Child Support Enforcement Policies in Colorado
For many of us, who have children and, who have experienced
an acrimonious divorce, we wonder why it is that one parent seemingly must
be marginalized, so that the other will be awarded sole "custody."
Sometimes, we are told simply that the child's best interests require
the court to select one winner and one loser.
Perhaps, we are told that mudslinging, misrepresentation and distortion is
what lawyers do in the context of "singular loyalty" and "zealous advocacy"
for their client in an adversarial system. This is despite the fact that domestic relations proceedings are
purportedly non-adversarial. See In re Marriage of Bozarth,
779 P.2d 1346, 1353 (Colo. 1989) ("A child is not a piece of property to be
won or lost based on the merits of a particular parent's claim. Thus, a
child custody hearing is not an adversarial proceeding pitting the father
against the mother, but rather, it is a hearing to determine what placement
of the child will be in the child's best interests.") (citing Rayer v. Rayer,
32 Colo.App. 400, 512 P.2d 637 (1973).
For those of us, who marginalized and levied with confiscatory
child support debt, many questions quickly surface:
Of course, we are told it is "for the children" (a
familiar mantra). The Family Support Registry's motto, for several
years, has been, "Because Kids Matter Most," presented in a
heart-warming crayon-like font. (Click
here) It's Web site features a moving photograph of a dad assisting his
baby during his first steps. (Click
here).
Given the likely responses we all have heard concerning the panoply of
enforcement mechanisms described hereinabove, which include every manner of
punishment (fines, imprisonment, confiscatory interest, banishment to a
state of homelessness), we have a few other questions:
The Answer
One excellent example that illustrates that these policies have nothing to
do with the best interests of the child and that the only contribution from
a non-custodial parent that is desired —and, indeed, exacted— is money would
be People ex rel Cerda v. Walker,
32 P.3d 628 (Colo. App. 2001): Father, Tim
Walker, had quit his job in California to move to Colorado, solely so that
he could spend more time with his child. As we all know, salaries are
significantly higher in California (as is the cost of living) than
Colorado. Walker filed for a downward modification of child support. The
magistrate concluded that Walker's move to Colorado —for whatever
reason— constituted "voluntary underemployment" and his child support was
calculated based on an imputed amount (his former California salary).
The single answer to our questions is
Title IV-D of the Social Security Act of 1975, consisting of massive
fiscal incentives for state, which has shaped the states handling of
domestic relations cases to yield a maximum return from federal grant
sources.
In order for the states to avail themselves of the Title IV-D monies offered
through federal block grants and incentive payments, the state must vanquish
one parent into a legislatively created second-class non-custodial parent
category (NCP) without any relevant fault having been found to justify the
categorization.
The elusive guidelines, rules, and procedures of family law (see David
Heleniak,
The New Star Chamber, 57 Rutgers L. Rev. 3 (Spring 2005)) are
constructed and designed to make certain that rulings are made that generate
the highest return from an assortment of federal incentive programs.
Because the states child support and welfare Title IV-D incentives are
largely based on the child support money collected (whether
voluntarily paid vel non), States needed to ascertain how to get
the most money per case out of people. Moreover, federal incentive
programs under our welfare reform pay more monies to the
state when one of their parents spends limited time with the children. Thus,
the less time one Parent is allowed to be with his child[ren], the greater
the child support order (and the greater the financial kickback the state
receives). Therefore, through controlling and manipulating the time the
parents have with the child, called "custody and visitation", they can
increase the amount of money they receive from Federal Title IV-D program.
In many income classes the difference between the courts awarding 50/50
parenting time and 70/30 results in twice the child support awarded to the
custodial parent and can double again if the time with the children becomes
around 85/15 or less for the non-custodial parent in some States. This is no
accident.
Of course, in our experience, this federal incentive isn't likely to give
the non-custodial parent third-party standing (or any other form of
standing) to sue in
federal court. If you file for redress in the federal courts, you are likely
to be strictly admonished, as so many before have been, that —regardless of
the merit of your legal theory and/or case precedent[s]— child support
administration is exclusively a state matter; your case will be summarily
dismissed.
Additional Resourcess:
last updated: 12/19/2007