Federal Rules Proposed to Increase Consistent Child Support Payments

June 29, 2015
Photo of a father being kissed by his son and daughter on the cheek.

Vicki TuretskyOffice of Child Support Enforcement Commissioner Vicki TuretskyBy Vicki Turetsky, Commissioner, Office of Child Support Enforcement

Last fall, we published a proposed rule to improve the effectiveness of the child support enforcement program. The goal, quite simply, is to increase regular child support payments. As a former low-income custodial mom, I know first-hand how much families count on child support to get by. In 2014, our program collected $28 billion for over 16 million children. We have powerful enforcement tools, including payroll deductions, seizure of bank accounts and insurance payments, tax refund intercepts, professional and driver’s license suspension, and jail.

While standard enforcement tools work in most cases, we need to do more so that all children get the support they need. Evidence shows that the root cause of non-payment by many noncustodial parents is unemployment. Our rule gets more noncustodial parents working so they can support their children.

We propose to update our existing program rules, some of which are 35 years old, to reflect technology changes and changing practices in the field, and to respond to state requests for greater flexibility. For example, the rule authorizes electronic records and signatures. The rule is based on the evidence of what actually works to increase collections. We combine standard enforcement tools with common sense strategies based upon decades of research and the best of state innovation, so that more parents are held accountable for supporting their children. Along with other improvements, the proposed rule would:

  • Provide funds to match state support of limited job services  (PDF) targeted to nonpaying noncustodial parents. Work-oriented programs for noncustodial parents led by child support agencies in Texas and other states have consistently been shown to increase regular child support payments  (PDF). See this clip of a successful work program operated by the Colorado child support program: “Finding Fatherhood:  New Hope for Families in Colorado .”
  • Require states to set child support orders  (PDF) based the noncustodial parent’s ability to pay. The HHS Office of Inspector General and other studies have concluded that noncustodial parents are less likely to work and pay support when the order does not reflect the ability to pay it. In 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court in Turner v. Rogers held that a specific finding that the parent has the ability to pay is an important element of due process safeguards before the parent can be incarcerated for civil contempt.
  • Prohibit the practice of treating incarceration as “voluntary unemployment,” which precludes modification of support orders while parents are in prison. The Council of State Governments, recommended that the practice be discontinued in its 2005 bipartisan report on reentry, and most states have eliminated it.  The accumulation of large child support debts during incarceration makes it more likely that formerly incarcerated parents will avoid work in the formal economy and less likely that they will pay consistent child support.
  • Increase access to courts by parents who do not have attorneys. Low income people do not have the resources to pay for legal representation in court. The rule allows states to fund self-help legal assistance, alternative dispute resolution, and bus fare for participants to attend appointments and court hearings.

Even though the public comments on the proposed updates have been strongly supportive, there have been suggestions that the proposed rule will somehow undercut the bedrock principles of the child support program or make it more likely that families will go on welfare. In reality, the rule will help us start collecting regular support payments in cases that have never paid before. It will make it more likely, not less likely, that even the lowest income noncustodial parents will begin to work and support their children.

Judges around the country tell us that they are tired of the revolving door of nonpaying cases when the problem is the parents’ poverty. They urge a “jobs not jail” approach as a more cost-effective way to obtain payments. A good job and an achievable support order are the most effective collection tools of all.


 

Program Office:
Types: