fathers who engage in any one of those three activities are likely to engage in the other two activities perhaps to maintain parallel responsibilities with those fulfilled by fathers who live with their children." (pg. 96, Col. 2, 3, Lines 4 - 11) Relationships between Fathers and Children Who Live Apart: The Father's Role after Separation - Judith A. Seltzer, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Journal of Marriage and the Family, Vol. 53, No. 1, February 1991

"Paternal visitation has been found to consistently be positively related to payment of child support" (pg. 134, col. 1, 2, lines 16 - 18) The Role of Paternal Variables in Divorced and Married Families - Amanda Thomas and Rex Forehand, American Journal of Othopsychiatry, Vol. 63, No. 1, January 1993

"90.2% of fathers with joint custody pay the child support due." (pg. 7, col. 1, 2, lines 1 - 2) U.S. Bureau of the Census: 1988

"79.1 % of fathers with visitation privileges pay the child support due." (pg. 7, col. 1, 2, lines 2 - 3) U.S. Bureau of the Census: 1988

See also Daniel R. Meyer, Compliance with Child Support Orders in Paternity and Divorce Cases (Institute for Research on Poverty, Madison, Wisconsin, 1997)

Deena Mandell, Fathers Who Don't Pay Child Support: Hearing Their Voices, 23 Journal of Divorce and Remarriage 85 (1995)

[18]  U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Current Population Report 3/99 (P60-196 Child Support For Custodial Mothers and Fathers: 1995), there are 11.6 Million Custodial Mothers (85%).

[19] K.C. Wilson in “Where's Daddy? The Mythologies behind Custody-Access-Support.”

[20] Statement of Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), September 7, 2000.   Child Support Distribution Act Of 2000.