The following letter was sent to Cleveland's channel 5 in response to a news piece they ran about rounding up 'deadbeat fathers'. Notice, that I said fathers as they never approached the idea that a mother would be a deadbeat despite the facts that show that mothers owing child support are far less likely to pay that support. They did not touch the facts that numerous parents pay their support and are refused the right to raise their own children or have a meaningful relationship. They did not approach the fact that parents in this state with equal custody ARE paying support often at the same rates as though they did not see them or were in the weekend warrior class.

 

 

You may want to read an interesting Law Review on the American Invention of Child Support.

Ray

 

 

My letter to Ch. 5, WEWS.

In response to your story, 'County Program Goes Door To Door For Deadbeat Parents,' it may make good news but it far from the truth that needs to be told.  The problem with the child support system goes far beyond the alleged fathers who do not want to support their children.  The constitutional violations upon fathers are well documented but the media would prefer to malign fathers instead of reporting the truth. The truth is, deadbeat dads are a creation of the government to propagate the distribution of taxpayer dollars in the form of 'child support incentives' to the states.

I would like to present a brief history of child support so you can better understand the 'system.'  Child support is not and never has been about the children.  It is and always has been about money for the government.

The child support system began in 1975.  The first child support plan was in Wisconsin and was based on a communist income equalization scheme.  The original intent of child support was to help compensate government for the huge amounts of spending for children on welfare.  Not a bad idea on its face, but like most government programs, it has gone array. As the welfare rolls began to decrease in the 80's, the government, never wanting to terminate an agency, began to bring all cases under the system so they could control them and validate the existence of the agencies.  In the 90's, pressure was increased to 'centralize' the collections and pursue alleged 'deadbeats,' mostly fathers.  Millions of dollars were spent on 'centralized' computer systems, enlarging agencies and creating new 'Big Brother' programs to 'track' parents.  All of this pressure was the result of 'federal incentive payments' to the states for collecting support.

 
Incentives are based on performance in five categories: paternity establishment, order establishment, collections on current support due, cases paying towards arrears, and cost-effectiveness. Ohio also charges a 2% poundage or administration fee for collecting and distributing child support.  Indiana charges a flat $2.00 fee.  In 2004, Ohio collected right at $2 billion in what they claim was child support. In actuality, approximately $150 million was really spousal support payments they collected.  The 2% fee they collect amounts to $40 million taken out of the pockets of parents that could have been used for families.  Worse yet, Ohio leads the country in collecting support for children 'never on assistance.' The 'never on assistance' collections were $1.2B in 2002 and $1.1B in 2003.

'Why?' you may ask.

Ohio's ranking in this game is increased by making sure someone pays child support through the state agency.  Direct payments are a no-no and considered as a 'gift.'  For example, one of the criteria they are 'graded' on is "What proportion of total divorces have child support orders attached to them?" (The more the better). Ohio law requires all child support to be collected by the state or C.S.E.A. (Child Support Collection Agency).  That increases:

1) order establishment

2) collections on current support due

3) quite often puts a parent in instant arrears and paying.

All categories to increase the states share of the federal incentives. Ohio has been third in the incentive payment game behind California and Texas.  The federal incentives received by Ohio in 2002, 2003 and 2004 were $32.2 million of $450 million, $30.4 million of $461 million and $39 million out of a $490 million pot, respectively.  Remember, this is taxpayer dollars, your money!

In addition to incentive payments, the federal government reimburses the states and counties at the rate of 90% for paternity establishment and 66% on other costs.  Yes, child support collection is a multi-billion dollar business for the states!  I would offer that the money spent on child support collections is probably more then if they had paid the welfare and reduced the recipients.

Ohio Child Support Guidelines force non-custodial parents to pay the same amount irrespective of how much time the children spend living with them. There is no consideration for the time the children spend with the non-custodial parent or money spent by that parent.  In other words, a non-custodial parent is paying double for the time a child was with them. If parents had equal custody and near equal incomes, there would be no need to transfer income and the state would not be making money off the backs of our children.

In my case, custody was taken away from the father without a finding of harm to the children, a clear violation of due process and 14th Amendment protections. U.S. Supreme Courts cases for the last 85 years have supported the fundamental rights of parents, that means BOTH parents.  They are equal to free speech, freedom of religion, the right to bear arms, etc. The child support calculations did not support the evidence presented or comply with the Ohio Child Support Guidelines.  The courts are allowed to 'impute' income for support purposes.  That means they can increase the amount to what they 'feel' you should be making.  That is akin to the IRS 'imputing' your income and making you pay taxes on their figures.  Who would object to that?  In my case, the calculations were 800% over the guidelines, which created an immediate 'inability to pay' and an arrearage.  It is incomprehensible to believe any individual could comply with an order that is so inconceivably outrageous.  Yet, the courts get away with it everyday!

 
Ohio Revised Code 3119.79 requires the court to recalculate the amount if requested by either party.  The court has not done the requested calculations in my case and the last request has been pending for 7½ years. So much for speedy justice!  How many other fathers face the same problems? Where do you draw the line between justice and abuse in the courts? 

Patrick Henry wrote:  "Power is the great evil with which we are contending. We have divided power between three branches of government and erected checks and balances to prevent abuse of power. However where is the check on the power of the judiciary?  If we fail to check the power of the judiciary, I predict that we will eventually live under judicial tyranny."

Prosecutions and loss of liberties based on invalid decisions cannot be tolerated if a judiciary expects to maintain its integrity and the faith of the people it serves. The further lack of the protection by the courts raises the question of due process and the potential bias of the courts.

Be assured that the problems I have addressed in Champaign County are not isolated but persist in many other courts around the country and the world. One such example is a report on Butler County courts, "A Culture of Secrecy, Fear and Judicial Abuse" by Butler County Commissioner Michael A. Fox.

My struggle for the last 12 years has been an attempt to spend more time with my children and to be treated equally as a parent.  The 'accusers' want to make it an issue of child support and want it to appear as though I don't care about my children.  They are the ones profiting from the situation while my children and I suffer.  We are not alone.

At present, I have a federal case pending in the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals that challenges the constitutionality of Ohio's custody statutes.  I also have a petition before the Ohio Supreme Court on a criminal conviction for non-payment of support based on the deprivation of my constitutional rights.

Are you ready to tell the real story?

Michael A. Galluzzo