DADS of Michigan, P.A.C.
Southfield, Michigan 48034
June 27, 2001

Allison Giles
Chief of Staff
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Ways and Means
1102 Longworth House Office Buliding
Washington, DC 20515

As often is the case, unintended adverse results occur from well-intended legislation.  Such were State reactions to the 1996 Welfare Reforms including the infamous “Bradley Amendment.”  With regard to the specific reform objectives: (2) increase the percentage of non-custodial parents identified, and (3) implement more techniques to obtain support collections from non-custodial parents, it would appear State reactions have been collectively successful.

However, while several states¹ have heeded the available data and research by implementing very effective, just legislative statutes and agency programs, unfortunately many other states including Michigan deliberately continue with unjust, failed, and flawed legislative statutes, agency policies, and practices.

Specifically, the 1996 welfare reforms have encouraged Michigan (and other states) to introduce statutes, policies, and procedures² to increase voluntary paternity establishment of unmarried births at state agencies and hospitals.  As result, few unmarried fathers are adequately apprised of their rights to paternity testing and/or traditionally feel uncomfortable with challenging the paternity allegations of the mother.  One third of all births in Michigan are to unmarried mothers³.  However, recent data demonstrates that nearly a third of all paternity tests EXCLUDE the alleged father⁴.  Additional research indicates that at least 10% of marital births EXCLUDE the husband⁴.  Yet, Michigan’s legislative statutes, agency policies, and practices continue to omit mandatory paternity establishment of child support claims resulting in thousands of innocent victims of Extrinsic Paternity Fraud.  Further, by facilitating the completion of documents fraudulently identifying the alleged paternity of man without appropriate verification, the State inadvertently acts as a coconspirator to a felony in nearly one fourth of all child support cases and, along with the mother, is also guilty of a misdemeanor⁵.  

The 1996 Welfare Reforms (via incentives) have also encouraged Michigan (and other states) to infringe upon and violate constitutionally protected rights in an effort to increase child support collections from non-custodial parents.  The Michigan Legislature continues to attempt legislation⁶ that results in violations of the U.S. Constitution⁷.  Michigan State Courts routinely use state statutes⁸ to automatically terminate a parent’s (typically the father) constitutionally protected right to the care, custody, and nurturing of his/her children simply because of a no-fault divorce filing; primarily in order to establish maximum child support for the custodial parent.  Michigan state child support enforcement and state court administration officials decline new innovative approaches in use by other states to reduce child support arrearages in favor of only increased punitive measures⁹.  Michigan’s total child support arrearage exceeds $6.3 Billion with the national state average at $1.4 Billion¹⁰.

Finally, the 1996 Welfare Reforms (via incentives) have served to discourage Michigan State Court Administration officials to use the federally mandated and heavily subsidized quadrennial Child Support Formula Guideline review¹¹ to thoroughly evaluate its use of the ‘Income Shares’ base model in use now for fifteen years.  Newer base models (e.g. Cost Shares¹²) are now available which eliminate the flaws, inequities, and over-assessments of the current model¹³ in use while providing greater compliance with the federal mandates.  Additionally, Michigan State officials appear to not yet fully embrace the concept of responsible fatherhood education and job programs as significant contributors to increasing child support compliance and father involvement in their child’s life while reducing child support arrearages¹⁴, along with many other societal maladies¹⁵.  Sadly, efforts continue to fix blame to either ‘deadbeat’ fathers¹⁶ or Michigan’s Friend of the Court agency.  We feel there are many in Michigan (and Washington) who must also share the blame for our child support failures¹⁷.

Recommendations:

It is hereby recommended that federal legislation such as H.R. 1488 or other appropriate welfare reforms be adopted and include provisions for: 

• ensuring equal protection of Constitutional rights for both parents;
• mandatory paternity establishment for child support claims;
• enforcing parenting time (visitation) compliance equally as child support payment compliance;
• encouraging innovative, non-punitive techniques for reducing child support arrearages¹⁸;
• requiring states to completely and thoroughly review Child Support Guideline base models every four years;
• promoting faith and community-based responsible fatherhood and job programs.

DADS OF MICHIGAN¹⁹ and DADS OF MICHIGAN PAC are responsible fatherhood advocacy organizations dedicated to keeping both biological parents actively engaged in the lives of their children despite divorce and custody, in most cases.  DADS OF MICHIGAN is the developer of the Dads Toolbox Series^© of responsible fatherhood education for teenage, divorced, and unmarried fathers.

Respectfully submitted,

James Semerad
PAC Chairman

¹Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia, Texas, South Carolina, Connecticut, Ohio, Maryland, Colorado, Iowa, and Louisiana.
² “State Launches New Program Improve Paternity Establishment”: Detroit Free Press, 2/14/01.
³ Michigan Department of Community Health, 1999.
⁴ Annual Report Summary 1999: American Association of Blood Banks, www.aabb.org; “Who is daddy and Who is Not, 2/25/00: Men’s Health Network, "http://www.menshealthnetwork.org">www.menshealthnetwork.org.
⁵ Michigan Compiled Laws: MCL 333.2824, MCL 722.714, MCL 722.1004, MCL 722.722, and MCL 750.218.
⁶ Michigan Senate Bill 757 enacted into law 10/2000 with bond amendment from 100% to 25% of arrearage owing.
⁷ U.S. Constitution, Amendment VIII.
⁸ Michigan Compiled Laws: MCL 552.15
⁹ “Failed visitation policy harms kids”, The Detroit News 6/24/01; USHHS, OCSE, 9/14/00, PIQ-00-03.
¹⁰ U.S. Department of Health & Human Resources, Office of Child Support Enforcement
¹¹ Michigan State Court Administrative Office: Invitation to Bid – Review of Child Support Guideline 3/2001.
¹² “Cost Shares Child Support Guideline: A working, superior alternative to current guidelines, R. Mark Rogers Economic Consulting, CRC conference May 5, 2001.
¹³ PICSLT Initial Review of Michigan Child Support Law, 2/15/00: "http://">www.geocities.com/capitolhill/5910/index.html; Child Support Conflict of Interest & Overassessment: "http://www.acfc.org/legal_citations.htm#support">www.acfc.org/legal_citations.htm#support.
¹⁴ US Census Bureau, Child Support for Custodial Mothers and Fathers: 1997 (P60-212).
¹⁵ Divorce and Fatherhood Statistics Summary, "http://www.deltabravo.net/custody/stats.htm">www.deltabravo.net/custody/stats.htm. 
¹⁶ “Sheriff targets Deadbeat Dads”…for mother’s day crackdown, The Detroit News 5/11/01; “Strained Agencies fail Michigan Children”, The Detroit News 5/20/01.
¹⁷ see Special Report dated 6/08/01 attached
¹⁸ USHHS, OCSE, 9/14/00, PIQ-00-03.
¹⁹ "http://www.dadsofmichigan.org/">www.dadsofmichigan.org

[Attachments are being retained in the Committee files.]