Statement of Reverend Dennis Austin, Salisbury, North Carolina

Attn: Chairman, Congressman Wally Herger

Chairman Herger and members of the Subcommittee,

Although I am a minister who runs a help-line for suicidal depressives, I have also had experience dealing with non-custodial parents. Being able to speak here allows me to share a unique perspective of the problem with child support enforcement, both its causes and its costs.

If possible, I would suggest that your subcommittee recommend that the G.A.O. investigate the true costs of collection. Typical of most states are hidden costs incurred when states ‘borrow’ attorneys from their attorney general’s office in order to prosecute non payment. Unfortunately, in Virginia, much as in Florida and many other states, most who do not pay are unable to pay. The cost of incarcerating Virginia fathers is not factored in to the actual cost ofcollecting their past due support. Nonetheless, when a member of Virginia’s 1999 Child Support Quadrennial Review Commission motioned to have that commission sponsor a bill to determine both the cost of incarceration (versus the actual dollar amount owed) as well as the numbers of fathers imprisoned (it has been estimated that 20-30% of Virginia’s county jails are comprised of support delinquent non-custodial fathers), his motion was voted down by the judges, lawyers, and state legislator who served with him.

That state’s Director of Child Support Enforcement was made aware of one stunning fact: when fathers are given adequate parenting time with their children, child support payments reach almost 90%! It seems that only Oklahoma, led by Governor Keating’s determined effort to stem the high rate of divorce in his state, has taken that in to consideration. Almost two years ago, he signed in to legislation a pedente lite bill that allows either separating or divorcing parent to ask for shared residential parenting rights of his or her children. That legislation has not only served to guarantee that children of divorce will retain both parents. It also eliminates most child support enforcement costs because both parents share child-rearing costs and responsibilities. Most importantly, it removes a significant incentive for divorce: the ‘reward’ that follows the winner of sole custody.

Oklahoma’s legislation accomplishes a number of other important things. Among them is the fact that fathers--I say fathers because, historically, mothers have been given sole custody in almost 90% of cases, are not minimalized as parents. As a result, children do not suffer the emotional and behavioral and educational deficiencies of children raised in single parent homes. Such costs, those of addressing the problems of fatherless children, must be factored in to the costs attributable by the G.A.O. to child support implementation. It is enormous.

And not just to children raised in single parent homes. What must also be considered are the hidden costs of the non-custodial parent’s lost productivity. And, worse than that, the tragic expense of human life as measured by the number of suicides by fathers denied adequate access to their children. Thanks to legislation like Oklahoma’s, that profound expense can be reduced to zero. And that is a number, Mr. Chairman, that, I’m certain, both the G.A.O. and your subcommittee can truly appreciate.

When it comes to Child Support, most everyone recites the same mantra. Fathers are to blame for children growing up without a Father. The mantra goes something like this, if we can just get Fathers to be responsible and pay the Child Support, then children and moms would be right with the world. Even so-called Pro-Father statements include, "promoting responsible Fatherhood". What that really means is holding Fathers accountable to pay Child Support.

But just who is responsible and who is irresponsible when it comes to Child Support.

Mothers who deny visitation are not being responsible. Collecting Child Support and denying the Father access is not being responsible.

Lawyers who seek maximum Child Support just so they can get paid are not being responsible.

Guardian ad litems who routinely separate Fathers from their children do not act in the best interests of the children and that is not being responsible.

Judges who routinely treat the guidelines as minimums when awarding Child Support are not being responsible.

Politicians (mostly lawyers) who know the current guidelines are flawed are not being responsible.

Current Child Support guidelines do not leave the Father a living wage. If a Father increases his income, he is further penalized. This is a no-win situation. Mothers, lawyers, guardian ad litems, Judges and politicians, by their irresponsibility, make their idea of a "Responsible Father" impossible. The notion of destroying a child's Father is in the child's best interest is ridiculous and totally irresponsible.

[Attachments are being retained in the Committee files.]